Dean Stephan Hudson Beats Up 15-Year old Kristoff John

The Department of Education lied to the parent and covered up what Dean Stephan Hudson did to15-year old Kristoff John.

Happens all the time.

The lying by the DOE, I mean, to parents, police, safety agents, arbitrators, anyone who doesnt buy "their" version of the "facts".

That is why I started this blog - because in the end, no one knew really anything about the thousands of people who were re-assigned over the past 10 years, in the new or old rubber rooms, along the same line as in Elentuck v Green, where the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division ruled that there are no facts in observations. However arbitrators hired by the UFT-NYSUT-DOE Gotcha Squad Teacher Performance Unit (incompetency cases) have terminated teachers for so-called "incompetency" based upon observations by the principals, APs, and PIP+ observers who simply gave an opinion, biased and predetermined in many cases.

Not only have excellent teachers been put through this unfair torture for no reason other than retaliation, jealousy, hatred, or other non-professional motives, but when good teachers are removed no one takes their place. No one is really in charge, its' a free-for-all "I-can-get-rid-of-you" power scheme.

To protect his favorites in the schools, Mayor Bloomberg banned cell phones from children, because many were taking pictures of Deans, APs, Principals, and teaachers beating kids up. Mike wanted to stop children and their parents from telling him what to do.

And, there are teachers out there who hit children and take kids home with them for the wrong reasons.

So, stories like the beating of Mr. John, 15 years old, is again, reason for concern about Dennis Walcott and Mayor Bloomberg's continued supervision.

SEE IT: Hulking teacher slams teen at school

By BEN CHAPMAN | NY Daily News - 2 hrs ago

• eet
• Print

• 

Images have been resized. Originals at NY Daily News

When Diane John got a call from her son’s school saying he’d gotten into a fight with a teacher, she thought the boy was lying when he insisted he’d done nothing wrong.

Then she got a call from the Daily News.

“Oh my god!” she gasped when The News first showed her a shocking video revealing what really happened to 15-year-old Kristoff John during the March 6 incident at school. “No! No! No!”

The exclusive video obtained by the paper shows the scrawny freshman taking a severe beating from a much larger teacher at the George Westinghouse Career and Technical Education High School in Brooklyn.

The video shows shop teacher and security dean Stephan Hudson grabbing the boy by his arm, throwing him to the ground and bashing him twice against a table.

At the end of the fight, the boy is apprehended by school cops.

 

Kristof John, 15, is now living in Grenada with family to escape the abuse he suffered at the Brooklyn school.

“They lied to me!” the betrayed mom said tearfully when The News showed her the clip for the first time. “No one wants to see their son taken advantage of and beaten like this.”

The school had told her that her son had been the aggressor in a “little incident” with a teacher, she said.

She was told that the school was being generous by not punishing the boy.

Now, she said, she’s furious — and wants answers.

Kristoff said the attack left his back so sore that he couldn’t walk properly for several days.

“I was fearing for my life,” he said. “I was surprised he hit me. I didn’t have time to think.”

Principal Janine Kieran didn't respond to News' requests after security dean is caught on camera severely beating student.

The 5-foot-3 boy who weighs just 116 pounds said he transferred out of the school after the incident and is now living with an aunt in his family’s native Grenada.

He said he did nothing to provoke the altercation.

The teacher, Hudson, refused to talk to The News when confronted at the school’s graduation and again at his Jersey City home.

The school’s principal, Janine Kieran, also did not respond to several requests for comment.

An Education Department spokeswoman said Hudson, who has been working in city schools since 1990 and makes $95,202, was disciplined over the incident but declined to elaborate.

According to Kristoff, the scuffle began on a morning when he was running late for class. When he swiped his security card at the school entrance, it didn’t work and he tried to push through.

Hudson, who at nearly 300 pounds is more than twice the boy’s size, grabbed the young man by the arm to stop him, a surveillance video shows.

Three safety agents tackled freshman Kristoff John to break up fight while Stephan Hudson walked away.

When the boy yanked his arm away, Hudson grabbed him again and brutally threw him to the floor, before dragging him across a table and wrestling him to the ground.

As horrified students began to gather in a crowd, three school safety agents arrived and tackled the boy. Hudson walked away.

Kids who saw the fight said it was a one-sided beatdown.

“Mr. Hudson should’ve let him go,” said Arleth Morfe, 17, a senior from Bayside who witnessed the altercation, adding, “It looked like Kristoff was having a panic attack.”

That afternoon, it was Hudson who made the call to Kristoff’s mother. He told her that Kristoff had attacked him but that he would graciously settle the matter quietly.

“He said they would shake hands and work it out, but I never knew the extent of it,” said John, adding, “They didn’t tell me anything else.”

When John’s son got home, he told her that Hudson had started the dustup and that his back had been injured by the muscular, 39-year-old dean.

“He said, but mom, you haven’t seen the video,” said John, who claims she asked principal Kieran to locate the footage.

“The principal told me she was going to look into it and get back to me — but she never got back to me,” said John, who let the matter drop.

After a few weeks the boy was still miserable and complaining of being bullied at school — so John sent him to live with her sister in Grenada.

Jeff Bachner for New York Daily News

Diane John displays a photo of her son Kristoff John.

Now that she’s seen the video, John wants Education officials and police to investigate the incident.

In the meantime, she believes that Hudson should be removed from the school.

“That man should be gone,” she said.

John’s fiancé is diplomat Derrick James, Grenada’s consul general in New York.

James viewed the video as a family member, but said his office will investigate the matter.

“We are going to look into this and see what we can do as a community to make sure that this does not happen to any child,” said James, adding, “What’s most troubling is that the parent was lied to.”

With Kerry Burke, Dan McCarthy and Joe Kemp

bchapman@nydailynews.com

Brooklyn Teacher Erica Bloom Says That Administrators Threatened Her To Make Her Change Student Grades

NYC teacher: Bosses made me doctor grades

By BRAD HAMILTON, NYPOST, Last Updated:6:57 AM, June 24, 2012

Posted:12:11 AM, June 24, 2012

LINK

A Brooklyn geometry teacher with a remarkable record of academic success says she was pressured into giving passing grades to two failing seniors so they could graduate.

The inflated scores allowed the students to get their diplomas from Sheepshead Bay HS on Friday, despite both having flunked her class.

Erica Bloom, 36, (at left) says administrators used threats to pressure her into changing the final marks for the two, raising their scores from a failing 55 to a passing 65.

“They said if I didn’t change them, I could expect another ‘3020’ [disciplinary hearing], which would mean the removal of my license,” Bloom said. “So I lose my job, my insurance, my pension — everything, after 14 years.”

She says she signed off on the changed grades, hurled the new paperwork at an assistant principal and stormed off.

At issue was the students’ poor performance on the geometry Regents exam on Wednesday.

Bloom says new school Principal John O’Mahoney had insisted that all students take the Regents — and that their scores should count for 10 percent of their final grades.

One of the students notched a 53 on the test. The other failed to show up.

“A guidance counselor [for one student] came in and asked me to change his grade,” she said.

He was followed by the assistant principal “who came in and kept asking, ‘Why are you failing him?’ ”

Another asked about the second student.

“I was pressured by everybody,” she said.

She then went to O’Mahoney’s office but he refused to intervene. “He didn’t say a thing,” she said.

Bloom says she suffers from an eating disorder and exceeded her allowable sick days in 2009 and 2010, leading to an unfavorable attendance rating.

In 2011, she took 10 days, the approved limit.

“But they went back and found one day where I left early, so they said I took 10.33 sick days.”

Which would mean a third straight year of excessive absenteeism — and a likely termination, Bloom says.

“I was hysterical,” she said.

Faced with that threat, she says, she signed off on the grade changes.

The Department of Education said O’Mahoney did nothing wrong.

“The principal acted properly,” said spokeswoman Margie Feinberg. “This was not an issue of changing grades.”

brad.hamilton@nypost.com

NYSED: Q & A About Teacher Discipline

1.      What type of complaints against teachers, administrators, or other certified 
       school personnel can I file with the Education Department?

Generally, a complaint should be filed if you have information that a 
       certified educator has been convicted of a crime or committed an act that 
      raises a serious question as to his or to her moral character, or when you 
      believe that the conduct of a teacher or administrator poses a threat to the 
      welfare of a child or a school community. Complaints concerning incompetence, 
      negligence, or dissatisfaction with teaching style or philosophy will typically 
     not result in State action against certification. Those issues should be reported 
     directly to your local school district.

 

2.      Should I first file my complaint at the local level, e.g., school principal 
       or superintendent of schools, before filing with the State?

We encourage you to file your complaint at the local level first since 
      many complaints against certificate holders are satisfactorily resolved at 
      this level with remedial action. This office, however, has the authority to 
      initiate a separate investigation against a
certificate holder. 

 

3.      Can I file a complaint against a teacher who is employed in a private school?

You may file a complaint against a teacher who is employed in a non-public 
      school if the teacher is certified. This office has the authority to investigate 
      the conduct of certificate holders and refer the matter to the professional conduct 
     officer for action when appropriate.   

 

4.      Can I file a complaint against a teaching assistant or teacher's aide?

This office only has the authority to investigate individuals who hold 
      or who are applicants for certification. Generally, teaching assistants are 
      certified by the Education Department and teacher aides are not. Complaints 
      against an uncertified individual should be directed to the school principal or 
      to the superintendent of schools.  
 

5.      If I file a complaint how will I know if it has been received?

Receipt of your complaint will be acknowledged in writing. Thereafter, it 
      will be assigned to an investigator, who may contact you to discuss your 
      complaint in greater detail. 

 

6.      At the conclusion of the investigation of my complaint, what happens next?

If the investigation fails to support sufficient evidence to proceed, the case will be 

      closed with no further action taken. You will be advised in writing of the closure 
     of the case. If after investigation there is a sufficient basis to initiate action against 
    the questioned certificate holder, a recommendation will be made to the State 
    Professional Standards and Practices Board for Teaching to consider whether to 
     proceed to a formal administrative hearing.  

 

7.      Will I be required to testify at an administrative hearing if my complaint goes 
    that far?

As part of the hearing process, evidence will be presented and testimony provided
by witnesses and others to address whether the certificate holder lacks good moral
character. The Department may ask you to testify under oath at the hearing. 

 

8.      What types of penalties can be imposed against a certificate holder following an 
administrative hearing?

The range of penalties includes the imposition of a fine, continuing education,
certificate suspension, certificate revocation, and the denial to be issued a certificate
in the case of an applicant. 

New Rules For 3020-a Arbitration Effective April 1, 2012

Education Law §3020-a Changes (Effective April 1, 2012)

Date:	April 4, 2012
To:	District Superintendents School Superintendents New York City Department of Education New York State Council of School Superintendents New York State School Boards Association United Federation of Teachers  New York State United Teachers School Administrators Association of New York State Council of School Supervisors & Administrators New York State Association of School Personnel Administrators New York State Association of School Attorneys New York State Association of Management Advocates for School Labor Affairs American Arbitration Association
From:	Valerie Grey, Executive Deputy Commissioner
Subject:	Education Law §3020-a Changes (Effective April 1, 2012)
	Education Law §3020-a Changes (Effective April 1, 2012)  (375KB)

As part of its 2011 legislative agenda, the Board of Regents sought a number of modifications to the tenured teacher hearing process set forth in Education Law §3020-a to address spiraling costs and the extraordinary length of time to conduct hearings. This legislation was introduced in the Assembly and Senate. The Governor’s proposed 2012-13 State Budget included some of these reforms and the State Budget as adopted by the Legislature included a number of important programmatic and fiscal reforms.   The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify and provide guidance on the major changes set forth in Education Law §3020-a.  The Department is reviewing these changes and will make conforming amendments to the regulations to implement the law.  The Department will also be updating TEACH (a web-based data information system) to allow for greater access to case information and relevant dates.  During this transitional period, the Department thanks all affected parties in advance for their patience and cooperation as we work together to ensure successful implementation of the new Education Law §3020-a reform measures.     

Below is a summary of the major Education Law §3020-a revisions.  For specific guidance, please refer to the actual statutory language, a copy of which has been attached to this memo.

Effective Date

The change set forth in the amendments to Education Law §3020-a take place immediately and apply to all charges against tenured educators filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board on or after April 1, 2012. 

• All affected parties should be aware of this effective date and are strongly advised to carefully review these changes and how they may affect any cases currently in progress or those that are anticipated.
• The parties are strongly encouraged to develop the necessary tracking systems to ensure that responsibilities are carried out in a timely and professional manner, so that no party is unduly penalized by the very stringent timelines set forth in the statute.

Prohibition on Introduction of Evidence After 125 days

A significant change is the prohibition on the introduction of evidence more than 125 days after the filing of charges unless there are extraordinary circumstances beyond control of the parties set forth in Education Law §3020-a(3)(c)(vii).  Proceedings under §3020-a have traditionally taken far too long to resolve and this provision is designed to ensure timely resolution by prohibiting the introduction of evidence beyond a certain point in the proceeding.  This means that once the charges are filed, all parties should work expeditiously and cooperatively to complete the case in a timely manner so that cases are resolved within the statutory timeline of 125 days after the filing of charges.  After 125 days no additional evidence shall be accepted unless there are extraordinary circumstances beyond control of the parties.  The “extraordinary circumstances” rule was meant to provide for that rare occasion when evidence truly could not be introduced in a timely manner.

• The Department anticipates that modifications to TEACH will help the parties easily identify the relevant dates.  Until that time, arbitrators are expected to closely monitor the relevant dates and ensure adherence.

Department Selects Arbitrator When Parties Can Not Agree

The new amendments also modify the manner in which an arbitrator is selected if the parties fail to agree on an arbitrator selection within 15 days of receipt of the list.  Education Law §3020-a(3)(b)(iii) states that  “[i]f the employing board and the employee fail to agree on an arbitrator  to serve as a hearing officer from the list of potential hearing officers, or fail to notify the commissioner of a selection  within  such  fifteen day  time  period, the commissioner shall appoint a hearing officer from the list.”  This provision authorizes the Commissioner to select the arbitrator if the parties fail to agree by the 15th day.  It does not apply to NYC where there is an alternative procedure. 

• Historically, the Department only intervened when notified of the failure to agree, however, the amended language does not require the Commissioner to wait until notification of the failure to agree.  The Commissioner will be authorized to select an arbitrator if no selection is affirmatively made by the 15th day. 
• To ensure that all parties get proper notice of the list, the Department will continue its current practice of emailing the list of potential arbitrators to the school attorney and the employee attorney, if one has been designated by the employee.  Where no attorney is provided by the employee, the list will be sent directly to the employee. 
• A hearing officer selection will be considered timely, if it is emailed to the dedicated tenure email box (TENURE@mail.nysed.gov) by the close of business on 15th calendar day. 
• To minimize any potential delays that may occur at the school district level, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) has agreed to directly bill the school district for the production of the arbitrator list.  Schools are strongly encouraged to send the charges to the Department immediately without a check to AAA and make payment arrangements directly with AAA after the compilation of the list. AAA will take payment in the form of check or credit card for the $150 fee. 

Department Can Establish Maximum Arbitrator Rates and Study Hours

An amendment to Education Law §3020-a(3)(b)(i)(B) requires the Commissioner to establish a schedule for “maximum rates of compensation of hearing officers based on customary and reasonable fees for service as an arbitrator and provide for limitations on the number of study hours that may be claimed” (emphasis added).  The purpose of this amendment was to give the Commissioner the authority to control costs. 

• Over the next several weeks, the Department will be conducting an analysis to determine both the appropriate rates and the maximum number of study hours for these types of proceedings.  Once the analysis is complete, the Commissioner will be establishing guidelines for arbitrator fees and study hours. 
• All new arbitrator appointments will be contingent upon accepting the new maximum fee and study hour rates established by the Commissioner.
• It is anticipated that the new TEACH modifications will incorporate changes in the manner in which arbitrator invoices are filed with the Department, to permit online filing to ensure accuracy, and improve the time it takes to process payments.

Department Can Exclude Arbitrators For Untimeliness

Pursuant to Education Law §3020-a(3)(c)(i)(B) the Department is authorized to monitor and investigate a hearing officer’s compliance with the timelines set forth in the statute.  The Commissioner may exclude any hearing officer who has a record of continued failure to commence and conclude hearings within the timelines prescribed in the statute.

• The Department anticipates that modifications to TEACH will help the parties easily identify the relevant dates.  Until that time, the Department will monitor manually. 

New Technology for Recording Hearings is Allowed

Education Law §3020-a(3)(c)(i)(D) continues the requirement that an accurate “record” of the proceedings be kept at the expense of the Department and furnished upon request to the employee and the board of education.  The statutory changes, however, permit the Department to take advantage of any new technology to transcribe or record the hearings in an accurate, reliable, efficient and cost effective manner. 

• The Department will explore other cost-effective alternatives to recording and producing transcripts for these proceedings, however, there will be no immediate change to the manner in which these hearings are recorded.

Appropriation For New Cases

In order to ensure that the new reforms are successful, the law provides that any claims for cases in which charges were filed after April 1, 2012 be paid first out of the funds appropriated for the 2012-13 fiscal year pursuant to Education Law §3020-a(3)(b)(i)(A).  Total spending for 2012-13 is limited to $3.8 million.

• This amendment will ensure that the Department is able to make timely payments for services rendered for new cases under the new system during 2012-13.  Thus arbitrators who accept cases under the new system with the new time constraints will be reimbursed for their services in a timely manner.  Any funds remaining will be used to pay for claims on cases that had charges filed prior to April 1, 2012. 

One Year limitation on Claims

Education Law §3020-a(3)(d) imposes a one-year limitation, following the final disposition of the hearing, for the submission of claims for reimbursement for services rendered.  The purpose of this amendment was to encourage timely submission of claims so that accurate budget assumptions can be made and claims can be paid for in a reasonable time. 

New Forms   The Education Law §3020-a forms are in the process of being updated.  It is imperative that schools use the updated forms for any cases commenced under the new system because they will reflect the new changes and provide critical information necessary to expedite the administrative steps for opening of cases and the appointment of the hearing officer.  It is anticipated that the new forms will be available within a week.  Please refer to: Teacher Tenure Hearing (3020a) for further information.

Questions

If you have any questions please contact Deborah A. Marriott, Director, Office of School Personnel Review and Accountability at 518-474-3021 or send an email to her attention atTENURE@mail.nysed.gov.

c:  Deborah A. Marriott

Final Enacted Budget 2012-13 – TTH Article VII Language  (375KB)

The Wall Street Journal On Publicizing Teacher Evaluations

Deal on Teachers Nears

Question in Evaluations Compromise Is Whether Parents Are 

Dealt In or Cut Out

By LISA FLEISHER

LINK

As state lawmakers neared a deal to shield public schoolteachers' evaluations
from widespread scrutiny, New York's top politicians split over whether the measure would shut out parents or bring them closer to schools.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg condemned as an "outrage" a potential
agreement in Albany that would allow only parents to see the evaluation of their
child's teacher—and only by visiting schools themselves.

"If the parents have to go to the principal's office to see an evaluation, it is
designed deliberately to keep the average parents that we have in the city
from ever seeing an evaluation," Mr. Bloomberg said in his weekly radio
appearance. He argued that single-parent families and those with two working
parents would be hard-pressed to gain access to the information.

Earlier

Albany Eyeing Ways to Shield Teacher Data

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
framed the in-person requirement
as a way to boost parent
involvement. Schools with involved parents fare better, he said Friday,
suggesting that encouraging parental visits would end up improving the schools.

"My parents went to the school when they had to do something—talk to the
teacher,"
Mr. Silver said. "When parents go and find out things and parents are involved in a child's education, that school is going to succeed."

A deal limiting the availability of teacher evaluations is likely to be finalized this
weekend, according to several people familiar with the negotiations. The new
rules, if passed, would block the general public and the media from seeing the
ratings.

Interactive: Grading the Teachers

New York City ranked about 18,000 fourth- through eighth-grade teachers based on their students' math and English standardized test scores. The model seeks to isolate individual impact on students, but the reports include disputed data and are only one way to evaluate teachers.

Teachers unions have been pushing
to keep the evaluations private, an
effort that accelerated after New York
City released the results of a pilot teacher-rating system.

Rankings of about 18,000 teachers
came out in February after courts
refused to block the release.

Talk of changing the law to protect teachers began in earnest after media
organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, published those results. The
statewide teacher-evaluation system would be very different than the city's pilot program, with most of the weight put on principals' opinions and other subjective measures.

Mr. Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, controls which bills get passed in the Assembly
and counts teachers unions as key supporters. Mr. Bloomberg, by contrast, has
been a staunch supporter of releasing the data and frequently clashes with the
city's main teachers union.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has tried to walk a middle ground. Throughout the months-long debate on the issue, he has emphasized the need to give parents
access to the ratings while questioning why teachers are treated differently than
police and firefighters, whose evaluations are private by law.

"How come you're only singling out teachers?" the governor said Thursday on a
radio show. "Where's the policemen's evaluation? Where's the firemen's evaluation? Where's the evaluation of the mayor's staff, and the governor's staff and the
speaker's staff?"

Mr. Bloomberg addressed that distinction Friday, noting that residents don't get to choose which emergency personnel respond in a crisis. The mayor praised the
idea of allowing parents to request one teacher over another based on their ratings, sometimes referred to as "teacher shopping."

"Isn't that wonderful?" Mr. Bloomberg said. "Why, as a parent, would you not
want to have the best teacher?"

Principals and teachers unions have said shopping would cause problems if
school administrators had to deal with a crush of requests from parents to
change teachers.

"Schools have to function smoothly, and that would interfere," said Carl
Korn, a spokesman for the New York State United Teachers.

Write to Lisa Fleisher at lisa.fleisher@wsj.com

Bring Back The Citywide Vote For an Elected NYC Board of Education and Community District Councils

Q:Who do you vote for after Bloomberg ends his reign of terror?

A:Anyone who advocates for a return to lawful due process with a citywide vote for a New York City Board of Education, not puppets of the Mayor.

So, I'm not voting for Christine Quinn nor am I voting for any candidate who showed up at NYU:

Backing Mayoral Control, But Not Bloomberg-Style

By DAVID SIMS | Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:00 am

Three of the candidates hoping to succeed Mayor Bloomberg in 2013 said April 17 that mayoral control of the school system should be sustained but relaxed to allow more input from parents and communities, with less emphasis on closing schools.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and former City Comptroller and 2009 mayoral candidate William C. Thompson Jr. offered their views on education policy in a panel discussion at New York University, expressing measured support for mayoral control with appropriate changes.

Mayor: Having It Both Ways

Mr. Bloomberg offered a biting response at a press conference, telling reporters, “To say I’m in favor of mayoral control, but I want to turn over the power to others, is very similar to my example of, ‘I am pro-choice, but not for women.’’’

The NYU panel was organized by the New York City Working Group on School Transformation, a coalition with members that are typically critical of the Department of Education, including the Alliance for Quality Education, the Coalition for Educational Justice and the Urban Youth Collaborative.

The group presented a new report advocating a direction for the DOE counter to the reforms put in place by the Bloomberg administration. It proposed elevating successful schools as “professional development lab sites” that can impart successful strategies to struggling schools, as part of a “success initiative” designed to boost failing schools instead of quickly closing them.

It pointed to the findings of the Parthenon Report, a 2005 study commissioned by DOE that said that large high schools with high concentrations of struggling students were doomed to failure, with significantly lower chances for graduation.

Critics have argued that DOE has ignored these findings and continued to push high-need students into greater concentrations by closing large high schools and leaving them with fewer options.

‘Need One Person in Charge’

Mr. Stringer said that he agreed with the report that significant reforms were necessary at the DOE, but said it could be done without repealing mayoral control. “I voted for mayoral control 10 years ago. I didn’t believe back then that the old model was working,” he said, referring to his time as a State Assemblyman. “When it came time to put one person in charge, a strong Chancellor, I embraced it. And I embrace it today.”

He emphasized that better communication from the DOE would help improve its image in the eyes of the public, joking that it is easier to get into the Federal Reserve Bank than the charge, a strong Chancellor, I embraced it. And I embrace it today.”

He emphasized that better communication from the DOE would help improve its image in the eyes of the public, joking that it is easier to get into the Federal Reserve Bank than the agency’s headquarters at the Tweed Courthouse.

“Imagine if we had a system in place at the DOE where people were listened to and not shunted away, how much smarter the DOE could be,” he said. “We have agencies in city government that are acting on behalf of children but they don’t talk to each other. The Administration for Children’s Services never talks to DOE. DOE and Tweed should be the ultimate place where everybody can get their needs addressed. That door should be open.”

Decries ‘Rush to Closure’

Mr. de Blasio said that the Bloomberg administration had damaged its legacy on education by continuing to close dozens of schools each year without a significant impact for the better.

“I have never said there was no such thing as a school that needs to be closed and re-worked, but I think we have reached the opposite reality,” he said. “The rush to closure without evidence that it could produce a different result has led to a very bad policy.

“This report, I hope, will spark an entire re-evaluation of where we are. That’s what I hope we get to, where the last resort is closure,” he added.

Mr. Thompson, who served as President of the Board of Education before its dissolution, was more forceful in his condemnation of school closings, saying that the State Legislature should pass a moratorium on them for the last year of the Bloomberg administration.

‘Educational Malfeasance’

“A policy that leads with school closings is not sound educational policy. In fact, it really tends to be educational malfeasance,” he said. “School closings shouldn’t be used as a first option, but really a last choice.”

He endorsed the report’s “success initiative” plan, recalling the “Chancellor’s District” enacted in 1996 under then-Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew that devoted particular attention to struggling schools, capping their enrollment, emphasizing professional development and regimenting curriculum.

“Those schools went up and up and up and in almost every case came off the [closing] list,” Mr. Thompson said. The Bloomberg-administration policy of aggressive closing just shuffles students from one struggling school to another, he charged.

“There have been 140 school closings, and where has it put us? More failing schools,” he said. “It’s a shell game situation, a Ponzi scheme. Moving students from one school to another, to another.”

The other candidates did not favor a moratorium on school closings, saying it should be a last-resort option available to the city.

The most-prominent mayoral candidate missing from the forum was Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is considered an ally of the Mayor’s. She told the New York Times that she had not attended because she did not endorse the concept of a new Chancellor’s District.