Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community
Showing posts with label Diana Lam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diana Lam. Show all posts

Monday, October 6, 2014

Mrs. De Blasio, Chirlane McCray, Keeps Her Assistant Rachel Noerdlinger, Whose Boyfriend is a Convicted Killer

 I am always fascinated by disparate treatment, political cronyism and other such corrupt practices. The public needs to know these events, and assess their elected officials based upon how these leaders resolve the issues.

Here, we have the wife of the Mayor and the Mayor of New York City, not disciplining the Assistant hired at $170,000+ to assist the mayor's wife after the media finds out that the assistant did not disclose that she is living with a convicted killer and cop basher.

In 2004 when our current Chancellor Carmen Farina was working with the Bloomberg Administration,  Diana Lam, Deputy Chancellor for Teaching and Learning for the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), was found to have put her husband in a position at the DOE without going through the Conflicts of Interest Board first. Lam resigned, and General Counsel Chad Vignola was let go.

The De Blasio administration is not going to do anything about this.

You decide whether or not he should.

Betsy Combier



Rachel Noerdlinger



McCray aide spared discipline for failing to disclose romance


Mayor de Blasio on Friday defended the hiring of his wife’s chief of staff, Rachel Noerdlinger, despite her long live-in relationship with convicted killer and cop-hater Hassaun McFarlan.
“I have full faith in Rachel,” de Blasio said on Friday at City Hall.
“You don’t fire people because of something their boyfriend said. That’s ludicrous.
“I have absolute faith in her and I know what I value and she values the same thing.”
McFarlan, who has been Noerdlinger’s beau for six years, has a long criminal history. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter for shooting an 18-year-old rival over a down jacket when he was 15, an official source confirmed.
He was sentenced to four years in prison on interstate cocaine trafficking charges in Bristol County, Mass., and was released in 2007.
McFarlan was charged with marijuana possession in 2012 and spent seven days in jail in 2011 for driving with a suspended license, records state.
His most recent brush with the law was last November, when he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, after he was accused of running a cop off the road in Edgewater, NJ,. with Noerdlinger’s Mercedes.
McFarlan, 36, also has made his hatred for cops clear, calling them “pigs” on Facebook many times.
PBA President Patrick Lynch called for Noerd­linger’s firing, out of “serious concern” the information that she hears at high-level NYPD CompStat sessions could be passed along to a hardened felon.
But de Blasio stood by Noerdlinger, 43, a former press aide to the Rev. Al Sharpton who makes $170,000 as First Lady Chirlane McCray’s top adviser. He swatted away questions over whether he should dismiss her as guilt by association.
“Respectfully, I think the question you’re asking is the wrong question. We don’t care what someone’s boyfriend said, we care what the public servant’s about,” he said.
“She’s very dedicated to the work of bringing police and community together and that’s what we care about.”
Some political insiders see a double standard.
Last year, during his transition period, de Blasio canned Lis Smith as his spokeswoman after The Post revealed she was dating the still-married and disgraced ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer.
McFarlan’s criminal history was not news to the mayor and McCray, according to a City Hall aide.
“Rachel was very candid from the beginning,” the aide said.
Additional reporting by Kathleen Cullitonand Aaron Feis


Rachel Noerdlinger, Bill DeBlasio, Chirlane McCray, and Al Sharpton
Inset: Noerdlinger and Hassaun McFarlan
First lady Chirlane McCray’s chief of staff, Rachel Noerdlinger, did not disclose that she was living with convicted killer Hassaun McFarlan when she submitted her Department of Investigation background check to the city, The Post has learned.

Noerdlinger, a top adviser and close confidante to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s wife, omitted that she was living with McFarlan — who has been caught posting violent and misogynistic screeds online.

According to the DOI questionnaire, omissions could lead to disciplinary actions or even criminal charges.

The DOI has opened an investigation into the matter.

A City Hall spokesman said “no action” has been taken against Noerdlinger, who lives in Edgewater, NJ, with McFarlan and her teenage son.

“She comes to work every day committed to serving the people of our city across the five boroughs on the critical issues that matter,” spokesman Phil Walzak said.

The new revelations were blasted by police union head Patrick J. Lynch, who said public servants should be held to the same standard as others.

“If it is found that she committed a lie of omission during the investigation, then she should be fired,” Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said in a statement.

“The standards that apply to hiring police officers should apply equally to hiring high-ranking, influential staff members.”

De Blasio, meanwhile, has come under a firestorm of criticism for keeping Noerdlinger on the payroll despite her boyfriend’s criminal past.

“I have full faith in Rachel,” the mayor said last week at City Hall.

“You don’t fire people because of something their boyfriend said. That’s ludicrous.”

McFarlan has a rap sheet that includes homicide, conspiring to run a cocaine operation and nearly running a police officer off the road near Noerdlinger’s home in Edgewater last year.

In the incident with the officer, McFarlan pleaded down to disorderly conduct.

The ex-con also wrote sickening comments on the blog Hip Hop News 24-7 that talked about violence and demeaned women.

“Trying to find the right black woman with a mean [oral sex] game is like trying to find a black woman with good credit,” he wrote in March 2011.

He also repeatedly referred to cops as “pigs” on social media

It was also revealed this week that although Noerdlinger won special approval to live in New Jersey by claiming her son was injured, the strapping young man had fully recovered and even played linebacker for his high school football team.

Noerdlinger — who did not reply to a request for comment — claimed her 17-year-old son, Khari, suffered devastating injuries in two cars crashes.

But the aspiring rapper played nine games and racked up 41 tackles and two sacks during the last school year’s season.

Additional reporting by Yoav Gonen and Larry Celona

Chirlane aide used son's injury to live in NJ, despite his recovery

NYC's first lady, Chirlane McCray, plays politics in city gall

Sharpton aide named chief of staff for de Blasio’s wife


  March 5, 2004

Hon. Joel I. Klein
Chancellor
New York City Public Schools
Department of Education
52 Chambers Street, Room 314
New York, NY 10007

                                                                                       Re:    Diana Lam
                                                                                                SCI Case #2003-2206

Dear Chancellor Klein:

        An investigation conducted by this office has found that Diana Lam, Deputy Chancellor for Teaching and Learning for the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), assisted her husband, Peter Plattes, in gaining employment with the DOE in the position of a Regional Instructional Specialist (“RIS”).   When Plattes lost that position because a conflict of interest issue was raised, Lam then supported his decision to apply for a teaching position.  In both instances, Lam failed to request the appropriate waiver or obtain approval.  Our investigation revealed that there was no public waiver document issued by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.

        In August 2003, this office initiated the investigation into a possible conflict of interest in the employment of Plattes after newspaper articles reported on his DOE position and his relationship to Lam.

Plattes as a RIS


        As Deputy Chancellor for Teaching and Learning, Diana Lam supervises all instructional staff, including RISs.  To review the circumstances of the alleged employment of her husband by the DOE, investigators examined documentary evidence and interviewed a number of employees involved in the process.

        Judith Chin, who is the Regional Superintendent for Region 3 and reports directly to Lam, was among the first individuals whom Lam approached regarding her husband’s employment.  According to Chin, sometime in 2003, Diana Lam asked her to explain the procedures one needed to follow in order to become a teacher and/or an administrator in the New York City public school system.   Chin stated that while discussing the necessary steps with Lam, the Deputy Chancellor indicated that her husband was interested in gaining such employment.   Chin and Lam decided that Lam would have her husband call to arrange a meeting with Chin who agreed to assist Lam’s husband with the application and certification processes.   As a result, when Lam’s husband, Peter Plattes, came to her office on March 26, 2003, Chin had her staff assist him.   According to Chin, a number of weeks later she provided Plattes’s resume to Laura Rodriguez, Regional Superintendent for Region 2.  Chin explained that she had filled all her RIS positions and had already sent a personnel list to one of Lam’s assistants and possibly to Lam herself.  However, during an exchange of candidates’ resumes amongst the various regional superintendents, she came upon Plattes’s and handed it to Rodriguez because she was aware that Rodriguez was looking to fill a bilingual position.  Chin stated that she advised Rodriguez of Plattes’s relationship to the Deputy Chancellor.  Chin indicated that she would have felt uncomfortable if she had interviewed the husband of her immediate supervisor. 

        Investigators examined Plattes’s DOE employment application, which indicated that Chin had approved it.   However, Chin stated that she did not place her authorization signature on Plattes’s application.  Instead, she suspected that one of her staff members, Jean Ruchala, former Deputy Director for the Office of Recruitment, must have done so since Chin had requested that Ruchala assist Plattes in processing his paperwork.   Chin explained that her approval was necessary because Plattes’s application indicated that he was requesting a teaching license in the area of social studies, which was not a shortage area.   Moreover, Plattes apparently did not possess sufficient credentials to obtain a bilingual teaching certification, which was considered a shortage area.   Chin explained that an application for non-shortage areas would be held in abeyance and not processed until there was such a shortage or it had been otherwise approved.

        Laura Rodriguez, Superintendent for Region 2, who was hired for her current position by Lam, interviewed Peter Plattes for a RIS position, which paid approximately $102,000 per year.   Rodriguez explained that she submitted Plattes’s name, along with those of others she wished to hire, to Lam and Chancellor Joel Klein for their approval and that, at a meeting of regional superintendents, Klein informed her that all submitted candidates were acceptable.   Rodriguez stated that Plattes was then offered the RIS position, subsequently accepted it, and officially began his employment with the DOE on July 1, 2003. 

        Rodriguez stated that just prior to August 1, 2003, Chad Vignola, General Counsel for the DOE, advised her that there was a possibility that Plattes would no longer be working for the DOE.   According to Rodriguez, shortly after her conversation with Vignola, Plattes advised her that he could not continue working as a RIS.

        Superintendent Rodriguez along with Eric Nadelstern, Deputy Regional Superintendent for Region 2, interviewed Plattes for a paid position.   According to Nadelstern, Plattes was hired for the RIS position and he was assigned to work with Lorraine Skeen, a Local Instructional Superintendent (“LIS”) for Region 2.  Nadelstern stated that around August 1, 2003, Rodriguez informed him that Plattes would no longer be working at Region 2.

        LIS Lorraine Skeen confirmed Plattes’s employment.  She provided investigators with a number of documents relating to Plattes, including: a Region 2 RIS roster listing Plattes’s name, home address and phone number as well as his office extension; a Region 2 telephone directory containing Plattes’s name and indicating his position as a RIS; a Region 2 summer calendar contact sheet containing Plattes’s name; a Region 2 workshop agenda containing Plattes’s name; and several inter-office e-mails sent to Plattes.  According to Skeen, Nadelstern advised her that she and Plattes would be working together and that Plattes is Lam’s husband.  Skeen stated that she began working with Plattes sometime in June or July of 2003 and that they were involved in the training of Region 2 principals.

        Dr. Joyce Coppin, former Chief Executive of the Division of Human Resources for the DOE, also was approached by Lam.  According to Coppin, sometime in July 2003, Lam handed her an envelope bearing Plattes’s name and stated “these are my husband’s.  Can you take them back [to the Human Resources offices] with you?”   Coppin stated that she turned the envelope over to JoAnn Molter-Fuentes, Director of the Office of Supervisory Support Staff.   Coppin added that a few weeks later Lam requested that she deliver a second envelope to Molter-Fuentes.   According to Coppin, Lam stated “these are Peter’s papers, I think everything is there.” 

        Coppin stated that around the first week of August 2003, she participated in a conference call with Laverne Srinivasan, Deputy Chancellor of Operations for the DOE, and Chad Vignola, General Counsel for the DOE.  According to Coppin, Srinivasan questioned “has Peter Plattes been processed for payroll yet?” and then directed “if not, put it on hold.”  Coppin stated that she instructed Molter-Fuentes to stop the payroll process immediately and then advised Srinivasan and Vignola that the paperwork had been halted.  Coppin added that Srinivasan then questioned “has [Plattes] been paid yet?” and “will the system show that he was being paid?”  According to Coppin, she advised Srinivasan and Vignola that Plattes’s information had not been entered into the system, therefore his name would not appear.

        Coppin told investigators that two or three days later Lam approached her and stated, “I am sorry that you and your office had to be put through this thing…I sent an e-mail to Chad [Vignola] regarding [my husband’s employment] to find out if there would be any issues.”   Coppin stated that on a subsequent occasion at the Tweed Courthouse Building, she returned Plattes’s application and related documents to Lam.

        JoAnn Molter-Fuentes explained the RIS application process to investigators.  According to Molter-Fuentes, applications for the RIS position were submitted both through the mail and over the Internet and that the documents then were sorted and distributed to the various Superintendents’ Offices.   Molter-Fuentes stated that once an applicant accepted the position, payroll documentation, including a vacancy control form (“VCF”) and a 9902 form, was processed.   According to Molter-Fuentes, she received an envelope from Coppin which contained Plattes’s paperwork, including his application and transcripts.  Molter-Fuentes explained that Plattes could not be placed into the payroll system until he either was certified or was deemed eligible for certification as a school administrator by the New York State Education Department (“SED”).  Molter-Fuentes stated that when she contacted the SED in order to determine the status of Plattes’s school administrator’s certification, she was advised that one college transcript had to be submitted to complete the process.   In anticipation of Plattes receiving his certification, Molter-Fuentes instructed Maria Quinones, Human Resources Manager for Region 1 and 2, to enter a VCF and 9902 in order to expedite his placement on the payroll.   However, on or about August 1, 2003, Coppin contacted her and directed her not to process Plattes’s payroll documents.   Molter-Fuentes stated that she then contacted her Deputy Administrator for the Office of Supervisory Support Services, Carol LaBozzetta, and instructed her to delete Plattes’s VCF from the system and to retrieve his 9902 form.

        Maria Quinones also was involved in processing Plattes’s paperwork.  According to Quinones, sometime in July 2003, she received an e-mail from Molter-Fuentes directing her to place Plattes on the payroll, therefore, she instructed her staff to complete a VCF and a 9902 form.   In the e-mail, Molter-Fuentes advised Quinones that Plattes is Lam’s husband.   Quinones interpreted this information to mean that Plattes should be entered into the payroll system immediately so she made certain that her staff completed the necessary paperwork without delay.   According to Quinones, within a day or two she was contacted by someone from Molter-Fuentes’s office and directed not to process Plattes’s payroll paperwork.  As a result, she disposed of her copy of Plattes’s paperwork. 

        Carol LaBozzetta explained her involvement with Plattes’s paperwork.  According to LaBozzetta, sometime between the end of July 2003 and the beginning of August 2003, she entered a VCF into the system under Plattes’s name and sent the 9902 form for processing.   However, the following day, Molter-Fuentes directed her to retrieve the 9902 form and delete the VCF information from the system.   According to LaBozzetta, she recovered Plattes’s paperwork and placed it in Molter-Fuentes’s office.

        David Schacher, Ethics Officer for the DOE, was not contacted about Plattes’s position with the DOE, instead Lam told him about her husband’s employment almost as an afterthought.   Schacher explained that during a July 18, 2003 meeting with Lam to discuss an unrelated matter, she mentioned to him that her husband was hired at one of the Regional Operations Centers and that she had supervisory authority over him.  According to Schacher, Lam claimed that she had no involvement in the hiring of her husband and she asserted that no one was aware of their relationship.  During the conversation, Lam failed to provide her husband’s name or his work site and Schacher neglected to request the information.  However, following the meeting, Schacher examined Lam’s disclosure documents and discovered that her husband’s name was Peter Plattes.  He then conducted a check of the DOE e-mail directory system which revealed that Plattes was a RIS in Region 2.  Schacher immediately advised Vignola via e-mail of the information he had uncovered.

        Chad Vignola confirmed learning about Plattes’s position with the DOE from Schacher.  Although he had two brief conversations with Lam, Vignola stated that he was unaware that Plattes had even applied for a job.  Instead, Lam suggested that her husband might be interested in seeking employment with the DOE, to which he replied that he did not foresee a problem, but that there was a process that had to be followed because she could not supervise him.   Vignola stated that on July 18, 2003, he first learned from Schacher that Plattes had been hired in Region 2 as a RIS and he later learned that Plattes had been working for several weeks.  Although Lam claimed that she had nothing to do with her husband’s hiring, Vignola was advised by Coppin that Lam had directed her to deliver Plattes’s paperwork to the Human Resources office.

        Vignola asserted that on July 24th or 25th he and Srinivasan advised Lam that her husband could not hold the RIS position.   However, no apparent steps were taken to achieve that end – including notifying Laura Rodriguez – until July 31st, the date of the media inquiry.

        In an interview with investigators, Peter Plattes stated that Diana Lam is his wife.  Plattes acknowledged that Lam assisted him in his quest to gain employment with the DOE by providing him with Chin’s name and telephone number and instructing him to meet with her.

        Plattes confirmed that Rodriguez and Nadelstern interviewed him for a RIS position in Region 2, he was offered the position, and he accepted it.   Thereafter, he attended optional meetings/training sessions in order to prepare himself for his official start date of July 1, 2003.  Plattes acknowledged that when he started working as a RIS on July 1, 2003, he expected to receive compensation from the DOE effective that date.

        Plattes claimed that he was unaware that his wife submitted documents on his behalf to the DOE and asserted that he had submitted his transcripts directly to the SED and not through the DOE.  Although Plattes declared that he did not utilize DOE staff to channel his transcripts to the SED, Molter-Fuentes had advised Plattes that she would send those documents to the SED to complete his certification application.  Therefore, on July 23, 2003, Plattes faxed his transcripts to Molter-Fuentes who, in turn, faxed them to the SED.  Moreover, Plattes sent a note to Molter-Fuentes, dated August 14, 2003, which stated that he had decided not to pursue an administrative position at this time, but would still like to obtain his supervisory certification.  Plattes enclosed an additional transcript for Molter-Fuentes to forward to the SED.   According to Plattes, his social studies certification to teach was the only one that he received from the SED, adding that he did not receive an administrator’s certification because he failed to submit one transcript.

        In an interview with investigators, Lam stated that her husband is Peter Plattes.  Lam asserted that after her husband advised her that he wished to pursue employment at the DOE she contacted Vignola.   Lam stated that she probably had another conversation with Vignola after Plattes was offered the position, but she did not remember the details of the discussion.
        Lam admitted that she contacted Chin on her husband’s behalf and that, as a result, Plattes went to see Chin.  Lam acknowledged that she asked Coppin to deliver her husband’s documents to the Human Resources offices.  However, she denied receiving Plattes’s paperwork back from Coppin. 

        Lam stated that she sent Chancellor Klein an e-mail indicating that her husband had been selected for employment as a RIS with the DOE, but admitted that she did not receive a response to her e-mail and failed to discuss the issue with Klein.

        Lam maintained that she first learned that there might be a problem in the supervisory chain after she advised Schacher of her husband’s employment.  Thereafter, Srinivasan and Vignola told her that Klein was uncomfortable with Plattes’s employment as a RIS.  Lam claimed that when she informed her husband of the Chancellor’s feelings, Plattes expressed that he was no longer interested in the paid administrative position, but wanted to continue without compensation.  According to Lam, Plattes did not “quit,” since he had not received a written notice that he had been hired.  Instead, Lam maintained that she advised Vignola and Srinivasan that Plattes had “reconsidered taking the offered position.”

        Lam later acknowledged that, although there was no written notification, Plattes had received a phone call in which he was offered the RIS position.  She admitted that Plattes accepted the paid position, attended a number of optional training sessions in June, began working July 1st, and expected to receive compensation for his work.  Lam agreed that she disclosed her husband’s employment to Schacher in a July meeting.  She also conceded that Plattes vacated the RIS position only after she was advised of the Chancellor’s opinion.

Plattes as a Teacher


        In the course of investigating the employment of Plattes as a RIS, we discovered that, after leaving that position, he was hired by the DOE as a teacher.  Consequently, we expanded our investigation to examine the circumstances surrounding that action.

        In September 2003, investigators conducted a background check on Plattes, which found that on August 31, 2003, he was listed in the DOE computer system as a teacher assigned to the Bronx Guild High School (“Guild”).  The review also showed that on September 8, 2003, the computer system was adjusted to reflect that Plattes would no longer be teaching.  However, a DOE payroll check was automatically generated for Plattes for the period covering September 1, 2003 through September 15, 2003.

        Peter Steinberg, Director of the Bronx New Century High Schools, was instrumental in Plattes’s placement at the Guild.  Steinberg explained that in the middle of August 2003, Principal Michael Soguero contacted him regarding a vacancy at the Guild and Steinberg provided Plattes’s information to Soguero.   According to Steinberg, after he learned that Plattes was hired as a teacher he informed Nadelstern and a few days later Nadelstern advised him that Plattes would have to vacate the position.  

        Soguero confirmed that in middle to late August 2003, he contacted Steinberg regarding a teaching vacancy.  According to Soguero, Steinberg suggested that Plattes could fill the position.   Soguero stated that he hired Plattes for a teaching position and that Plattes attended optional professional development meetings the last week of August 2003.  Soguero explained that on August 28, 2003, Plattes informed him that he could no longer work at the school because “the Chancellor’s Office was worried about the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

        Dino Martinez, Supervising School Aide at the Guild, confirmed Plattes’s intention to work at the school.  He reported that Soguero hired Plattes in late August 2003, to fill a teaching position and that thereafter Plattes attended staff development meetings held during the week of August 25, 2003.  According to Martinez, on September 2, 2003, Soguero advised him that Plattes would not be returning to the Guild and that the school would have to fill his vacancy.  Martinez stated that he received Plattes’s paycheck, dated September 15, 2003, at the school.  Martinez turned over this paycheck to investigators from this office.  

        Sharon Dawkins, Personnel Team Member for Region 1 and 2, was involved in processing Plattes’s paperwork for the Guild position.  She explained that on August 21, 2003, Soguero sent an e-mail nominating Plattes for employment as a social studies teacher.  According to Dawkins, Plattes’s information was then entered into the computer system in order to process his payroll.  Dawkins stated that sometime in early September 2003, she received a telephone call from Martinez who stated that “Plattes cannot work here because it’s a conflict of interest, take him off.”

        In late September 2003, during an interview with investigators concerning Plattes’s employment as a RIS, Vignola first learned that Lam’s husband had been hired as a teacher for the DOE.   According to Vignola, Lam never informed him that her husband had obtained a paid teaching position.  Instead, Vignola reported that at some point, probably during the 3rd or 4th week of August, Lam told him that her husband was “volunteering” as a teacher, with an eye toward obtaining a position.  Vignola stated that he reminded Lam that she needed to check with the Chancellor before Plattes could pursue that type of position with the DOE even though it would be unpaid.  Vignola conceded that volunteers do not get paychecks from the DOE and agreed that if Plattes had been issued a paycheck that would have meant that the DOE had hired him.  Vignola acknowledged that it would be a waste of resources for Plattes to continue to seek a position within the DOE until a decision as to the propriety of such employment had been made.

        Deputy Chancellor of Operations Laverne Srinivasan also was surprised to learn of Plattes’s employment as a teacher.  According to Srinivasan, Lam was advised that a teaching position might be appropriate, but she was not told to pursue such an avenue.

        Srinivasan was unaware until after this investigation began that Plattes had accepted a teaching assignment and that a DOE paycheck had been generated.

        Plattes asserted that Lam informed him that he had approval to pursue a teaching position.  Plattes received Soguero’s name from Steinberg and contacted him.  In anticipation of starting to teach on September 2, 2003, Plattes attended optional training sessions.  However, a few days before he expected to begin working, his wife told him that a teaching position also was unacceptable.  He explained that he then notified Soguero that he would be unable to work as a teacher at the Guild.

        Lam stated that it was her understanding that a teaching position was acceptable for her husband to pursue.  Lam claimed that Srinivasan or Vignola later advised her that her husband could not hold a teaching position.

        Chancellor Joel Klein was not informed that Plattes had been hired as a teacher.  According to the Chancellor, when Lam inquired as to the possibility of her husband gaining employment as a teacher, he told her to check with the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.  He explained that he was unaware that Plattes had actually applied for and been offered a teaching position before such a conferral had occurred.

Plattes as a Volunteer


        After DOE officials determined that Plattes’s employment by the DOE was inappropriate, the issue became how to explain the situation given the media inquiry.  A decision was made to remove Plattes’s information from the DOE’s Human Resource system, have him “donate” his services, and label him a “volunteer.”  Nevertheless, the facts remain clear that Plattes was hired by the DOE as a RIS.

        Chin stated that at the time she assisted Plattes, she headed the employee recruitment department, not the volunteer department, and that she did not believe that Plattes would have been required to complete the paperwork in her office in order to be a volunteer.

        Rodriguez explained that she hired Plattes to be a RIS.  According to Rodriguez, Plattes performed the duties that were expected of him, she expected him to be compensated for the work he performed, and at no time was there a discussion that he was volunteering for the position.  Rodriguez maintained that she had hired Plattes as a paid employee.

        Srinivasan stated that Rodriguez clearly offered Plattes a job, which he clearly accepted, but that she was advised by Coppin that Plattes’s paperwork had not been fully processed.   After a discussion with Vignola, Srinivasan instructed Coppin to stop Plattes’s paperwork and therefore it was halted.

        Srinivasan explained that it was Chancellor Klein’s position that Plattes’s employment as a RIS was inappropriate.   Consequently, Srinivasan and Vignola explained to Lam that it was ill-advised for her husband to hold the position.  According to Srinivasan, it was decided that in light of the fact that Plattes’s paperwork had not been fully processed, the time that the Deputy Chancellor’s husband had worked should be considered volunteer time.  Moreover, it was agreed that Plattes would forego his earnings for the period that he worked.  She explained that, through Lam, they asked Plattes to donate the time worked in order “to remove the specter of anything inappropriate.”

        It remained unclear to Srinivasan whether the DOE had ever employed Plattes as a RIS, nevertheless, she acknowledged that Plattes had not intended to be a volunteer when he began working.   When she was shown the e-mail Vignola sent to her on July 31, 2003, which stated that “Peter agreed to help out as a volunteer back in June,” Srinivasan stated that the e-mail was not accurate.  Instead, she explained that after it was determined that he could not keep the position, Plattes’s work for the DOE was deemed to be volunteer time because Plattes agreed to forego the pay he was entitled to receive.

        In Vignola’s view, because Plattes’s information had not been put into the payroll system, he was not an employee, even though he was offered the RIS position, accepted the position, and was performing the duties associated with the position.  According to Vignola, Rodriguez first learned that Plattes would no longer be working in Region 2 when he told her on July 31st.  At that time, Rodriguez advised Vignola that Plattes’s paperwork had already been sent to Human Resources for processing.  On that same date, Vignola was informed by Coppin that Plattes’s final paperwork was at her office and he and Srinivasan instructed her to cease processing it.  According to Vignola, “you are not an employee until we complete the hiring process.”   Consequently, at his direction, the media was told that Plattes had been a volunteer.

        Vignola acknowledged that Rodriguez, Plattes, and Lam believed that Plattes was an employee.  Vignola also conceded that Plattes clearly did not intend to donate his time when he began working for the DOE in July.  Vignola stated that had the hiring process for Plattes as a RIS been completed he would have gotten paid retroactively to July 1, 2003.  Vignola maintained that when it was determined that the hiring process had yet to be completed, it was decided that Plattes’s work time in July should be considered volunteer time.  Vignola added that, on Plattes’s behalf, Lam agreed that the time that Plattes had worked for the DOE would be deemed volunteer time and that Plattes would forego his earnings for the period of July.  Vignola continued that he was unconcerned with the status of the paperwork after his discussion with Lam.

        According to Chancellor Klein, either Vignola or Srinivasan informed him that Plattes was volunteering as a RIS at one of the Regions.  He stated that he told Lam that Plattes could not work in such a position.

        Plattes stated that sometime in the middle of July 2003, he got the impression from his wife that Chancellor Klein was uncomfortable with him holding the RIS position.  Plattes claimed that in the middle of July 2003 he decided to quit the RIS position but that he kept “volunteering” until the middle of August 2003.   Plattes also claimed that it was his idea that he would start volunteering.  Nevertheless, Plattes conceded that he accepted the RIS position, was not volunteering on July 1, 2003, and expected to receive compensation.  However, according to Plattes, he later advised his wife, “I really do not care if I get paid.”

        Plattes acknowledged that he delayed in notifying Rodriguez that he would be resigning.  In fact, he stated that the subject came up in the middle of an unrelated conversation with Rodriguez.  Plattes stated that he informed Rodriguez that he would continue until Skeen returned from her vacation.

        Lam asserted that she played no role in the response to media inquiries about her husband’s employment status.  However, Lam acknowledged that when her husband decided not to continue at Region 2 as an administrator, it was agreed that he would be called a volunteer.  According to Lam, since Plattes was not going to be permitted to continue in the RIS position, he did not want to get paid for the period that he had been working.  Lam conceded that the information that her husband had “considered” taking the job, which was provided to the media, was not accurate and Plattes “actually” had taken the position.  Moreover, Lam refused to say that Plattes “quit” and instead insisted that Plattes “reconsidered” taking the job after he learned of the Chancellor’s discomfort with him holding the position.

Conclusion


        Based on the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence gathered during this investigation, it is clear that Diana Lam made a concerted effort to obtain employment for her husband with the DOE.  Lam contacted DOE employees on her husband’s behalf and submitted paperwork in support of his application.  Subordinate employees who tried to expedite Plattes’s hiring flatly contradict Lam’s assertion that no one was aware of their relationship.  We are forwarding our findings for your information and review.  In addition, Lam’s conduct may constitute a violation of Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter, which is administered by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.

        We are forwarding a copy of this report to the Office of Legal Services.  We are also sending our findings to the State Education Department.  Should you have any inquiries regarding the above, please contact Eileen Daly, the attorney assigned to this case.  She may be reached at (212) 510-1407.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.

                                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                                        RICHARD J. CONDON
                                                                                        Special Commissioner
                                                                                        of Investigation for the
                                                                                        New York City School District



                                                                                        By:     __________________________
                                                                                        Regina A. Loughran
                                                                                        First Deputy Commissioner


RJC:RAL:ss
c:    Chad Vignola, Esq.
       Theresa Europe, Esq.
       Rick Stewart, Auditor General

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Sol Stern: Who Is Carmen Farina?


Carmen Farina
Sol Stern
 
 
Who Is Carmen Fariña?
 
Mayor De Blasio’s new schools chancellor is a longtime champion of failed progressive pedagogy.
 
In his press conference introducing Carmen Fariña as New York City’s next schools chancellor, Mayor Bill de Blasio suggested that he had picked her over several other candidates because she was on the same page with him in opposing Bloomberg-era education reforms. Most of the city’s education reporters took the new mayor’s spin and ran with it, even though Fariña had served loyally as Michael Bloomberg’s second-highest-ranking education official. Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez predicted that Fariña would now bring “revolutionary” changes to the department of education that she left in 2006. A headline in The Hechinger Report claimed that Fariña wanted DRAMATIC—EVEN JOYFUL—DEPARTURE FROM BLOOMBERG ERA. But that depends on what Bloomberg era you’re talking about: during the years that she served in the administration, Fariña was fully on board with its education policies.

In fact, considering Fariña’s pivotal role during the first Bloomberg term in shaping the Department of Education’s radical initiatives, portraying her as a dissident from within seems absurd. Mayor Bloomberg took control of the schools in June 2002, but he knew little about what actually went on in the city’s classrooms. He appointed Joel Klein, a corporate lawyer with no background in instructional issues, as his first schools chancellor.

 Bloomberg and Klein deferred virtually all decision-making on classroom instruction and curriculum to a cadre of veteran progressive educators led by Diana Lam, Klein’s first deputy chancellor for teaching and learning. Lam and Fariña  convinced Klein to introduce the constructivist “balanced-literacy” reading and writing program, developed by Lucy Calkins of Columbia Teachers College, along with a fuzzy constructivist-math program called Everyday Math, into just about every elementary school classroom in the city. (Klein would eventually realize that adopting balanced literacy was a serious mistake.)

In an early 2003 speech presenting his administration’s new education reforms, Mayor Bloomberg declared that the “experience of other urban school districts shows that a standardized approach to reading, writing, and math is the best way to raise student performance across the board in all subjects,” and therefore that “the chancellor’s office will dictate the curriculum.” And so it did. Lam soon became embroiled in a nepotism scandal and had to resign.

Fariña then took over as deputy chancellor for instruction. She became the DOE’s enforcer, making sure that all teachers in the elementary schools toed the line and implemented Calkins’s constructivist methods for teaching reading and writing. Teachers received a list of “nonnegotiable” guidelines for arranging their classrooms, including such minute details as the requirement that there must be a rug on the floor for students to sit on in the early grades and that nothing but student work be posted on the walls.

Balanced literacy has no track record of raising the academic performance of poor minority children. No independent research study has ever evaluated its methodology. Nevertheless, it was popular in education schools because it promulgated two of progressive education’s key commandments: that teachers must abandon deadening “drill and kill” methods and that students are capable of “constructing their own knowledge.” Progressives such as Calkins evoked ideal classrooms, where young children naturally find their way to literacy without enduring boring, scripted phonics drills forced on them by automaton teachers. Instead, in a balanced-literacy classroom, students work in small groups and follow what Calkins calls the “workshop model” of cooperative learning. The program takes for granted that children can learn to read and write naturally, with minimal guidance. Calkins rejects E.D. Hirsch’s finding (based on an overwhelming consensus in cognitive-science research) that the key to improving children’s reading comprehension is grounding them in broad knowledge, which she and other progressives dismiss as “mere facts.” Calkins also believes that her model classrooms promote “social justice” for all. In an interview I conducted with her at the time the DOE selected her program, she told me that “It’s a great move to social justice to bring [balanced literacy] to every school in the city.”

That’s what Fariña tried to accomplish in the early years of the Bloomberg administration—including the social-justice part. She was instrumental in creating the most centralized, top-down instructional system in the recent history of American public education. Agents of the deputy chancellor (euphemistically called “coaches”) fanned out to almost all city elementary schools to make sure that every teacher was marching in lockstep with the department of education’s new pedagogical approach. Under the rubric of “professional development,” DOE central headquarters launched an aggressive campaign to force teachers to teach literacy and math only one way—the progressive way. Each of the city’s 80,000 teachers got a six-hour CD-ROM laying out the philosophy behind the new standardized curriculum and pedagogy. The CD portrayed the world of progressive education writ large, with all its romantic assumptions about how children learn. In addition to inculcating Calkins’s balanced literacy, the DOE’s training manual celebrated the theories of an obscure Australian education guru—Brian Cambourne of Wollongong University in New South Wales, a leader of the whole-language movement (a cousin of balanced literacy) then dominating Australian public schools. Cambourne’s ideas gave city teachers not only more balanced literacy (or whole language) theory, but also a warrant for social-justice teaching.

Cambourne claims that as a young teacher, he discovered that many of his poorly performing students were actually quite bright. To his surprise, almost all demonstrated extraordinary competence in performing challenging tasks. The son of the local bookie, for example, “couldn’t learn basic math,” according to Cambourne, “but could calculate the probability the Queen of Spades was in the deck faster than I could.” Cambourne decided that children learn better in natural settings, with a minimum of adult help—a staple of progressive-education thought. Thus the role of the educator should be to create classroom environments that stimulate children but also closely resemble the way adults work and learn. Children should no longer sit in rows facing the teacher; instead, the room should be arranged with work areas where children can construct their own knowledge, much as in Calkins’s workshop model of balanced literacy.

Such constructivist assumptions about how to teach literacy were enforced with draconian discipline in city schools for several years. Progressives like Calkins, Cambourne, and Fariña don’t insist that more learning occurs when children work in groups and in “natural” settings because they’ve followed any evidence. To the contrary, as much as it tells us anything on this issue, science makes clear that, particularly for disadvantaged children, direct, explicit instruction works best. But under Fariña, reeducation sessions for teachers were meant to overcome dissenting opinion and drive home the progressive party line. To quote the directives to teachers included on the CD: “Your students must not be sitting in rows. You must not stand at the head of the class. You must not do ‘chalk and talk’ at the blackboard. You must have a ‘workshop’ in every single reading period. Your students must be ‘active learners,’ and they must work in groups.”

As I reported at the time, some brave teachers objected. At Junior High School 44 in Manhattan, a teacher tried to point out to his supervisor, quite reasonably, that some teachers feel more comfortable with and get better results through direct instruction and other traditional methods. The school’s literacy coach, sent by the DOE, then responded: “This is the way it is. Everyone will do it this way, or you can change schools.”

Calkins was grateful for Carmen Fariña’s efforts in advancing her instructional agenda, her career, and her organization’s bottom line. (Calkins’s Readers and Writers Program at Teachers College received over $10 million in no-bid contracts from the city.) Calkins expressed her appreciation in a foreword she penned for Fariña’s book, A School Leader’s Guide to Excellence, coauthored with Laura Koch, Fariña’s closest associate and collaborator at the DOE. “When Carmen and Laura took the helm of New York City’s school system, teachers, staff developers, and principals across the entire city let out a collective cheer of enthusiasm,” Calkins writes. She conjures a glorious history: “Within a week [of Fariña’s promotion to deputy chancellor for instruction] our education system began to change. Educators at every level could feel possibility in the air; the excitement was palpable.” And because of Fariña’s magic, “sound practices in the teaching of reading and writing became the talk of the town—the subject of study groups and hallway conversations in every school . . . The entire city began working together afresh to meet the challenge of improving education for all children.”

In reality, though, the balanced-literacy advocates failed in this task. The city’s eighth-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests barely budged over 12 years, despite a doubling of education spending—from $12 billion to $24 billion. There was no narrowing of the racial achievement gap. (In sounding his tale of two cities theme, Mayor de Blasio makes no accounting for the failure of progressive education programs to reduce the academic achievement gap between poor and middle-class children.)

Recognizing balanced literacy’s meager results, Chancellor Klein reverted to a system of more autonomous schools, giving principals far more discretion over instructional matters. Klein apparently came to believe that he had been misled by Fariña and Calkins. The chancellor then became a supporter of Hirsch’s Core Knowledge curriculum, with its focus on direct instruction and the teaching of broad content knowledge. He set up a three-year pilot program, matching ten elementary schools using the Hirsch early-grade literacy curriculum against a demographically similar cohort of ten schools that used balanced literacy. The children in the Core Knowledge schools significantly outperformed those in the schools using the Calkins approach.

Still opposing the direct teaching of factual knowledge, Fariña recently shrugged off the pilot study, saying that not enough schools were involved. But if Fariña is serious about that criticism, she now has an opportunity to run a much larger evaluation of Core Knowledge. As a result of the city’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards and of aligned curricula emphasizing the “rich content knowledge” that the standards require, 71 elementary school principals have chosen to use Hirsch’s Core Knowledge literacy program in their schools.

Let Fariña visit and study those schools over the next year. If she really is committed to changing the tale of two cities, as she and the new mayor claim to be, one way to start would be to cast aside ideology and judge whether those Core Knowledge classrooms, drenched in “mere facts,” are actually the key to narrowing the devastating knowledge gap between middle-class kids and poor children, who begin school with little knowledge of the world and with a stunted vocabulary. She might also find that there is at least as much “joy” in classrooms in which children get taught explicitly about the world around them as there is in classrooms in which children “construct” their own knowledge.
Diana Lam

On the Lam

The mayor wanted basic change in the schools, and Diana Lam provided it—until unsavory tactics proved her undoing. Where does the chancellor turn now?

Joel Klein is not the man he was two years ago when Mike Bloomberg asked him to head the nation’s largest public-school system, and much of his evolution—especially his belief that children learn as much reading alone as they do from being taught by teachers—took place at the knee of Diana Lam. In a cabinet of private-sector and think-tank émigrés, Lam, Klein’s deputy for instruction, was the only career educator; while most of his team focused on rejiggering the bureaucracy, Lam introduced the one piece of reform that actually had to do with the way kids are taught. But now that she has left in disgrace—forced out for nepotism, igniting the mayor’s first major personnel scandal—Klein finds himself in an awkward position: He feels the need to defend her as an educator while condemning her sin. And yet, even as the scandal grows, Klein’s condemnation seems halfhearted.

“Some people for ideological reasons disagreed with her about the curriculum,” Klein says. “That became an issue. And in this business, people get polarized. That’s unfortunate. But I think that she was a sound educator, and I have confidence in her educational judgments.”

Klein defended Lam to Bloomberg, too, before the mayor finally persuaded him to get her resignation, which suggests either a certain political myopia or a devotedness to the deputy who became his mentor. In the beginning, Klein had hired her to be a change agent, offering her the job after just a few meetings not because of her educational philosophy but because they clicked. “I liked her style,” he told me last year. Did he know anything about the educational programs she used? “No,” he admitted. But he did know this: Four times, in four different cities, Lam would start up a campaign of parental engagement, introduce a new curriculum, and see test scores bump up a tick or two. And for an education novice whose boss needed the scores to go up before the next election, that seemed like a good deal.

In Lam, Klein had found a fellow anti-incrementalist; in a pedagogical culture of marathoners, she was a sprinter. Revamp the middle schools? No problem. Cut out social promotion in the third grade? Done. Devise a special-ed plan and break up the big high schools? You got it. She was dynamic and uncompromising at a time when managing the educational bureaucracy was at the forefront of the mayor’s thinking about education.

She was also impolitic, a lousy listener. She didn’t mind whom she provoked. The $800,000 buyout in San Antonio. The wacky three-day campaign for mayor in Boston. The bad blood in Dubuque. And the last few months in Providence, where she rigged a bidding war with Portland, Oregon, to boost her salary and then abruptly accepted the job in New York, giving notice by e-mail. In the end, Lam didn’t need any help imploding.

Last summer, newspapers were tipped off that her husband, Peter Plattes, was working in a department that reports directly to her. Lam claimed that Plattes never formally accepted the job, but another tipster revealed this to be a lie. Guessing who whispered to investigators about Lam’s indiscretions has become a parlor game at Tweed Courthouse. “She was done in by people inside the system who work for her,” says one source who sat on a board with Lam. “Not by reporters or teachers.”

In the final act last week, when a report by the schools investigator forced Bloomberg’s hand, Lam made sure she wouldn’t flame out alone: She said she’d been given the blessing of general counsel Chad Vignola, who resigned a few days later. For a mayor who has staked his reelection on cleaning up the schools, this is no time for an accountability crisis. But Klein, claiming all is well, continues to cast himself as a reformer—and Lam as a target of those who opposed reform.

“She didn’t mind whom she provoked. In the end, Lam didn’t need any help imploding.”
Lam’s enemies were ideological and political as well as personal. Phonics fans like Diane Ravitch were appalled by her philosophy of allowing long blocks of unstructured time for children to simply read and write on their own. Liberals hated the pressure the program put on teachers. The joke around Tweed was that for the first time, teachers-union chief Randi Weingarten and Manhattan Institute pundit Sol Stern agreed on something—that Diana Lam was a disaster.

“Wherever she went, the teachers hated her,” says Stern. “Her forte is a tremendous emphasis on top-down staff development. You haul all of the teachers and principals out of the classrooms constantly and pound into them what it is you want done.” Those headlines about how teachers are shocked that they have to keep lessons to less than eleven minutes—Lam took the blame for that. Which is why Weingarten felt comfortable sending Lam off last week with the hope that “we can start making educational decisions based on what works for children rather than on one administrator’s personal ideology.”

In recasting the system in Lam’s image, Klein embraced a curriculum already used in wealthier parts of town like the Upper West and Upper East sides—alarming conservatives who believe poor kids need something more structured, like phonics. Klein and Lam capitulated, making a phonics program available to qualify for federal money, but it’s clear Klein still believes in Lam’s approach. “People want to put adjectives on it instead of understanding the texture and nuance,” Klein says, “which is a much more complicated set of issues about how you not only teach children how to read words but to have an excitement for reading—to share ideas. So I think this is the right solution, and I think people are giving this a bad rap.”
In the last several months, Lam had become so disliked that Klein was shielding her from public exposure. “Clearly, she was the lead educational thinker,” says Eva Moskowitz, chair of the City Council’s education committee. “But there was a vacuum when it came to who would be allowed to publicly defend the rationale. I don’t think either Klein or Lam really took seriously the level of dissatisfaction in the system.”

Now that she’s gone, there’s not much of a chance for Klein to exhale. “I think we have the right mix of talent,” he says. “Let’s wait and see if we bring in somebody else to fill that role on a permanent basis.”

If?

“Well, it’ll depend, obviously, on whether we find the right person,” he says.

Much of what people found provocative about Diana Lam—the new curricula, the speed of the reforms—remains in place. But from here on out, Klein will be taking the heat alone. He’s graduated.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Mayor Bill De Blasio Makes a Huge Error in Choosing Carmen Farina as Chancellor

How soon do politicians forget, hoping that the parents and teachers of New York City public schools do too?
 
Carmen Farina

Carmen Farina is a disaster for individual liberty, freedom of speech, and asking questions about School Leadership Teams and where money flows when it enters a Principal's hands. She rammed TERC math down the throats of everyone at PS 6, and, when my 4th grade daughter wrote an article about how she hated it, Carmen removed her from Math Team:

http://www.parentadvocates.org/nicecontent/dsp_printable.cfm?articleID=4524

Then to please Joel Klein, Carmen became the partner in buying the education-vendor-complex nonsense ("I don't care what the curriculum is, but I have to make money from it or I wont use it").  She replaced disgraced Deputy Chancellor Diana Lam. Elizabeth Carson of NYC HOLD says this:

" Farina was a perfectly aligned replacement for Lam, supportive of her failed education ideology
and universal Children First curricular choices, curricular choices that now even former Chancellor Klein himself admits were a disaster !!!"

Elizabeth sent this to me on facebook (thanks, Elizabeth!):

On the Lam

The mayor wanted basic change in the schools, and Diana Lam provided it—until unsavory tactics proved her undoing. Where does the chancellor turn now?

Joel Klein is not the man he was two years ago when Mike Bloomberg asked him to head the nation’s largest public-school system, and much of his evolution—especially his belief that children learn as much reading alone as they do from being taught by teachers—took place at the knee of Diana Lam. In a cabinet of private-sector and think-tank émigrés, Lam, Klein’s deputy for instruction, was the only career educator; while most of his team focused on rejiggering the bureaucracy, Lam introduced the one piece of reform that actually had to do with the way kids are taught. But now that she has left in disgrace—forced out for nepotism, igniting the mayor’s first major personnel scandal—Klein finds himself in an awkward position: He feels the need to defend her as an educator while condemning her sin. And yet, even as the scandal grows, Klein’s condemnation seems halfhearted.
“Some people for ideological reasons disagreed with her about the curriculum,” Klein says. “That became an issue. And in this business, people get polarized. That’s unfortunate. But I think that she was a sound educator, and I have confidence in her educational judgments.”
Klein defended Lam to Bloomberg, too, before the mayor finally persuaded him to get her resignation, which suggests either a certain political myopia or a devotedness to the deputy who became his mentor. In the beginning, Klein had hired her to be a change agent, offering her the job after just a few meetings not because of her educational philosophy but because they clicked. “I liked her style,” he told me last year. Did he know anything about the educational programs she used? “No,” he admitted. But he did know this: Four times, in four different cities, Lam would start up a campaign of parental engagement, introduce a new curriculum, and see test scores bump up a tick or two. And for an education novice whose boss needed the scores to go up before the next election, that seemed like a good deal.

In Lam, Klein had found a fellow anti-incrementalist; in a pedagogical culture of marathoners, she was a sprinter. Revamp the middle schools? No problem. Cut out social promotion in the third grade? Done. Devise a special-ed plan and break up the big high schools? You got it. She was dynamic and uncompromising at a time when managing the educational bureaucracy was at the forefront of the mayor’s thinking about education.
She was also impolitic, a lousy listener. She didn’t mind whom she provoked. The $800,000 buyout in San Antonio. The wacky three-day campaign for mayor in Boston. The bad blood in Dubuque. And the last few months in Providence, where she rigged a bidding war with Portland, Oregon, to boost her salary and then abruptly accepted the job in New York, giving notice by e-mail. In the end, Lam didn’t need any help imploding.
Last summer, newspapers were tipped off that her husband, Peter Plattes, was working in a department that reports directly to her. Lam claimed that Plattes never formally accepted the job, but another tipster revealed this to be a lie. Guessing who whispered to investigators about Lam’s indiscretions has become a parlor game at Tweed Courthouse. “She was done in by people inside the system who work for her,” says one source who sat on a board with Lam. “Not by reporters or teachers.”
In the final act last week, when a report by the schools investigator forced Bloomberg’s hand, Lam made sure she wouldn’t flame out alone: She said she’d been given the blessing of general counsel Chad Vignola, who resigned a few days later. For a mayor who has staked his reelection on cleaning up the schools, this is no time for an accountability crisis. But Klein, claiming all is well, continues to cast himself as a reformer—and Lam as a target of those who opposed reform.
“She didn’t mind whom she provoked. In the end, Lam didn’t need any help imploding.”
Lam’s enemies were ideological and political as well as personal. Phonics fans like Diane Ravitch were appalled by her philosophy of allowing long blocks of unstructured time for children to simply read and write on their own. Liberals hated the pressure the program put on teachers. The joke around Tweed was that for the first time, teachers-union chief Randi Weingarten and Manhattan Institute pundit Sol Stern agreed on something—that Diana Lam was a disaster.
“Wherever she went, the teachers hated her,” says Stern. “Her forte is a tremendous emphasis on top-down staff development. You haul all of the teachers and principals out of the classrooms constantly and pound into them what it is you want done.” Those headlines about how teachers are shocked that they have to keep lessons to less than eleven minutes—Lam took the blame for that. Which is why Weingarten felt comfortable sending Lam off last week with the hope that “we can start making educational decisions based on what works for children rather than on one administrator’s personal ideology.”
In recasting the system in Lam’s image, Klein embraced a curriculum already used in wealthier parts of town like the Upper West and Upper East sides—alarming conservatives who believe poor kids need something more structured, like phonics. Klein and Lam capitulated, making a phonics program available to qualify for federal money, but it’s clear Klein still believes in Lam’s approach. “People want to put adjectives on it instead of understanding the texture and nuance,” Klein says, “which is a much more complicated set of issues about how you not only teach children how to read words but to have an excitement for reading—to share ideas. So I think this is the right solution, and I think people are giving this a bad rap.”
in the last several months, lam had become so disliked that Klein was shielding her from public exposure. “Clearly, she was the lead educational thinker,” says Eva Moskowitz, chair of the City Council’s education committee. “But there was a vacuum when it came to who would be allowed to publicly defend the rationale. I don’t think either Klein or Lam really took seriously the level of dissatisfaction in the system.”
Now that she’s gone, there’s not much of a chance for Klein to exhale. “I think we have the right mix of talent,” he says. “Let’s wait and see if we bring in somebody else to fill that role on a permanent basis.”

If?

“Well, it’ll depend, obviously, on whether we find the right person,” he says.
Much of what people found provocative about Diana Lam—the new curricula, the speed of the reforms—remains in place. But from here on out, Klein will be taking the heat alone. He’s graduated.
and this:
Making The Grade: Is Education Reform Working in NYC?

Making The Grade: Is Education Reform Working in NYC?
LINK

When the New York state legislature voted to dismantle the central board of education in 2002, Michael Bloomberg became the first mayor in thirty-three years with broad control over the largest school system in the world. Soon after, the mayor appointed former antitrust lawyer Joel Klein schools chancellor, and began a radical overhaul of the city's 1200 public schools.

Three years later, what has mayoral control meant for the city's 1.1 million students? How has it affected life in the classroom? In this three-part series, NEW YORK VOICES' host Rafael Pi Roman takes an in-depth look at some of the key initiatives in the city's educational reform program.

Part 1: A Standard Curriculum
(Video at right »)

Before mayoral control, public elementary schools were allowed to pick their own curricula, but in September 2003, the NYC Department of Education instituted a new standard reading and math program in every public elementary school in the city except for the top 200. This reform meant that teachers in almost every classroom in the five boroughs were taking the same approach to teaching reading, writing, and math, so that when a student transferred schools, he or she wouldn't have to readjust to a new curriculum. It also allowed the NYC Department of Education to take a more direct role in determining the way that individual schools teach basic subjects.

Making The Grade: Is Education Reform Working in NYC?

But there has been an ongoing debate over the specific curricula chosen by the city. The English program selected is called "Balanced Literacy," which was paired with a word study approach called "Month by Month Phonics." Critics say these programs don't provide enough direct instruction, and lack a systematic approach to teaching reading through phonics. For its standard math curriculum, the city chose "Everyday Math," which critics say overemphasizes self-discovery learning without spending enough time teaching basic principles.

Deputy Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña, who is in charge of the curriculum, says that both programs do teach the fundamentals. She also says that Month by Month Phonics is no longer the city's main word study program, and there's now a menu of approaches that principals and teachers can choose from, many of which do take a systematic approach to teaching phonics. While critics of the math curriculum object to the fact that elementary school kids are encouraged to use calculators, Fariña says that the curriculum prepares students for a world in which basic computation skills aren't as necessary as they once were.

Making The Grade: Is Education Reform Working in NYC?

What are the pros and cons of the standard curricula, and did the NYC Department of Education implement the right programs? An in-depth field report assesses how educators in schools have responded to the changes, and how the teachers union and those close to the classroom assess instruction. Education expert Sol Stern, from the Manhattan Institute, and parent-activist Elizabeth Carson of NYC HOLD lay out criticism of the reading and math programs, while Deputy School Chancellor Carmen Fariña responds.

Read more about the participants in this program

Part 2: The Small School Initiative
(Video at top right »)

Since the mayor was given control over the public schools system in 2002, the NYC Department of Education has started 149 new small high schools, while phasing out many of the city's largest schools. The main idea behind this reform is that in a small environment it's much harder for students to slip between the cracks, while teachers and administrators are forced to take responsibility for all of their students, including the ones who are failing. Replacing big schools with small schools is the city's main line of attack in reducing its dismal 54 percent four-year high school graduation rate. And philanthropists have also gotten into the act: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundationhas given the city more than $100 million over the past three years to help create new small high schools.

Making The Grade: Is Education Reform Working in NYC?
But does changing the size of a school really increase its graduation rate? And how is this reform effort different than the small schools initiative carried out in the early 90s, which had mixed results? An in-depth report is followed by a panel of education reporters discussing the small schools initiative and other aspects of education reform since mayoral control.

Read more about the participants in this program

Part 3: Money, Power, and Public Accountability
(Video at top right »)

Since 2002, the mayor has held direct control over the public school system. But has mayoral control resulted in substantive reforms and a system that better serves 1.1 million students? And is the new system accountable enough to parents and taxpayers?

Read more about the participants in this program

I'm not going to be silent.

Betsy Combier