« Who Is Making the Decisions? | Main | An omission on my part »

Power Struggle in New York City

| 6 Comments

Deborah,

In your introduction, you referred to your history of engagement in political action. Unlike you, I have not been involved in political organizing or protest movements. I do what I can with my pen but generally stay arms-length from political action. So it was a departure for me when I attended a protest rally on February 28 in New York City, called "Put the Public Back into Public Education." This was an extraordinary microcosm of the groups that are outraged by the takeover of public education in the city by the mayor, lawyers, and business groups. It was the first such public event since the mayor took complete control of the public schools in 2002.

This is a big deal, because few people outside New York City really understand what mayoral control means. For that matter, not many people inside NYC do either. Few people realize that it means that there are no public boards, no central board, no local boards, no public voice whatever. The mayor controls everything. Decisions are made behind closed doors by a cadre of lawyers, with no public discussion or public review. Today, there are no educators included among the decision-makers, only lawyers. The discussion comes only after the decision is made and there is no changing the decision. With this crowd, public discussion means telling the public what was already decided.

Not knowing any of this, or perhaps not knowing why it matters that all democratic governance has been eliminated from public education in NYC, reporters and mayors come to NYC, get the Potemkin Village tour, hear the Department's claims, and go home to talk of the "miracle" in New York City.

Unfortunately there is no such miracle. The people at the protest rally—well over 1,000 parents, teachers, and students—know it. The editorial writers in NYC don't. The business community doesn't. The mayors and their helpers in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere don't.

So the rally was important, because it was the first time that the simmering public rebellion had a face. Speaker after speaker got up to talk about overcrowded classrooms; about schools that were bursting at the seams because the Department, without consultation, dumped a new small school or a charter school into an already full building; about teachers and parents who felt disrespected, excluded, marginalized by the powers that be.

Interesting how the Mayor and Chancellor Joel Klein reacted to the rally. First, they scheduled a press conference on the day of the rally at which they announced the appointment of a director in charge of family engagement. She will earn $150,000 a year. The woman they chose has apparently a good reputation among parents, but at the rally it was clear that the parent leaders saw this as a blatant attempt to buy off their discontent and they were not selling. Too many other parent leaders have been hired and silenced. Second, the Mayor said before the rally that most parents were happy with his reforms, and only "a handful" were not. This statement attracted much hooting and derision at the rally. Even his new "family engagement" person respectfully disagreed with him. Third, the New York Post wrote two vicious editorials denouncing the rally and saying that anyone who turned out was a "shill" for Randi Weingarten and the teachers' union, having been bought and paid for by them. Apparently any elected official who dares to challenge mayoral control is a shill for the teachers' union.

When the New York Post editorialized that the rally was a showcase for Randi's puppets, it insisted that the reforms have been incredibly successful. As proof, the editorial included these statements by Chancellor Klein. "Our fourth-graders have gained almost 19 percentage points in math over the past four years," he said. "In English, our fourth-graders have gained almost 12.5 points, compared to only 3.5 points by students in the rest of the state." The Post, the Daily News, and the New York Sun dutifully report such claims in their editorials without bothering to look at the website of the New York State Education Department. How hard would it be for them to check their facts? (Let it be noted that the reporters for New York City's newspapers, unlike the editorial writers, tend to have a more skeptical frame of mind.) *

I know you are opposed to testing, but here is an example where it is useful to say, "Let's look at the facts." The facts are on the state website. (You have to dig to find them, listed under archived press releases—see the bottom of this entry for links and how to access them).

Klein began work as Chancellor in mid-2002 and spent months designing his reforms. The Children First agenda was announced in January 2003 and launched in September 2003. Thus it is appropriate to compare the test scores for 2003 (the last tests before implementation of the reforms) to the scores in 2006 (the latest available).

Have our fourth-graders gained almost 19 percentage points in math? No, they gained 4.2 percentage points over those three years of testing. In 2003, 66.7% of fourth graders met state standards, and in 2006, the percentage was up to 70.9. How did he come up with the idea that the scores jumped by almost 19 points? He is using 2002 as his start date, when the scores were only 52.0%. But he cannot fairly use that date as his starting point, because his program was not launched until September 2003. In fact, the biggest one-year jump in fourth-grade math scores—14.7%—occurred between 2002 and 2003, the year before his program was installed. Since then, in three years, the scores have gone up only 4.2%.

In English, did our fourth-grade scores go up by 12.5%? No. The proportion of fourth-graders who met state standards increased by 6.4% from 2003 to 2006. The figure was 52.5% in 2003 and is now 58.9%. Once again, the chancellor is taking the data from 2002 and adding it to his gains; the rate in 2002 was 46.5%. But this is just plain wrong, because he can't take credit for the 6-point jump that occurred from 2002-2003. That was before he started his programs in the schools.

Note that he does not mention the eighth-grade scores. That is because in both math and English, 60% of students don't meet state standards. Despite small upticks and downticks. the eighth grade scores have remained flat over the past three years. So the Department doesn't mention them. And this, despite the fact that the Department allegedly ended social promotion in grades 3, 5, and 7. One must wonder why scores in eighth grade remain so abysmal if social promotion was eliminated.

Why does the media allow the Mayor and the Chancellor to claim credit for the phenomenal gains that occurred the year before the Mayor's program was implemented? I don't know, but I have long believed that in the end, as the saying goes, you can't fool all the people all the time.

Diane

*For anyone wanting to check the NY State Education Department website for themselves, here is some guidance. For some reason it is not easy to find the scores. They are archived with press releases and contained in a Power Point presentation by the Commissioner of Education when he released the scores. Here are the URLs (it took me hours to find them!):

For Grade 4 English: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/ela-math/ela-06/grade3-8ELA-2006_files/800x600/slide15.html

For Grade 8 English: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/ela-math/ela-06/grade3-8ELA-2006_files/800x600/slide16.html

Grade 4 mathematics: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/ela-math/math-06/math3-8_files/800x600/slide16.html

Grade 8 mathematics: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/ela-math/math-06/math3-8_files/800x600/slide17.html

6 Comments

I am extremely frustrated by the NYC DOE response to my very recent request to talk to people within about student attendance. I am writing a paper on student attendance in NY state -- and NYC happens to be in New York state. In fact -- I look at New York within a national context. I was told I needed to clear my request first with the public information office before they could meet with me. I contacted public information, was asked who I am, asked why I consider a national perspective when writing a paper under Education New York (my trademark), and that they wanted samples of what I have written before they would talk to me. This hit a raw nerve -- for I consider myself an advocate for those who don't always feel able to speak up. What if..... I had never written a paper before? How many millions of people are interested in education but have never published a paper and therefore can't get their questions answered? I am not saying things would be different without mayoral control. I am suggesting the public is intentionally denied access to information in many areas. However, shame on any institution that grants information solely to those who have the power of a pen.

Diane,
Despite your claims to the contrary, protest and political organizing seem to suit you well. Please keep it up.

Anyone who thinks that the papers somehow misquoted Klein when he took credit for a year of scores he did not influence, ought to look at the advertising package he produced in order to sell his latest scheme. The “fourth-year” spin is front and center, in full color, in the rather slick brochure disseminated in January to the press. Page two says:

“We’ve made a great deal of progress over the past several
years and built a foundation for even greater strides in
the future. …

…Student performance on the State’s tests has jumped
20 points in mathematics and about 10 points in
English_language_arts_in the past four years.
And we do well compared to many other large cities.”

That the local papers are stenographers to power (and in the case of The Post, intentional liars) is bad enough. That Klein would use public funds to produce 20-page glossy brochures that grossly distort the truth about his Children Last schemes may be even worse. It is an abuse of power. And it is an especially especially egregious abuse, considering the demolition derby he is proposing for our schools.

You can view the whole miserable pamphlet here:
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5A949AD3-8DCA-4CF0-AA8D-2D5378E179C3/18813/Children_First_Report_WEB227.pdf

I just noticed -- in the Klein spin above ("Student performance on the State's tests has jumped..."), we aren't even told to what grade these spun numbers refer. Anyone but us folks would think it were all grades. What kind of leadership is this?

Dr. Ravitch,

My Bloglines subscription shows this posting initiated on Friday morning and then updated tonight (Saturday). Could you indicate updates to postings, if substantive, in the future?

Response from Diane Ravitch:

Will do.

I updated to correct a grammatical error in the original and also to clarify the date that Chancellor Klein came into office (mid-2002), released his plan to the public (January 2003), and implemented it (September 2003).

None of these was a substantive change, as these facts were implicit in the original post. I thought it best to make them explicit.

Diane Ravitch


Thank you Dr. Ravitch

Comments are now closed for this post.

The opinions expressed in Bridging Differences are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Follow This Blog

Advertisement

Most Viewed on Education Week

Categories

Archives

Recent Comments

  • hertfordshire security installers: Greetings. Great content. Have you got an rss I could read more
  • http://blog.outsystems.com/aboutagility/2009/04/challenges-of-scoping-and-sizing-agile-projects.html: I would like to thank you for the efforts you've read more
  • http://acousticwood.net/mash/2008/03/yeah_off_to_the_uk.html: Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players read more
  • buy cheap metin2 yang: When you play the game, you really think you equipment read more
  • Nev: Anne Clark - If a Dr. instructs a patient that read more