Archives for category: Bloomberg, Michael

Remember the story in yesterday’s New York Times that described the increase in income inequality in New York City? That’s the one that said that the gap between the richest quintile and the poorest quintile has not only grown but is one of the largest in the world, putting us in the same league as countries like Namibia.

Well, there is good news from Mayor Bloomberg’s own publishing house. Poverty is really not so bad in the U.S. because the Census Bureau didn’t count all the benefits and transfers that the poor get. So when you read that someone is subsisting on $8,844 a year, don’t forget that they get food stamps! And an earned income tax credit. And so many other freebies. Don’t you feel better already?

Just by coincidence, Forbes published its annual listing of the richest people in the world. It is here: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#p_1_s_a0_All%20industries_All%20countries_All%20states_

Mayor Bloomberg is not all that rich. He is #20 on the list with $22 billion.

Everything is relative.

While the billionaires and multi-millionaires wring their hands over the public schools and promise to end poverty by testing kids and their teachers, there is a back story.

The back story is that income inequality is growing worse in America. And nowhere is it more blatant and more outrageous than in New York City, the very epicenter of faux education reform.

While the mayor and his three chancellors have expanded the number of charter schools, increased testing and demanded value-added assessment of teachers and waged war against tenure and seniority, the income gap between the rich and poor has become a wide chasm.

An article in the New York Times today says that the poverty rate is at its highest point in a decade.

And get this:

“Median income for the lowest fifth was $8,844, down $463 from 2010. For the highest, it was $223,285, up $1,919.

“In Manhattan, the disparity was even starker. The lowest fifth made $9,681, while the highest took home $391,022. The wealthiest fifth of Manhattanites made more than 40 times what the lowest fifth reported, a widening gap (it was 38 times, the year before) surpassed by only a few developing countries, including Namibia and Sierra Leone.”

Do the reformers still believe that we can fix the schools first, then turn our attention to poverty? Or that if we fix the schools, then poverty will take care of itself? Yes, they do. Do they have any evidence that any of this will happen? No.

The economic policies of the past decade have been very very good for the very very rich. Not good at all for the other end of the spectrum.

The New York City Department of Education decided to kill John Dewey High School in Brooklyn a few years ago. John Dewey (ironic name, no?) had long been considered one of the city’s best non-selective high schools.

When the city began creating small schools and closing large schools, it had to find a place to dump low-performing students so that the small schools would appear successful. So John Dewey became a dumping ground for students unwanted by the new small high schools, which the Bloomberg administration treated as the jewel in its crown.

As more students were assigned to Dewey who were far behind their grade level in basic skills or who have special needs, Dewey’s scores began dropping. Soon Dewey was classified as a failing school.

The teachers fought to protect the school, but it was a losing battle. In this article, read how the city has stripped the school of AP courses, electives, foreign languages, etc., and the graduation rate dropped. As the school was picked apart, enrollment fell, and teachers were laid off. This is a death spiral created by the NYC Department of Education. This year’s school opening was marked by scheduling confusion, not only at Dewey, but other so-called “turnaround” schools that are locked in a legal battle over when and if they will get the “turnaround” treatment (meaning, will the staff be fired and the school closed).

It is a war of attrition, and the administration will win.

Next time you hear a story about the “success” of New York City’s small high schools, remember John Dewey High School.

A reader sent this today:

Interview of Chris Hedges today by Amy Goodman.  Opens with comments on Chicago teacher strike, as excerpted below:
 

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, you know, the tactic is clear. And, you know, the secretary of education, Duncan, is behind it. And that is essentially the stripping away of—you know, of qualified teachers. We’re watching it in New York. You know, the mayor of New York is very much a part of this effort. The assault on the New York City teachers’ union is as egregious as the assault against the Chicago Teachers Union.

And it really boils down to the fact that we spend $600-some billion a year, the federal government, on education, and the corporations want it. That’s what’s happening. And that comes through charter schools. It comes through standardized testing. And it comes through breaking teachers’ unions and essentially hiring temp workers, people who have very little skills. This is what Teach for America is about. They teach by rote, and they earn nothing. There’s no career.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/11/chris_hedges_on_9_11_touring

 

Peter Goodman is one of the most astute observers of education in New York City.

His blog “Ed in the Apple” is a must-read for education buffs.

In this one, he says that the Department of Education puts more emphasis on burnishing the Mayor’s education reputation than on actually solving any problems.

The Mayor has had unlimited control of the city’s public schools for a full decade. No one could challenge his decisions. The laughable “board” rubber stamps whatever he wants.

He has relied on two strategies only: testing and choice.

He has closed over 100 schools, opened hundreds of small schools, and to the extent possible, eliminated neighborhood schools. Every parent is supposed to be a smart shopper.

The mayor’s PR machine works overtime. Every initiative is a success the day it is announced. When the initiative disappears, it happens quietly without press releases. Test scores went through the roof, until they collapsed in 2010 after the state admitted score inflation. At that time, the New York Times pointed out that there was no change in the black-white achievement gap over the previous eight years.

Data rules, except when it doesn’t.

The graduation rates have gone up but 80% of the city’s graduates who apply to the city’s community colleges require remediation in basic skills.

The Mayor’s one-man reign comes to an end in 2013 unless he anoints his successor and pours millions into his or her campaign coffers.

The Mayor is generally well-liked but parents don’t approve of his education policies, and voters are ready for him to ride off into the sunset.

The one thing he has proved beyond dispute is that a full 10 years of “reform” based on testing, choice and school closings does not improve education or the lives of children.

A reader in New York City who studies data carefully has analyzed the latest reports from the state accountability system, which identifies the “best” and the “worst” schools. He finds that the most affluent schools will win “rewards,” and the schools that enroll the neediest students are marked for punishment, not for support.

The coming days will see much more detailed analysis of the new New York State accountability system for public schools. Yes, there is yet another system now in place. Gone are the days of “In Need of Improvement” “Corrective Action” and “Restructuring.” Now we have “Focus” (bad) “Priority” (very bad) and “Reward” (good).

What do the just released new lists tell us about education in New York City?

Although denied time and again by our education bureaucrats, these lists show that not enough is being done to support the schools that serve students from underprivileged backgrounds. Many of the districts in NYC (districts 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 32) had not a single “reward” school.  No surprise, these are some of the poorest districts in the city.

On the other hand, affluent districts ended up with lots of “reward” schools. The two wealthiest districts in NYC  (as measured by the % of students eligible to receive free or reduced price lunch) are 26 in Queens and 31 in Staten Island. Staten Island has only “reward” and no “priority” or “focus” schools.  District 26 in Queens has 6 “reward” schools and 1 “priority” school. The reward schools are all elementary and middle schools that serve local students. The priority school is a high school that serves students from all over the city.

But surely that means that some very poor districts have some excellent “reward” schools? Not really. The “reward” schools in such districts are all specialized schools, either special gifted and talented elementary schools or screened middle schools or high schools that students must test into. In district #10 in the Bronx, the only “reward” schools are the Bronx High School of Science and the High School of American Studies at Lehman. The demographics of these schools do not reflect the demographics of the district. Other such districts include districts 5, 6, 11, and 13.

The lesson: If schools want to get a “reward,” they should screen their students prior to entry.

In fact, in 16 of the 17 New York City High Schools on the “reward” list, students are screened or tested prior to entry. Only a single high school, The Academy of Finance and Enterprise in Queens, on the list is unscreened. Might this school serve as an exemplar for other schools? Not really, because this school appears to screen out students AFTER entry. As the table below shows there is a suspicious pattern of the graduating class size diminishing over time. This has gotten better over the years, perhaps because some of the more challenging students in the neighborhood no longer apply to this school as they know they will be moved out quickly.

Graduation cohort # of students entering 9th grade # of students graduating 12th grade % of students removed from cohort
2010-11 125 103 17.6%
2009-10 123 85 30.9%
2008-09 109 72 34%

A recent story in the New York Post described how the Bronx Health Sciences High School, an “A” rated high school in New York City, expelled numerous students to make their numbers look better. Where do these students go? Maybe they end up in the “priority schools.”

A recent analysis has shown that districts in New York State with priority and focus schools fund schools at much lower levels than districts with schools that are in good standing. That analysis excluded New York City.

An examination of the funding of the “reward” schools in New York City reveals that they receive over 100% of the formula the city uses to calculate how much money to give schools. To place this in context a Daily News article reported that  “The 24 so-called “turnaround schools” — where the city unsuccessfully moved to ax half the staff — are underfunded by more than $30 million combined, more than 10% of their overall current budgets.”

Of course, all 24 turnaround schools are on the ”priority” list. Never mind that they serve the city’s neediest students.  They enroll double the city average of the neediest students with disabilities. It doesn’t matter to the New York City Department of Education that these highly stressed schools have a graduation rate of students with high quality (i.e. Regents or Advanced Regents as opposed to the more basic “local” diploma) diplomas that is better than the average for schools serving similarly situated students. 

The New York City Department of Education penalizes schools that serve students who need the most support. Education bureaucrats are making deliberate decisions to underfund schools that need the most support. The education bureaucrats will blame the schools, the teachers, and the school administrators.

There is one thing we know they won’t do. They will not look at what the data is telling them. They will not figure out what supports students need to succeed. They will not provide the resources and support these students need and deserve. They will not develop a system of school evaluation that is fair. They will not stop sending the most challenging students to only some schools. They will not fund schools fairly. They will not provide schools serving disadvantaged students with additional social workers, guidance counselors, attendance and family workers so that teachers are not expected to play all these roles and teach as well. They will not provide schools with curriculum and programs that have been shown to work for disadvantaged students. They will not support schools and help them improve. Is it because they don’t know how to do these things? Or because they don’t care to?

This is the true civil rights issue of our time. 

This is an important article about our society today. It is titled “The Revolt of the Rich.” It is especially interesting that it appears in a conservative magazine. The author, Michael Lofgren, was a long-time Republican (now independent); his new book is called The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Read Bill Moyers’ interview with him here. 

There is an apocryphal exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway in which Fitzgerald allegedly said, “The rich are different from us,” and Hemingway allegedly answered, “Yes, they have more money.”

The article linked here says the super-rich are indeed different from the rest of us. They have no sense of place. As the article begins, the thesis unfolds:

It was 1993, during congressional debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican congressmen who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. To this day, I remember something my colleague said: “The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens.”

That was only the beginning of the period when the realities of outsourced manufacturing, financialization of the economy, and growing income disparity started to seep into the public consciousness, so at the time it seemed like a striking and novel statement.

The author worries that the people who have disproportionate power in this country don’t care about anyone but themselves:

Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension—and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?

The super-rich, he says, have seceded from America. They have no regard for our public institutions. They are disconnected from the lives of ordinary people. They don’t even have a sense of noblesse oblige. This explains their contempt for public schools attended by other people’s children:

To some degree the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity towards public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than $500 billion dollars in annual federal, state, and local education funding into private hands—meaning themselves and their friends. What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education.

What is so astonishing these days is that the super-rich–call them not the 1% but the 1% of the 1%–have control of a large part of the mainstream media. They can afford to take out television advertising, even though their views are echoed on the news and opinion programs. And the American public, or a large part of it, is persuaded to vote against its own self-interest. A friend told me the other day that his brother, who barely subsists on social security, was worried that Obama might raise taxes on people making over $250,000. How can you explain his concern about raising taxes on those who can most afford it?

People like Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton Family, and Michael Bloomberg have a disproportionate influence on our national politics. They have only one vote. But their money enables them to control the instruments of power and persuasion. Their money gives them a voice larger than anyone else’s. Governors, Senators, presidential candidates come calling, hoping to please them and win their support.

This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Five years ago, New York City adopted a new funding formula, with great fanfare.

It was called, optimistically, “fair student funding.”

However, the New York Daily News released the results of its investigation and discovered that the new schools opened by the Bloomberg administration get full funding, but the struggling schools that the administration wants to close get budget cuts.

This is NOT fair funding. This is a conscious effort to cripple the schools that are already on the disabled list and to destroy them by underfunding them.

The fact that these schools enroll disproportionate numbers of high-needs students underlines the cruelty of this policy.

Expect to see a press release soon on the “success” of the mayor’s new schools.

An earlier post described the excellent results obtained by the schools in the NYC Performance Standards Consortium, where standardized tests were replaced by performance assessments.

This teacher taught in one of these schools:

In fall 2008, I student taught at one of those schools, after a prior student teaching gig in one of the ‘small-school’, test-is-king high schools elsewhere in Manhattan. The difference is overwhelming. I am a history teacher, and we had the ability to teach thematically, and to assess based on performance on creative, innovative projects also deeply rooted in critical thinking skills. The kids responded in incredibly positive ways, and were producing some amazing work. If I could have gotten hired there, I would have in a heartbeat … But then Bloomburg instituted his hiring freeze (I landed at another fantastic school in Massachusetts, so no regrets). I have no doubt that schools like these are better serving the students of NYC, and I’m thrilled to hear that this might be expanding. I was raised on the Regents exam, and as a student I never worried about them or had problems excelling on them. But when I started teaching in NYC, I saw how much of a toll those tests took on more disadvantaged students, without any real measure of their intelligence or development in their study of history. To have more schools follow the model of performance assessments is a small step in the right direction for once.

This article was published last year. It was written by Marc Epstein, a social studies teacher and dean at Jamaica High School. Marc has a Ph.D. in Japanese naval history. Since he wrote this article, the New York City Department of Education closed Jamaica High School but a court stayed the closing. The city has already placed small schools in the historic building.