Archives for category: New York City
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

De Blasio Vs. Lhota: Are Charter Co-Locations Fair?

By dianeravitch
October 16, 2013 //
2

A report from an insider at the New York City Department of Education, in response to the first debate between Democratic candidate Bill di Blasio and Republican candidate Joe Lhota:

New York City last night was treated to two starkly different visions of public schools. We had a mayoral debate in which a progressive candidate who believes in voice for parents and communities battled a candidate in the pocket of corporations. The corporation candidate claimed that charter schools “absolutely deserve to be co-located.” The progressive candidate pointed out that he plans a moratorium on co-locations because “public school parents don’t have a voice in decisions about their own children and the building their children go to school in.“ He committed to giving parents a voice. Who has the true best interests of students at heart?

Here are the facts. Co-locations usually involve the closing or shrinking of existing schools. This process is rife with dishonesty and the manipulation of numbers. Parent and community voice is ignored. One year 14 out of 20 schools Bloomberg’s Department of Education wanted to close, in order to make room for other schools, scored above the criteria for closing a school as set by the very same department. Another school was closed even though the department’s own reviewers praised the school noting that “the positive impact is striking. Not only have the academics of individual students risen but also the effect throughout the whole school is evident for all to see.” Schools in Queens and in Manhattan were closed even though the data clearly showed that their scores were better than other schools serving similar student populations. Another school built a website showcasing extensive data demonstrating that the school in fact did a good job with its students. The department ignored the data and closed the school anyway.

Reports describe how co-locations involve taking resources and space from students in public schools in favor of those in the charter schools, leading to inequitable distribution or resources. Case studies have provided numerous examples of co-located charter schools that will only accept certain “types” of students leading to concentrations of poor students, students with special needs, and English Language Learners at the public schools in the very same building. Such inequity harms students.

There is no question that the facts support a halt to co-locations while a fair, honest and open process is established. We cannot allow direct harm to many students to continue in order to support politically privileged schools as has been the practice under Bloomberg. We need a mayor who will stand up to the demands of the powerful corporate charter lobby. We need a mayor who will defend students foremost.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, New York City, Privatization

What You Need to Know About New York City’s Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
October 15, 2013 //
6

New York City’s charter schools are often held up as exemplary, which is the spin that the Bloomberg administration has fed the media for a dozen years. This insider says the spin is wrong.

He writes:

The current mayoral election in New York City has brought long overdue debate and discussion to the real outcomes of corporate-style management of public schools. No longer are New Yorkers compelled to listen to false and exaggerated claims about charter schools. Finally, after years of massaged data and blatantly false claims about charter schools, there is hope for an honest approach. Bill de Blasio, the progressive Democratic candidate, for mayor has committed to creating an equitable system for all children. His opponent has gone on the attack and wants to double-down on the failed education policies of Mike Bloomberg. Let’s take an honest look at charter school performance in New York City.

Do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? At some charter schools 24%-68% of the students are lost from each cohort. Up to 7 out of 10 parents at these charter schools do not see their child complete schooling at the charter school they chose. Other “high performing” charter schools suspend 25%-40% of their students a year in order to see gains in test scores. This means that each year up to 2 in 5 parents at these charter schools have their choice forcibly taken away by the very charter school they chose to send their child to. In one particularly egregious case a charter school pushed out 1/3 of its student body in order to improve test scores. If you are the parent of an English Language Learner or of a student with special needs you won’t have much choice since charter schools tend to accept very few of those students. And if they do accept your child it seems that at least some charter school chains will attrite English Language Learners and students with special needs at very high rates. So do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? Not at all.

Are charter schools in New York City accountable? In one story the New York City Department of Education under Mike Bloomberg refused to share data on special education services in charter schools. In another story a charter school chain sued New York State to prevent an audit of how it used public money. New York State backed down. Joel Klein, former Chancellor in New York City falsely claimed that charter schools “closed the longstanding achievement gap.” He made this claim even though the data showed it to be an outright lie. In 2007, when the big push to open up even more charter schools began the data showed that charter high schools had an on-time graduation rate less than half that of public schools. Even so more charter schools were opened. As many sources have pointed out little of the data that can be found for public view on the official web pages of public schools can be found on the official web pages of charter schools. The lack of transparency about schools that receive so much public money is astounding. So are charter schools in New York City accountable? Definitely not.

Do charter schools in New York City have better scores? In 2009 a report showed that students in charter schools made less progress than those in public schools. In 2010 the data showed that public schools were 24% more likely to get As or Bs on the New York City school report cards than charter schools. In 2011 yet another analysis showed that charter schools are more likely to get Ds or Fs on the progress section of the New York City school report cards than public schools. In fact, charter schools were twice as likely to get Fs than public schools. Charter high schools had half the college readiness rate of public high schools. This year charter schools saw bigger drops in performance on the Common Core exams than public schools. Additionally charter schools performed worse on average than public schools in English and the same as public schools in math. This is all the more concerning given the creaming, the extremely high suspension and alarming attrition rates. Despite these competitive “advantages” charter schools overall do worse than public schools. So do charter schools have better scores? The data says no.

Who pays for charter schools in New York City and how much? As a whole charter schools in public buildings receive almost $650 more per student in public money than public schools. When the fact that charter schools have fewer high needs student is accounted for charter schools in public buildings receive $2,200 more per student in public money than public schools. Many charter schools spend a lot more money per student than public schools. KIPP spends over $3,000 more per student. Other well-known charter chains spend $4,300 more per student than public schools. Some of these sums come from hedge fund investors and corporate managers who believe that money should determine how schools run rather than the input of parents and educators. They will donate to charter schools up until they destroy public schools. Then the donations to charter schools will stop. What is the evidence for this? Because if they really cared about providing all children with opportunity they would support Bill de Blasio’s plan to ensure that every child in New York City has access to a quality pre-K program. As James Heckman, a Nobel prize winner in economics, shows in his new book Giving Kids a Fair Chance early intervention has the greatest social and economic impact. Instead, the head of a business leaders’ group said “it shows lack of sensitivity to the city’s biggest revenue providers.”

Clearly the facts support Bill de Blasio. Let’s put Bloomberg’s divisive policies behind us and return to a focus on equity and opportunity in all of our schools and for all students in New York City.

Additional Reading:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15582159.2011.548242?journalCode=wjsc20 “English language learners are consistently underrepresented in charter school populations across 3 academic years.”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/7/20%20hcz%20whitehurst/0720_hcz_whitehurst Harlem Children’s Zone charter schools is middle of the pack in terms of student test score outcomes.
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/what-do-the-available-data-tell-us-about-nyc-charter-school-teachers-their-jobs/ an examination of charter school data.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/TTR-Hoxby-Charters.pdf notes significant flaws in a non-peer-reviewed report claiming slightly better results for charter schools in New York City.

Categories Charter Schools, New York City

The Charter School Bubble in New York City

By dianeravitch
October 15, 2013 //
12

In case you had not noticed, there is a mayoral election going on in New York City.

The Democratic candidate, Bill de Blasio, is the front-runner, currently about 40 points ahead of his Republican challenger Joe Lhota.

De Blasio has made clear that he will strengthen the traditional schools that enroll 95% of the city’s public school students. Charter school advocates are outraged that he would show favoritism to the 95% over their 5%.

Lhota has the financial backing of the Koch brothers, and he has promised to open more charter schools, following Mayor Bloomberg’s lead. Thus far, his promise to be just like Bloomberg hasn’t helped him much in the polls, but he recently released a campaign ad tying himself firmly to the issue of charter schools. When several charter schools closed for the morning so their students, parents, and staff could hold a political rally, marching across the Brooklyn Bridge, Joe Lhota marched with them. He seemed not to realize that this very action demonstrated that charters are not public schools; any public school principal who closed his or her school to march the students in a political action would be fired.

This commentary comes from an insider in the New York City Department of Education, who knows the facts about charter schools in New York City. Forget the claims; forget the boasting; forget the tales of miracle schools.

Read this:

The current mayoral election in New York City has brought long overdue debate and discussion to the real outcomes of corporate-style management of public schools. No longer are New Yorkers compelled to listen to false and exaggerated claims about charter schools. Finally, after years of massaged data and blatantly false claims about charter schools, there is hope for an honest approach. Bill de Blasio, the progressive Democratic candidate, for mayor has committed to creating an equitable system for all children.  His opponent has gone on the attack and wants to double-down on the failed education policies of Mike Bloomberg. Let’s take an honest look at charter school performance in New York City.

Do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? At some charter schools 24%-68% of the students are lost from each cohort. Up to 7 out of 10 parents at these charter schools do not see their child complete schooling at the charter school they chose. Other “high performing” charter schools suspend 25%-40% of their students a year in order to see gains in test scores. This means that each year up to 2 in 5 parents at these charter schools has their choice forcibly taken away by the very charter school they chose to send their child to. In one particularly egregious case a charter school pushed out 1/3 of its student body in order to improve test scores. If you are the parent of an English Language Learner or of a student with special needs you won’t have much choice since charter schools tend to accept very few of those students. And if they do accept your child it seems that at least some charter school chains will attrite English Language Learners and students with special needs at very high rates. So do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? Not at all.

Are charter schools in New York City accountable?  In one story, New York City Department of Education under Mike Bloomberg refused to share data on the state of special education in charter schools. In another story a charter school chain sued New York State to prevent an audit of how it used public money. New York State backed down. Joel Klein, former Chancellor in New York City falsely claimed that charter schools “closed the longstanding achievement gap.” He made this claim even though the data showed it to be an outright lie. In 2007, when the big push to open up even more charter schools began, the data showed that charter high schools had an on-time graduation rate less than half that of public schools. Even so, more charter schools were opened. As many sources have pointed out, little of the data that can be found for public view on the official web pages of public schools can be found on the official web pages of charter schools. The lack of transparency about schools that receive so much public money is astounding. So are charter schools in New York City accountable? Definitely not.

Do charter schools in New York City have better scores? In 2009 a report showed that students in charter schools made less progress than those in public schools. In 2010 the data showed that public schools were 24% more likely to get As or Bs on the New York City school report cards than charter schools. In 2011 yet another analysis showed that charter schools are more likely to get Ds or Fs on the progress section of the New York City school report cards than public schools. In fact, charter schools were twice as likely to get Fs than public schools. Charter high schools had half the college readiness rate of public high schools. This year charter schools saw bigger drops in performance on the Common Core exams than public schools. Additionally charter schools performed worse on average than public schools in English and the same as public schools in math. This is all the more concerning given the creaming, the extremely high suspensionand alarming attrition rates. Despite these competitive “advantages” charter schools overall do worse than public schools. So do charter schools have better scores? The data says no.

Who pays for charter schools in New York City and how much? As a whole charter schools in public buildings receive almost $650 more per student in public money than public schools. When the fact that charter schools have fewer high needs student is accounted for charter schools in public building receive $2,200 more per student in public money than public schools. Many charter schools spend a lot more money per student than public schools. KIPP spends over $3,000 more per student. Other well-known charter chains spend $4,300 more per student than public schools. Some of these sums come from hedge fund investors and corporate managers who believe that money should determine how schools run rather than the input of parents and educators. They will donate to charter schools up until they destroy public schools. Then the donations to charter schools will stop. What is the evidence for this? Because if they really cared about providing all children with opportunity they would support Bill de Blasio’s plan to ensure that every child in New York City has access to a quality pre-K program. As James Heckman, a Nobel prize winner in economics, shows in his new book Giving Kids a Fair Chance early intervention has the greatest social and economic impact. Instead, the head of a business leaders’ group said “it shows lack of sensitivity to the city’s biggest revenue providers.”

Clearly the facts support Bill de Blasio. Let’s put Bloomberg’s divisive policies behind us and return to a focus on equity and opportunity in all of our schools and for all students in New York City.

Additional Reading:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15582159.2011.548242?journalCode=wjsc20  “English language learners are consistently underrepresented in charter school populations across 3 academic years.”

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/7/20%20hcz%20whitehurst/0720_hcz_whitehurst  Harlem Children’s Zone charter schools is middle of the pack in terms of student test score outcomes.

http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/what-do-the-available-data-tell-us-about-nyc-charter-school-teachers-their-jobs/ an examination of charter school data

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/TTR-Hoxby-Charters.pdf notes significant flaws in a non-peer-reviewed report claiming slightly better results for charter schools in New York City

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, New York City

How New York City Department of Education Dumps Low-Performing Students into Struggling Schools

By dianeravitch
October 13, 2013 //
21

Here is a link to the report of the Annenberg institute of School Reform, which documents that the New York City Department of Education has systematically steered students with the highest needs to the lowest-performing schools.

This guarantees that the students will not get the services they need, and guarantees that the struggling school will fail and close.

It is shameful.

Categories New York City

COW Charter May Close Due to Low Enrollment

By dianeravitch
October 12, 2013 //
12

The charter chain called Citizens of the World opened in Brooklyn, hoping to attract a white affluent crowd. Despite intense community opposition, the school opened with room for 126 students. Only 65 showed up. The school may be forced to close due to its low enrollment. No waiting list. Only three children from the neighborhood enrolled.

Categories Charter Schools, New York City

What de Blasio Told NYC’s Power Elite

By dianeravitch
October 5, 2013 //
68

This is what Democratic nominee Bill de Blasio told the Association for a Better New York. This is an organization of powerful people, many in the real estate industry. They have been cool to him in the past. This speech won a standing ovation, according to this morning’s New York Times.

How many elected officials in your city or state would say what de Blasio said here:

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 4, 2013

BILL DE BLASIO’S SPEECH TO THE ASSOCIATION FOR A BETTER NEW YORK

Remarks as Prepared

New York, NY – A year to the day after introducing his bold tax plan to fund universal pre-kindergarten and expanded after-school programs, Democratic nominee for mayor and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio returns to the Association for a Better New York today. De Blasio will lay out his comprehensive vision to tackle income inequality and end the Tale of Two Cities, bringing New York together as one city.

Good morning.

I want to thank ABNY for hosting this discussion and inviting me to attend once again.  Throughout its history—from the fiscal crisis through today—ABNY and its members have provided a forum for discussing the challenges facing our city.  

I want to thank Bill Rudin for his leadership of ABNY, and his longstanding commitment to the City of New York.

It is an honor to come before you, as I did exactly one year ago today.  Then I called for real, concrete change to fight the growing economic inequality in our city.  I made the case that we needed new ideas and new resources to produce that change.

Today, I want to talk about how we can work together to make that vision a reality.

I want to start with the plan I described to you one year ago.  I believe we must guarantee every child in our city a quality pre-kindergarten education and every middle school student a safe after-school environment that keeps them on-task, off the streets, and out of harm’s way.

And I strongly believe we must back up our commitment with real dollars — a modest tax on those earning more than a half-million dollars a year.

As I said a year ago, these investments are not only critical for those who are struggling, but will help all New Yorkers — because we all benefit when the middle class is growing, and more of our fellow citizens are lifted out of poverty. 

Over the course of this past year, our case has only grown stronger. 

We have seen President Obama and Governor Cuomo elevate the importance of early education as the key to transforming our education system – and transforming young lives in the process.

We have seen studies by the National Bureau of Economic Research that show that providing free pre-kindergarten to families in need is among the most effective means of reducing income inequality, increasing social mobility, raising college graduation rates, reducing crime, and increasing wages. 

That’s why the plan I announced here a year ago has become a centerpiece of my vision for progressive change in New York.

But this investment won’t simply set those children – our children — on the right path for a brighter future.  It sends a signal to families across our city that beyond the skyscrapers and high-rises that paint our magnificent skyline we haven’t forgotten what New York City is really about, a city of neighborhoods. 

A city that understands our economic might isn’t measured solely by the number of millionaires who call New York home, but by the promise that every family has a shot at living and working and raising children in our five boroughs.

Throughout this campaign, I’ve spoken about New York becoming a Tale of Two Cities – one that has worked very well for our city’s elite but one that’s left millions of everyday New Yorkers behind. 

And while we certainly don’t begrudge our fellow New Yorkers their success, we also can’t ignore those who struggle to find good jobs and quality schools, those who can’t find affordable housing and needed health care, those who don’t have access to early childhood and after-school programs that set our children on the right path, and keep them there.

Make no mistake.  When so many New Yorkers are being priced out of their own city, it’s not merely another problem for us to consider.  It’s a crisis of affordability – a crisis that’s reached a tipping point in the years since the Great Recession. 

At the same time Wall Street has not only recovered to its pre-recession levels, but managed to set new records, nearly half of our city lives below or near the poverty level.

This affordability crisis is different from the soaring crime we faced twenty years ago, different from the turmoil that followed 9/11. But it is no less urgent, and requires no less commitment on the part of our city’s leadership to address.

It is felt by parents speaking in worried whispers after their kids have been put to bed, parents who are living paycheck to paycheck, with nothing left over. It is felt by working single moms who have to cast aside nervous thoughts of their children’s whereabouts during those long hours after school lets out, but before their work day ends. It is felt by once solidly middle class families who are being squeezed by skyrocketing housing costs.

This crisis can be seen starkly in the changing nature of New York City’s jobs landscape.  Our city has a quarter million more jobs than it did in 2000—and for that I give Mayor Bloomberg his share of the credit.

But 200,000 of those jobs are in a handful of low wage sectors, sectors like retail and food service where the average pay is less than $28,000 per year. Meanwhile, we’ve shed more than 50,000 middle class jobs in that same time frame.

The combination of low-wage jobs and a housing market that fails to produce sufficiently affordable homes has created painful outcomes.  Just one stunning example — 28% of families in our homeless shelters include at least one employed adult.  

Think about it:  these are thousands of our fellow New Yorkers who work hard at their jobs, have families with children, but have no home.  

It is a foundational American principle that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to make a life for your family. But now, for too many New Yorkers, that dream is in danger of slipping away.

As many of you know, I’ve been talking about these issues over the course of this election, and calling for a dramatic change in direction.  However, my opponents in this campaign don’t think we need a course correction.

They choose to accept – or else willfully ignore – the income inequality that threatens the foundation of who we are as New Yorkers.

I have a different point of view.  I don’t accept this as our destiny.  I am committed to tackling this crisis.  I know we can solve this crisis of affordability, and we will, but only if we work together. 

We cannot resign ourselves to the mindset that says rising inequality is a necessary byproduct of urban success.  Instead we must recognize that the economic insecurity steadily creeping steadily up into the middle class is a threat to our city’s long-term future and something we must urgently address.

There is nothing divisive about acknowledging the struggle so many New Yorkers face.  It’s not class warfare.  As my old boss Bill Clinton would say, it’s arithmetic. And it’s reality, the daily experience facing so many across New York. 

And before we can address this great challenge, we first must be honest with ourselves.  We must first admit that the affordability crisis exists – and then resolve, together, to do something about it.

Many of today’s policies have sidestepped the problem – or even made it worse.

City and State support for CUNY—that great engine of middle class strength—has declined sharply, leaving students to pick up the tab through higher tuition. 

We’ve lost more than 30,000 seats in our after-school programs since 2008, depriving young people of safe, supervised alternatives to the lure of gangs and violence. 

And while the Bloomberg administration’s New Housing Marketplace plan was admirable and is on track to reach its goal of 165,000 new or preserved units of affordable housing, we are in many ways treading water, barely producing enough new units even to offset the affordable homes we lose in any given year.   

Housing costs in New York City are at an all-time – with average rent having just crossed $3,000 per month for the very first time. 

We need fundamental change that addresses the struggle of millions of New Yorkers – policies that take dead aim at this Tale of Two Cities.

Instead of giveaways that disproportionately favor luxury housing, I have laid out a plan for hard and fast rules to require construction of new affordable homes for working and middle class New Yorkers.

Instead of pouring billions of dollars into unnecessary and overly generous tax incentives for big corporations, we need to invest in small businesses, in workforce training, and in CUNY—the most reliable pathways for those seeking a shot at entering the middle class.

Instead of an economy that generates poverty-wage jobs, we need to raise the wage floor so that working families on every step of the economic ladder can make ends meet and see a way up.

That’s real change. That will make a difference not just for a fortunate few—but for hundreds of thousands of families who have felt shut out of our economy for far too long.

It’s big thinking – that’s true.  But thinking big is what we New Yorkers have done throughout our history.

And it’s time to think big again, and change our approach so that opportunity is something that is open to everyone.  We cannot expect prosperity to trickle down from the top; that is a philosophy that’s failed time and again.  Instead, we must build opportunity from the ground up.

I give Mayor Bloomberg great credit for recognizing the need to diversify our economy from its over-reliance on the finance sector, and for strategic investments to create jobs to offset the decline of traditional manufacturing.

The administration’s emphasis on expanding New York’s research universities as a magnet for talent, growing the tech sector and launching the applied sciences initiative, helping to bring back and grow New York City’s film and television industry, and spurring a rebirth in the next generation of manufacturing have all created jobs, diversified our tax base and made our economy more resilient.  

These policies were important, and we shouldn’t step back from them — and we won’t.

But while all of those efforts were necessary, alone they are not sufficient to meet today’s economic crisis. 

Where these policies have come up short is that they have failed to provide meaningful opportunities for the majority of New Yorkers.

Today too few graduates of our public high schools and our CUNY system are finding employment in these emerging industries.  And the vast majority of our unemployed and underemployed citizens are cut off from opportunities in these rapidly growing fields.

We can do more to fuel the growth of each of these sectors while ensuring more New Yorkers are filling these jobs.   

That’s why in the Tech sector, I’ve proposed: a dedicated 2-year STEM program at CUNY to connect more graduates of our public university system to jobs in the tech industry; a scholarship that encourages tech graduates from CUNY to stay in New York City after graduation to grow companies or start new ventures;
and 14 additional industry-linked Career and Technical Education high school programs aligned with job growth projections. 

We must move forward with the Brooklyn Tech Triangle plan and replicate that model, to build new economic development hubs across the City. 

To grow the film and television production sector and to create more opportunities for New Yorkers in it I’ve called for: a New Film, Post-Production and Animation School at the Brooklyn Navy Yard; tripling the enrollment in the Made in NY Production Assistant Training Program; creating a “Film & TV Lab,” modeled after the EDC’s successful “Media Lab” for Film Production, Post-Production, and Animation; and bringing more production to Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

We must continue to re-envision manufacturing in New York City.  Manufacturing was once the backbone of New York’s middle class economy. Today, the average annual wage for a manufacturing worker is over $53,000.

In Brooklyn, the number of manufacturing jobs – after decades of decline — has increased in the past three years. 

Advanced manufacturing firms, touting new technologies, like 3D printing, are rediscovering what made New York such a successful manufacturing hub in the past: our density, our diversity, our shipping infrastructure, and the innate talent of our people.

To allow these firms to grow and thrive, we must: tighten restrictions in the zoning code to strengthen the city’s 16 Industrial Business Zones; change zoning laws to meet the surging demand for live-work spaces and mixed-use development; replicate the success of the Brooklyn Navy Yard on other City-owned industrial land; expand support for manufacturing by investing in maritime and transit infrastructure, and digital connectivity that increases the value of Industrial Zones; and scale up workforce development programs like Brooklyn Workforce Innovations that connect unemployed and underemployed New Yorkers to the industrial jobs of the future.   

Our workforce development programs must be more about quality than quantity.  If all we’re doing is placing New Yorkers in minimum wage jobs — with no opportunity for upward growth and mobility — then quite frankly we are all failing. 

That is why I have laid out a plan for strengthening the way we train our workforce – by: integrating community-based organizations into a city-wide workforce development system; expanding use of apprenticeship programs in major city construction and service contracts to give opportunities to New Yorkers in all five boroughs; reinvesting $150 million annually in CUNY, and ensuring every city high school is connected to a specific college, or a specific company or sector; and establishing a job creation coordinator to oversee all workforce development programs in the city.

In addition to supporting these emerging sectors, we need to continue to nurture immigrant entrepreneurs who have always been at the heart of New York City’s thriving neighborhood economies. To do that I have proposed: creating economic development hubs in at least twelve immigrant and low-income neighborhoods, these would be one-stop shops in multiple languages that bring together all of New York City’s business development services in accessible neighborhood locations; establishing a $100 million revolving loan fund for neighborhood entrepreneurs; giving local businesses, including immigrant small businesses, a second-shot at City contracts — this would let local firms match the price offered by a lowest responsible bid, encouraging local business, while still getting the best deal for the taxpayer; and ending City Hall’s fine assault on small businesses by banning quotas, utilizing warnings instead of financial penalties for first-time and minor violations, and making the appeals process for small business owners easier to navigate.

We need to do all of these things to continue to grow and diversify New York City’s economy.

But most fundamentally, we need to do more for the millions of New Yorkers who work long hours for low wages and who suffer the most from New York’s affordability crisis.   

We must raise the wage floor by: expanding our Paid Sick Leave law to include hundreds of thousands of working New Yorkers not currently covered, because you shouldn’t lose a day’s pay to take care of a sick child; passing a real living wage law that says if you are receiving city subsidies you are going to creating good paying jobs for New Yorkers; cracking down on wage theft that is all too prevalent in our economy; and supporting efforts to raise wages and improve conditions in low-wage sectors like the fast-food and carwash industries, where workers are struggling to assert their most basic rights to come together and bargain collectively for higher wages. 

For nearly a century, unions have provided the most secure path for Americans in low-wage jobs to join the middle class and it can and must be that way again.

In addition to creating good jobs for New Yorkers, we need to tackle the root of our affordability crisis – the rising cost of housing. 

That’s why I have proposed an ambitious plan to build or preserve 200,000 new and preserved units over the next decade— that will put affordable housing in reach for more families in every neighborhood. 

We will get there by converting a system based on incentives that have yielded too little, to one based on clear requirements for affordability.  We need a stronger hand to make sure development will create and preserve places for a diverse range of families to live and raise their kids.  

When the public action of rezoning creates huge new value for developers, we will require, not simply encourage, the production of affordable housing.

Taken together, the elements of this platform amount to a very different vision for our city. 

It is a vision that says we need a City government that recognizes itself as an instrument to lift people up, and to truly foster opportunity for all.

Look, I know not everyone in this room agrees with every part of my plan.

But I know we all share a set of values – that every child deserves a first rate education; that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules should be able to earn a wage that can support a family; that people should be able to live in the same neighborhoods they’ve spent their lives.

And most of all we all share a belief:  that New York City is the greatest city in the world – not simply because of our economic might and stunning skyline and vibrant culture, but because we are a city that leads the nation and the world in remembering that we are bigger and stronger and better as a city when we make sure everyone has a shot. 

So today let’s go forth – together – and resolve that the Tale of Two Cities will be in our past and that building one city will be our future. 

Thank you.

 

Categories New York City, Poverty

Mole in Success Academy Speaks

By dianeravitch
October 4, 2013 //
159

I received an email from an anonymous teacher in Eva Moskowitz’s charter chain called Success Academy (formerly known as Harlem Success Academy until Eva decided to move into other neighborhoods in New York City).

When everyone else in the state bombed on the Common Core tests, Eva’s schools had high scores.

I asked the teacher about what happens inside these hallowed halls. The teacher said the typical work day is 7 am-6 pm at school, plus work at home. And here are the methods:

“Focus on English Language Arts and Math. We spend the vast majority of class time teaching ELA and Math all year long. Kids have several blocks of each daily. We do not teach history or foreign languages in elementary school. We do have a good science program. They have a Specials period every day too. Aside from that, it’s reading, writing, math from 8:00AM to 5:00PM. Obviously the extended day and extended school year helps in terms of sheer volume of time.

“Put the best teachers in testing grades. During the first few months of school, teachers and assistant principals are shuffled between grades and even schools. The goal is to put the strongest teachers in grades 3 and up. So a strong Kindergarten teacher might suddenly find herself teaching fourth grade.

“Test prep starts in November: ELA test prep starts in November for two periods a week. After winter break, we have daily hourlong ELA test prep. Then we add math. By late February, we spend several hours a day on it. The last few weeks are almost all day test prep.

“Custom Test Prep Materials: I think many schools use practice workbooks from publishers like Kaplan, etc. We have people whose job it is to put together custom test prep packets based on state guidance. Much more aligned to common core and closer to the test than the published books I’ve seen. Also, teachers are putting together additional worksheets and practice based on what we see in the classroom. Huge volume of practice materials for every possible need (and we use it all, too). Also many practice tests and quizzes that copy format of the test.

“Intensive organization-wide focus on test prep: For the last months and weeks before the test, everyone from Eva on down is completely focused on test prep. Just a few examples….

“We have to give kids 1/2/3/4 scores daily. Kids are broken up into small groups based on the data and get differentiated instruction. If they get a 1, they stay back from recess or after school for extra practice.

“Thousands of dollars spent on prizes to incentivize the kids to work hard. Some teachers have expressed concern about bribing them with basketballs and other toys instead of learning for the sake of learning. The response is “prizes aren’t optional.”

“We get daily inspirational emails from principals with a countdown, anecdotes about the importance of state tests, and ever-multiplying plans for “getting kids over the finish line” (these get old fast).

“Old-fashioned hard work: Teachers are working nonstop during test prep. Literally pour 100% of yourself into it day in and day out. We work hard all year, but test prep brings the hours and workload to a new level. I think the same is true of all staff in schools and at Network.

“I think those are the main points. We do not cheat on the tests, as some critics speculate. But we do devote an extraordinary amount of resources to them each year, arguably at the expense of actual learning. The justification I’ve heard is that these tests can determine our kids’ futures and we owe it to them to make sure they’re prepared. Obviously we as an organization are judged by them as well, so we make it a priority. What I find most disturbing is that we claim that the test scores are a result of our excellent curriculum…no mention of test prep. If we have faith in the curriculum, why not allow us to teach it and skip the test prep?

Then came this email:

Ms. Ravitch,

I wrote to you earlier about Success Academy’s forced march. I apologize for remaining anonymous. I’m sure our PR team monitors all media outlets and I am really worried about losing my job.

It seems the news on the mandatory march is all over the web now, and I have an internal email to share, written by one of our directors, Jim Manly, in response to the backlash. It is copied below. To justify the march and everything else, senior management focuses on the positives and completely ignores the negatives. Eva employs the same techniques (one of her emails to teachers started, “When I walk through your classrooms, and see the incredible work that you are doing with our scholars, I just can’t understand how someone could try to oppose it. Why would anyone work against your tireless efforts to provide our scholars with a world-class education? How could science 5 days a week, and chess, and art, and sports, and raising the bar in math and reading be controversial? But it is.”)

Here is Jim Manly’s email:

Inspiration

“Why are we under attack?”

Eva asked this question at the leader-training day and it got me to thinking. Why do so many people, whose politics on many issues are described as progressive, have such a problem with charter schools? Consider the work we do each day and the families we serve who have been too long denied a realistic shot at upward social mobility in this country. Consider the failure factories that so many of us have worked in that produce absolutely abysmal results for the children they serve. Consider our results – truly the most outstanding in the state when demographic factors like income and parent education levels are considered. We are a true public policy success – proving that there is a solution to the issue of dysfunctional urban public schools that plagues our country and our educational establishment.

The honest answer to this question is clearly complicated. Part of it revolves around the very success that makes us so proud to work here. Many families who see our scholars clad in their orange and blue, in gorgeous classrooms, with high performing teachers get frustrated that this opportunity is denied their child. To them it doesn’t seem like their kids are possibly receiving the same amount of money and care that is being bestowed on our scholars. From this perspective the teacher’s union uses this apparent inequity to drum up suspicions that our schools operate beyond the public domain and are money machines created by big business. The fact is that teacher’s unions, with their huge bureaucracies and incredibly generous pension benefits, have so driven up the cost of public education that there is little room to spend on scholars and the resources they need to succeed. In addition, the job protections that have safeguarded teachers and principals alike are not as ironclad in our model and that is scary to those who fear that management will act capriciously and terminate employees without cause (in the most generous description of this fear). Politicians also fall in line because the unions have clout – they have money that is generated from mandatory dues and a motivated membership who remains politically active. Because charter schools serve such a small number of scholars it is easier to side with the majority rather than take a position that will embitter a well-funded and motivated supporter.

That leaves us at Success feeling like we work for Morgan Stanley. If you dare go on Gotham Schools’ blog you will see an outpouring of anger aimed at our work. While some of the questions are legitimate ones that we wrestle with everyday, the majority are either exaggerated examples of one scholar or teacher or completely fabricated hysteria designed to fire our opponents up. So despite our strong commitment to serve every scholar who walks through our doors, we are defined by the few who leave. Thus we cannot engage in the debate, like every public school, about the dilemma of how far we can go before we risk an entire class’ education in order to (poorly) serve a student with more severe needs who would benefit from a more appropriate setting. Unfortunately valid debates like this are lost in the noise about corporate privatization, rampant greed and other wild-eyed accusations that are the domain of the radical left and right. The rhetoric on the blogs is worthy more of conspiracy theories and tabloid journalism, not legitimate public policy debate. The sad truth is that the majority of the country simply doesn’t care enough about urban poverty and public schooling to rally around a cause that that is being fought on the fringes. So despite our incredible results we find ourselves characterized as the enemy by those with something to lose if we succeed.

The trick for our movement is to take the argument out of the fringes and in to the light of day. Success has built a better educational mousetrap that is reversing an endemic pattern of failure that haunts our urban public schools. We have shown that the staggeringly poor results of schools that serve predominantly poor children are grossly over-inflated. While there are educational issues that still require debate, the fundamental myth of destiny by tax bracket that lies at the heart of our country’s educational system has been exposed. So we must march. We need to take our case out to the mainstream and let them see that the only truly successful school in the city is going to have to pay rent. They need to understand that the way our city will reward a blue ribbon school in Harlem is by forcing it to cut its funding by 30%. We need to make people uncomfortable with the thought that under the name of progressive policy we are trying to close the only doors to opportunity that are available to children in poor communities. It would be easier if we didn’t have this burden and could just focus on teaching and learning. This work was never about our convenience however – it is about standing up for what is right. I look forward to standing with you on October 8th.”

That leaves unanswered this question: If a public school principal closed his or her school to conduct a political march, what would be the consequences?

Categories Charter Schools, Harlem Success Academy, New York City, Testing

What Works Clearinghouse: Merit Pay in NYC Failed

By dianeravitch
September 25, 2013 //
3

Yesterday I mistakenly reported that the US Department of Education had closed down the “What Works Clearinghouse,” which reviews research and reports on the results. I corrected my error as soon as I learned about it. In fact, it was a different website that was closed down, the “Doing What Works” site, where educators might find practical advice.

The What Works Clearinghouse is still open, and that is a very good thing, because it just released three reviews of New York City’s “merit pay” plan. All three agreed that it failed. It failed to improve student achievement. It failed to increase teacher retention.

This latest evidence of the failure of paying teachers to raise test scores continues an unbroken stream of failures that have been documented for nearly 100 years.

Will the U.S. Department of Education immediately suspend the Teacher Incentive Fund? Will it use those hundreds of millions for a “Reducing Class Size in High Needs Fund.” Will Michelle Rhee stop saying that the way to save deficit-ridden districts like Philadelphia is to offer performance pay?

Let’s cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Categories Merit pay, New York City

Bloomberg Will Eliminate Guarantee of Seat in Neighborhood High Schools

By dianeravitch
September 23, 2013 //
21

Another parting shot from the lame-duck Bloomberg administration.

Students will no longer be guaranteed a seat in their zoned neighborhood high school.

Bloomberg has wanted an all-choice system for years, and this is his parting shot.

Students list their choices, but the high school or the computer makes the decision.

Most students now travel from 45 minutes to an hour to get to their assigned “choice” high school.

Parents are not happy.

They still like the idea of a neighborhood high school.

Meanwhile, my insider at the DOE tells me that the officials at the DOE are in a quandary.

Few of them are educators. All they have ever done is to close established schools and open new ones.

Then after five years, they close the “failed” new schools, and open another to replace it.

The one complicated thing they don’t know how to do: Help struggling schools get better.

Bill de Blasio has a monumental task confronting him assuming he is elected mayor.

He will be like the guy following Humpty Dumpty, trying to re-assemble a school system that has been broken into 1500 pieces, lacking any supervision, management, or vision.

 

Categories Bloomberg, Michael, New York City

Bloomberg to the World: Send Us Your Billionaires

By dianeravitch
September 21, 2013 //
43

Mayor Bloomberg responded to the latest reports about rising poverty in New York City with a plea for more billionaires to move to the city. Presumably that would create new jobs for chauffeurs, maids, gardeners, personal chefs, butlers, and others to serve the needs of the powerful and wealthy. They might even endow some more of the charter schools that are on the drawing boards in the waning days of the Bloomberg administration.

Remember the poem by Emma Lazarus that is mounted on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty. It is called “The New Colossus,” and it says, in part,

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Bloomberg thinks that Lazarus got it wrong. Send us the billionaires!

Here is the article as it appears in the Wall Street Journal:

  •  
  • September 20, 2013, 9:26 p.m. ET

Mayor Says More Billionaires Would Ease City’s Economic Situation

Mayor Says Increase in Wealthy Residents Provides Tax Revenue to Benefit the Poor

Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday it would be a “godsend” if every other billionaire around the globe moved to New York City, a clarion call for the rich just days after new U.S. Census figures showed an increase in the city’s poverty rate and a wide gap between the wealthy and poor.

On his weekly radio show, Mr. Bloomberg, who has been accused over the years of being out of touch, suggested New Yorkers would benefit if the income gap were even wider because the wealthy pay for a big portion of city services.

ReutersMichael Bloomberg said billionaires in the city are why there is such a sizable gap between the rich and poor.

Related

 

Mr. Bloomberg said his administration has spent most of the past 12 years trying to help decrease poverty in the city. But he suggested New York could benefit if the income gap grew even more, saying the problem isn’t at the low-end.

“The reason it’s so big is at the higher end we’ve been able to do something that none of these other cities can do, and that is attract a lot of the very wealthy from around the country and around the world,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“They are the ones that pay a lot of the taxes. They’re the ones that spend a lot of money in the stores and restaurants and create a big chunk of our economy,” he said. “And we take tax revenues from those people to help people throughout the entire rest of the spectrum.”

Mr. Bloomberg said billionaires in the city are why there is such a sizable gap between the rich and poor. But “if we could get every billionaire around the world to move here it would be a godsend—that would create a much bigger income gap.”

Forbes recently estimated Mr. Bloomberg’s net worth at $31 billion. Mr. Bloomberg’s 12-year tenure at City Hall ends Dec. 31.

According to new Census figures, the city’s poverty rate rose to 21.2% last year, up from 20.9% in 2011 and 20.1% in 2010. The figures also showed the mean household income of the lowest fifth at $8,993, compared with $222,871 for the highest fifth.

Income inequality in the city has become a flashpoint in the race to succeed Mr. Bloomberg. Bill de Blasio, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has said addressing the gap will be a centerpiece of his administration. He’s repeatedly described New York as a “tale of two cities.” Mr. Bloomberg and GOP mayoral nominee Joe Lhota have accused Mr. de Blasio of engaging in class warfare.

Mr. de Blasio said the city welcomes “everyone” but that city government needs “to focus not on the few but on the many.”

“The mayor needs to understand that beyond his social circle are millions of New Yorkers who are struggling and are looking to contribute to this economy if they could only get a job to contribute to it with,” he said.

Mr. Lhota said the conversation needs to be about creating jobs. “Jobs are the only way known to mankind that will deal with income inequality,” he said.

City Comptroller John Liu—who ran for the Democratic nomination for mayor and lost to Mr. de Blasio—said it would “only be a godsend” if the city’s wealthiest residents paid an equitable income tax rate. He pointed out that families making $50,000 are paying the same rate as a family making nearly $50 million.

“The mayor’s comment shows once again just how out of touch he is with the average New Yorker,” Mr. Liu said.

—Andrew Grossman and Joe Jackson contributed to this article.Write to Michael Howard Saul at michael.saul@wsj.com

Categories Bloomberg, Michael, Economy, New York City
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »