Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Saturday, September 3, 2011

The Story of Khalil Gibran International Academy

Debbie Almontaser


Debbie Almontaser: The Story of Khalil Gibran International Academy
Monthly Review
LINK

In 2005, I was immersed in working with the Mayor's Office on the inauguration of Arab Heritage week. In the midst of this, New Visions for Public Schools, a school reform organization, decided to begin the development of an Arabic/Hebrew-language high school with a co-existence theme. After months of searching for an Arab-American educator to work on such a school, Adam Rubin contacted me after the recommendations from the Department of Education (DOE), the Mayor's office of Immigrant Affairs, and lastly, even from an Arab-American woman at a Brooklyn falafel stand.

Days later, I met with Adam Rubin from New Visions, and weeks later, I met with the president of New Visions. I then immersed myself in the school development process by attending DOE and the New Visions workshops where school themes and models were described. They led us to decide to teach only Arabic. Therefore, the school would become an Arabic Dual Language Program. I also initiated an informal feasibility study with educators, academics, politicians, community and civic leaders within the Arab-American community, multi-faith leaders, parents, students, and 9/11 families. For such a school to succeed, it was critical to show that there was both a dire need, and that there was also strong support among community groups.

New Visions required all of their schools to have a lead partner agency for the $400,000 Gates Foundation grant. Various academic institutions and non-profit groups were explored. It was also imperative to identify an institution the stakeholder communities felt comfortable with.

Months later, New Visions hosted a gathering for the Arab-American community to introduce the first Arabic dual-language school in New York City—joining eighty dual-language schools of various languages. The Arab-American community was charged to start the process! We ventured to identify a lead agency and a highly qualified educator to lead the school.

A lead agency was selected from two organizations that were nominated: the Arab American Family Support Center (AAFSC), and the Brooklyn Cultural Center, which is responsible for opening the Alnoor Islamic School. After an arduous process, the committee determined that the AAFSC best met the lead agency application criteria. Shortly after, a principal selection committee was formed by the community, consisting of community organization heads and academics. I was encouraged to apply as well. Weeks later, I engaged in one of the most important interviews of my life. Days after the interview, the final candidate was announced and I was selected.

As the project director and principal, I was charged with assembling a school design team to write the proposal for submission to New Visions and DOE. The design team was ethnically and religiously diverse, comprised of educators, former principals, assistant principals, prospective parents, community members, and professionals. There were members of the team who spoke Arabic, Hebrew, Spanish, French, and Chinese. The design team and I worked for the next six months developing the proposal and getting endorsement letters from the Arab-American community and the larger community to accompany the proposal. Incredibly, we had over eleven partnering groups such as the Tanenbaum Center for Inter-religious Understanding, the Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn Conservatory for Music, Alwan for the Arts, and several others. We met weekends and weeknights and worked through the wee hours of the night to meet the New Visions and DOE deadlines. And finally, on December 1, 2006, we submitted the final proposal to the DOE.

Our objective was to establish a school that emphasized critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills through inquiry project-based learning. The Arabic language program was a critical component of the curriculum as well. Weeks later, the DOE approved Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA). Its creation was publicly announced along with eighty other schools being approved for the 2007–08 school year. KGIA made its national debut on February 12, 2007, in the New York Times. But only days later, right-wing bloggers began to create a negative narrative about the school. New Visions and the AAFSC had been responsible for preparing a school website and hiring a communications person, but at that point neither had happened. In spite of the steadily increasing attacks, I remained focused on the work ahead.

KGIA faced additional complications due to not having a home. The first location explored was P.S. 282 in Park Slope, Brooklyn, but the DOE, as is typically the case, had made no attempt to engage the community in assessing space feasibility. The parents of P.S. 282 protested against KGIA, landing it on the front page of local papers. The Brooklyn Paper headline was "Holy War! Slope Parents Protest Arabic School Plan," while the New York Sun proclaimed "A Madrassa Grows in Brooklyn" and "Arabic School Idea Is a Monstrosity." After weeks of parent protests, the DOE abandoned P.S. 282 and set its eyes on the Sarah J. Hale Campus in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, where two schools already existed, subjecting KGIA to even more parental opposition. However, after some negotiation, KGIA was accepted.

Our new school was given a fourth-floor wing that was separate from the two existing schools. However, one of the other schools negated these arrangements, which landed KGIA in an isolated space in that building which was not conducive to learning. The DOE decided to split up the cafeteria space into three classrooms and a main office with portable partitions.

In the midst of these challenges, I was ordering furniture and textbooks, recruiting students, dealing with media requests, and interviewing potential staff. Teachers from across the country were applying to teach at KGIA. The staff I finally hired was ethnically and racially diverse. Despite the media hype, they were very excited to be part of the founding staff. We began our journey with weeks of professional development in all subject areas, including Arabic language and cultural studies.

The Nightmare

As I agonized about when the furniture was going to arrive and the partitions would go up, those who opposed the school did everything in their power to undermine its opening. The DOE's continued commitment to opening the school infuriated these individuals, and they started attacking me based on my ethnicity and religion. They plastered pictures of me in my headscarf on websites and blogs with unfounded allegations that I was a radical Islamist with an agenda to radicalize youth. They distorted my words in local and national papers to make me seem anti-American. A 2007 New York Sun article cited a 2003 article (about who was responsible for 9/11) which quoted me as saying, "I don't recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims"—leaving the false impression that I denied that individuals of this background were responsible. The New York Sun left out the second half of the quote, in which I vehemently condemned those individuals for 9/11. The second part of the quote stated, "Those people who did it have stolen my identity as an Arab and have stolen my religion."

I never thought I would be at the center of such attacks given the number of years I have worked in public education and interfaith work. The charge was led by Daniel Pipes, the head of the Middle East Forum, and Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a Board of Trustees member at the City University of New York. Accompanying them were Pamela Geller, a right-wing blogger, later to be infamous for her attack on the Park51 Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, and a few others who formed a group called "Stop the Madrassa Coalition" (STM Coalition). The DOE tried to counter some of the attacks in various media. However, by July 2007, the STM Coalition were appearing at events where they hurled Islamophobic rhetoric at me. This included accusations that I was a 9/11 denier; a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah; part of the U.S. history revisionist movement (which denies that the Holocaust occurred); and that I was going to teach children Sharia law, and to hate Christians and Jews.

These people seemed to believe that as an observant Muslim woman I should be disqualified from leading KGIA, regardless of the fact that the school is rigorously secular and required to meet the same educational standards that all New York City public schools are. They disregarded that its namesake, Khalil Gibran, was a Lebanese Christian—and an internationally revered poet and philosopher of peaceful coexistence. To further perpetuate anti-Arab prejudice, they continually referenced me by my Arabic name, which I have chosen not to use professionally for many years.

In August 2007, the STM Coalition found the ultimate pretext to ignite a media firestorm. In their quest to shut the school down they made efforts to somehow connect me to "Intifada NYC" t-shirts made by a youth organization called Arab Women in the Arts and Media (AWAAM). A New York Post reporter persistently sought my comments. I saw no reason to speak to any media since the t-shirts had nothing to do with KGIA or me. Upon the DOE's insistence, however, a three-way phone interview with the reporter from the New York Post, a DOE press person, and me took place. During the interview, the reporter asked about my affiliation with AWAAM. I explained that there was no affiliation, and that I was a board member of a social service organization that shared office space with AWAAM.

Lastly, the reporter then asked about the origin of the word "intifada." I said that the Arabic root word from which the word intifada originates means "shake off" and that it has evolved over time to have different meanings for different people, but certainly for many, given its association with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict during which thousands have died, it is associated with violence. In response to a further question about the teenage girls of AWAAM, I expressed my belief they were not going to engage in a "Gaza-style uprising" in New York City, as the reporter had claimed. These were inner-city youth in a summer program that gave them the opportunity to engage in an arts and media program.

Sadly, the next day's New York Post distorted my words about the root word of intifada, making it seem that I had minimized the historical context of the Intifada. Friends and allies paid the story no mind. However, others believed it, regardless of my record of extensive interfaith work. The DOE press secretary called and questioned why I had spoken about the t-shirts. I explained that I had, as an educator, discussed the root word of "intifada" to give contextual information of a word that many have limited knowledge about. The press person on the call with me had had no objection to my doing so. She did not interject or interrupt me.

A New York Sun reporter said that in an earlier interview I refused to answer questions about Hezbollah and Hamas. This was because in response to her question I asked if it would be asked of the 1,500 other public school principals. She responded "No," but nevertheless the New York Sun considered my answer an evasion. In any case, after the New York Post interview, the press person who had been on the call with me let me know I did a good job, and she believed that it went well.

Hours later, the phones began ringing. The press secretary informed me that the Chancellor and the senior leadership had decided the "best way" to deal with this matter was to issue a statement. I was pleased to hear this at first. But shockingly, the DOE wanted me to issue an apology, even though I knew that I had neither done nor said anything wrong. I did what I had planned to do with students at KGIA—speak on an issue while making sure to provide all perspectives on it.

After some back and forth about why an apology might be the best strategy, the press secretary stated, "It is in your best interest to do as we advise you if you want to see the school open." He knew there was nothing more important to me than to see this historical school open. I was deeply troubled; the last thing I wanted to do was condemn an organization serving young Arab women and girls of color, or send a negative message about freedom of expression. Soon I realized that the DOE was caving into pressure. To ensure the school's opening, I put my pride aside and compromised my views; but as I had feared, matters continued to get worse. The members of STM Coalition seized the moment to attack me. Randi Weingarten, at the time the New York City United Federation of Teachers (UFT) president, immediately attacked me in the New York Post without inquiring about what actually happened. She stated that the word "intifada" should have been condemned, rather than defined.

DOE officials missed the opportunity to stand against bigotry. They should have simply said that it was clear that neither KGIA nor I had any connection to the t-shirts. They should have pointed out that I had devoted my entire adult life to the peaceful resolution of conflict and to building bridges between ethnic and religious communities. In other words, they should have said that the attacks were utterly baseless. Instead, the DOE changed course and decided I should have condemned the word, not explained it, and that I also should have condemned the motives of the young Arab women's group that made the t-shirt.

By the end of the week, I was forced to resign by the Mayor and DOE. The people whom I had worked closely with and trusted unconditionally literally reduced me to a word—ignoring my qualifications. Shortly after, the DOE and New Visions replaced me with Danielle Salzberg, a New Visions employee and former assistant principal, who had no Arabic language or cultural expertise, nor any connection to New York City's Arab communities.

In the weeks following my forced resignation, I secluded myself to ensure that the school opened. However, activists, educators, local and civic leaders, and community groups did not believe I simply resigned. They wanted answers from Mayor Bloomberg and the DOE. These individuals and groups recognized that Daniel Pipes and other right-wing groups were launching a campaign much wider than KGIA to cast doubts and suspicion on Arab and Muslim Americans who were seeking to expand their positions in the United States.

On August 20, 2007, these individuals and groups who supported me organized a rally in front of the DOE on Chambers Street demanding answers. I was deeply touched by the outpouring of support. This rally spurred the formation of a group called Communities in Support of KGIA, a coalition of organizations seeking to challenge the blatant racism that had occurred and to fight for a just and equitable public education system.

Simultaneously, Alan Levine offered his legal services, which I was thrilled about. He is a long-time and noted civil rights attorney and a social justice activist going back to the Civil Rights Movement, and he quickly assembled a legal team and led the charge. Our first step was filing a claim in federal court against the DOE and City for infringing on my First Amendment rights in November 2007.

In February 2008, we appeared at the Court of Appeals. The judges, after hearing the argument, sharply criticized the City for its mishandling of the controversy surrounding the school and me. One of the judges said, "I can't believe the city really wants to take that position, that if there is a disruptive response to a misleading article that unfairly quotes a city employee, then they get disciplined. That's a very unattractive position for a city to take." It was very gratifying to finally hear a judge state I was unjustly treated. However, my lawyers also filed a discrimination complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC). In March 2010, when we least expected it, the EEOC determination was released. It found that my forced resignation was discriminatory on account of my "race, religion and national origin," and that the DOE had "succumbed to the very bias that the creation of the school was intended to dispel." The EEOC declared that I "had no connection whatsoever" with the t-shirts and that "a small segment of the public succeeded in imposing its prejudices on the DOE as an employer." The DOE called the ruling baseless. I cannot describe the tremendous relief I felt being vindicated in that way—a vindication not only for me, but for all those facing discrimination and bigotry.

As months went by after the school's opening, teachers I had hired reported that the new administration compromised the school's mission and vision. The Arabic-language program suffered immensely. Teachers who spoke out felt badly treated and were finally driven out of the school by the third principal, Holly Anne Reichert, who had quickly replaced Salzberg. In its first year, the school also experienced a high rate of violent incidents, leading many families to pull their children out.

KGIA's second school year, 2008–2009, was also turbulent. The DOE relocated KGIA to another P.S. 287, where it again faced some initial opposition from the host school community. The new location was far from the Arab-American community that KGIA had set out to serve, and was difficult to access by public transportation. KGIA staff and families did not learn of this move until they read about it in the paper. Additionally, prior to the move the DOE had informed the P.S. 287 families that KGIA would only function as a middle school, rather than a 6–12 grade school, as it had been envisioned.

In March 2010, the school received its fourth principal after the EEOC Determination unearthed that there had been three Arab Americans apply for the position when I did, but that the DOE selectively decided to pass them up. Shortly thereafter, the DOE abruptly removed Reichert as principal, and replaced her with Bashir Abdellatif, one of the Arab-American candidates who applied back in 2007, and who had become a principal at another high school.

Now in its fourth year, KGIA survives but is significantly under-enrolled. It has only 109 students when it should have close to 200. Among those enrolled, the number of Arabic-speaking students remains very low. For the most part, many Arab-American families have pulled their children out the school for safety and transportation reasons. It is no longer functioning as an Arabic dual-language school; it just offers Arabic as a foreign language. For the 2009–2010 school year, KGIA received a C on the NYC Progress Report, for poor student performance and progress in ELA (English Language Arts) and Math. The DOE recently announced it intends to relocate KGIA to another building in September 2011, phase out the middle school, and turn it into a high school. This completely undermines the possibility of it ever becoming an Arabic dual-language school.

Conclusion

In the last four years, I have gone through a lot, both professionally and personally. I have learned a great deal about myself, my family, working for a bureaucratic institution, the politics of my city, and New Yorkers. I persevered because of the love and support of my family and of complete strangers who saw my struggle as their own, and gave me the will to battle an institution that many feared to challenge. Shortly after the EEOC Determination, I asked my lawyers to refrain from initiating additional litigation on the EEOC Discrimination claim. I decided that it was time for me to move on with my professional and personal life. Additional litigation of the discrimination claim would mean reliving the unfortunate and painful events of August 6–10, 2007, when news stories daily distorted my words and attacked my work, my integrity, and my reputation—and when I was publicly betrayed by people to whom I had given loyal service, including the Mayor, the Chancellor, and longtime colleagues in the interfaith community.

While I have endured a great injustice at the hands of people I trusted, the far larger offense has been to the Arab and Muslim communities of the United States. In the years since 9/11, these communities have been at the center of the most vile and hateful attacks. The attacks on me are part of a larger campaign to intimidate and silence marginalized communities. In response to these attacks I wholeheartedly continue to work with various groups locally and nationally to challenge Islamophobia, racism, and xenophobia.

The Campaign of Resistance
Donna Nevel

I did not know Debbie Almontaser and did not know anything about the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA), but when I learned that a Muslim and Arab principal of an Arabic Dual Language school was the victim of a racist smear campaign orchestrated mostly by Jewish bigots—it hit me in my gut. A second hit in the gut was reading UFT President Randy Weingarten's letter, which further fueled the flames of bigotry. It said, "While the city's teacher's union initially took an open-minded approach to this school, both parents and teachers have every right to be concerned about children attending a school run by someone who doesn't instinctively denounce campaigns or ideas tied to violence." Members of the Center for Immigrant Families (CIF), of which I am part, felt as I did and did not want Weingarten to go unchallenged. CIF immediately wrote a letter to her that included the following: "Aside from everything else that points to the racist nature of this whole incident, do you not know that in most parts of the world, the word intifada connotes resistance to an unethical and illegal and brutal occupation? It is not the word intifada that promotes violence or that should be denounced; rather, what should be denounced is an occupation that promotes violence and that made the intifada necessary."

Within a day of sending out CIF's letter on listservs, we heard from Mona Eldahry of Arab Women in the Arts and Media (AWAAM) who asked if we wanted to help plan and participate in a rally, being quickly organized, in support of Debbie and the school. CIF joined individuals and groups that gathered from across the city to denounce anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry and to demand that the DOE re-instate Debbie to her position as KGIA's principal.

After that spirited rally, several organizations came together to create Communities in Support of KGIA (CISKGIA). The steering committee groups included AWAAM, CIF, Brooklyn for Peace, Muslim Consultative Network, Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition, and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice. The steering committee representatives were Mona Eldahry, Carol Horowitz, Erica Waples, Fatin Jarara, Elly Bulkin, Adem Carroll, Michael Feinberg, Ayla Schoenwald, Ray Wofsy, and myself.

We spoke out in opposition to those who were responsible for the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim attacks on Debbie, on AWAAM, and on the school, but we were particularly committed to holding the DOE accountable for its actions and for the consequences of those actions. We always looked at what happened from a broader lens. This was part of a larger struggle for justice and for self-determination of communities being assaulted and demonized. And, with tremendous implications for the integrity of a public education system, the demonization had been sanctioned by a government institution responsible for the education of our children.

We also reached out to our allies and engaged in outreach within many different communities across the city—low-income and communities of color, immigrant communities, Jewish and Muslim groups, organizations focusing on public education, and other peace and justice groups. Hundreds of groups endorsed this effort, and many participated with us in our organizing.

We held a number of community events with educators, social justice activists, and with Muslim and Jewish leaders from across the country. They all wrote moving statements and letters of support to the Mayor and DOE demanding Debbie's reinstatement. We were able to garner support from academics, educators, community activists, and interfaith leaders from across the country. We also received support from politicians, but we were clear that they would not dictate our direction. A priority for us at all times was our work with parents and teachers at the school. One of our large community events featured teachers who shared information about how the school was falling apart from the inside, a fact that the DOE refused to acknowledge. Parents expressed feeling marginalized and that their voices were being ignored by school officials, and a number of teachers ended up feeling intimidated by the DOE or felt that they were being pushed out for speaking the truth.

We tried to reach inside as many new communities as possible. At one point, a number of people from the Jewish community made clear they would not join the coalition if AWAAM were part of it. We felt they were putting Debbie into the category of the "good" Arab and AWAAM as the "bad" Arab. That is, since AWAAM had put out the intifada t-shirts, they were "tainted" with the anti-Israel brush and were therefore not considered "kosher" partners. We emphatically rejected this proposal, believing it perpetuated the very bias we opposed, and were unanimous in our decision to remain true to who we were, which was a coalition that had AWAAM in its leadership.

In addition to rallies, educational and community programs, ongoing outreach, and letter-writing campaigns, our media strategy was a priority since the media was at the center of the controversy. We worked to reframe the debate, ensuring that the real story was told—by Debbie and by the young women of AWAAM, and not by the media or the racists. We wanted to be sure the voices of those who had been silenced and distorted were out there. We also wanted to be certain that we always framed our comments within the larger context of justice for marginalized communities and of holding our government institutions (in this case, the DOE) accountable.

We held press conferences, put out statements, and "busted" one of the press conferences of our anti-Muslim opponents. In this struggle, we had media on top of us all the time, so we had to be discerning about what types of media we thought were valuable to respond to and pursue. We devoted a lot of time to thinking this through. Fortunately, we benefited from the wisdom of AWAAM members whose work focused on the media, and we also worked together with Riptide Communications, particularly when the media requests became overwhelming.

Several filmmakers also contacted us wanting to do documentaries, but, after much deliberation and meetings with some of them, we only granted interviews to one person who seemed honest and ethical (and who ended up creating a film, Intifada NYC).

We also worked closely with Debbie's legal team, led by civil rights lawyer Alan Levine. We discussed political strategy together, making certain the voices of the community were front and center, which was always honored by the legal team. Since Alan Levine is my husband, rather than offering more of my own views about our relationship with the legal team, I will quote what Mona Eldahry has said:

Working on the campaign to support KGIA, I've learned exactly what a meaningful collaboration between a legal team and community organizers looks like. We at CISKGIA were working to ensure that the DOE would provide the school with the resources it needed to succeed, including the leadership it deserved. Debbie's legal team was set to ensure that her civil rights and her rights as an employee were protected. Our work together ensured that both paths would lead to justice for students and community-members who saw, as the EEOC later determined, that the Mayor and the DOE ousted a school leader because she was Arab.

Our coalition met as much as was humanly possible. Everyone was passionate and deeply committed.

CISKGIA is the most respectful, collaborative coalition I have ever been part of. We all learned with and from one another. Leadership was shared amongst our groups; there was never a struggle over power. We all understood the importance of AWAAM's leadership (and I must add that Mona Eldahry and the other AWAAM representatives were extremely inspiring). We worked in sync with the legal team.

How does one gauge success in such an undertaking? While Debbie did not return to KGIA, as we had all hoped would happen, in fact something powerful did happen. Communities and individuals from every background came together and were relentless in demanding that our institutions be held accountable for promoting racism and bigotry. Most importantly, the story of what had actually happened was told and re-told by those who had lived and experienced it. And with the EEOC Determination, the story was also told in the legal arena, which reflected the truth as we knew it to be. All in all, critical relationships were developed, connections were made amongst our many interrelated struggles, and community power was built that reverberates to this day. We all remain personally and politically connected in deep ways and are working closely together—some of us with groups to challenge Islamophobia, racism, and xenophobia; some in groups for justice in Palestine—which I think reflects the power and strength of the community that so many of us built together and the justice of the cause.

The struggle definitely continues.


EEOC Concludes NYC Ed. Dept. Discriminated Against Almontaser
LINK
March 25, 2010

The MPAC-NYC community welcomed a recent ruling by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which found that the New York City Department of Education  discriminated against Debbie Almontaser, the founding principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy in 2007. Almontasser was forced by resign her post following a highly politicized and baseless attack by Islamophobes, led by Daniel Pipes.
The New York City Department of Education (DOE) yesterday notified the EEOC that it is unwilling to engage in a process of conciliation concerning the EEOC's finding that the DOE discriminated against Debbie Almontaser when it forced her to resign as acting principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy. 
The EEOC's ruling on March 9, 2010 had given the DOE until March 24 to indicate whether it would work with Ms. Almontaser's lawyers and the EEOC to reach a "just resolution" of her claim.  Within hours of receiving the EEOC's ruling, the DOE responded that it had "in no way discriminated against Ms. Almontaser and she will not be reinstated." 
Commenting on the DOE's unwillingness to engage in conciliation, Cynthia Rollings, one of Ms. Almontaser's lawyers, said: "Given the DOE's dismissive response to the EEOC ruling, we were not surprised to learn that the DOE now says it is unwilling to engage in conciliation. The response is clearly prompted by considerations having nothing to do with the substance of the EEOC Determination."
Ms. Almontaser's lawyers announced that they intend to bring a lawsuit based on Ms. Almontaser's discrimination claim.  In addition, as a result of the DOE's refusal to conciliate, the EEOC has referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to consider whether it, too, will bring a court action against the DOE. 
 In its letter spelling out its ruling, the EEOC stated that the NYC Department of Education (DOE) had discriminated against Almontaser, a Muslim of Yemeni descent, "on account of her race, religion, and national origin."
The commission went on to state that the NYC DOE "succumbed to the very bias that the creation of the school was intended to dispel and that a small segment of the public succeeded in imposing its prejudices on DOE as an employer."
Commenting on the Commission's finding, Alan Levine, an attorney for Almontaser, said:
"Debbie Almontaser was victimized twice. First, when she was subjected to an ugly smear campaign orchestrated by anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigots, and second, when the DOE capitulated to their bigotry. But the bigots didn't have the power to take her job away. The DOE did. To its everlasting shame, the DOE did the bigots' work.  Now, the EEOC has reminded us that it is the responsibility of government to stand up to the forces of discrimination, not to give into them."
- Dalia Mahmoud
MPAC-NYC Chair




Friday, September 2, 2011

Mayor Mike: Throw Away Honesty In Government

Stephen and Margaret Goldsmith


The Secretive Dictatorship of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Betsy Combier, Parentadvocates.org
LINK

Bloomberg, Giuliani, Bernard Kerik, and hundreds more are getting paid to ignore what to me is everything: good faith and honesty in service to the public. All of us who have documented what is really going on hope that the backstory to all these people will be told, and the truth will come out about the payoffs and playoffs that were maintained, paid for, and initiated because of greed, desire for power, and outright fear.

Mr. Bloomberg has a view of public service that places him outside of the "good faith" clause found in
Uniform Commercial Code Article 1-Section 1-201, General Provisions: "(19) "Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned."

We should consider the effect this behavior has on the City of New York.

Remember the blizzard of 2010? Mike Bloomberg refused to say where he was, although the media reported his staying outside of New York City in the Caribbean. He left NYC in the hands of his Deputy Mayor, Stephen Goldsmith, who stayed in Washington DC. In other words, no one was in charge of the cleanup, and no one was overseeing the transportation cost of several deaths due to the fact that ambulances, police, and fire safety could not clear the snow to provide adequate public safety. Several people died because of this.

Yet after this fiasco it was back to "muddle plus" where Bloomberg's incredible public relations team keeps his image up in all the subways and buses as a "wonderful" Mayor, kind of like the false image being marketed by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his team. (Read "Grand Illusion" by Wayne Barrett, and you will not have to believe what is said about Giuliani).

Bloomberg, Giuliani, Bernard Kerik, and hundreds more are getting paid to ignore what to me is everything: good faith and honesty in service to the public. All of us who have documented what is really going on hope that the backstory to all these people will be told, and the truth will come out about the payoffs and playoffs that were maintained, paid for, and initiated because of greed, desire for power, and outright fear.

I am not buying.

Betsy Combier

Deputy mayor quit after being busted for domestic violence
By SALLY GOLDENBERG, JOSH MARGOLIN and DAN MANGAN, September 1, 2011
LINK
The blizzard didn't bury him -- roughing up his wife did.

Former Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith -- who drew sharp criticism for bungling the Christmas storm that shut down the city -- actually resigned in disgrace after his wife, fearing for her life, had him arrested during an argument turned violent, The Post has learned.

Just days before he suddenly stepped down as Mayor Bloomberg's chief of operations, Goldsmith was arrested at his Georgetown home after his wife, Margaret, told cops he smashed a phone and grabbed her as she desperately tried to call cops, a Washington, DC, police report reveals.

READ THE REPORT (PDF)

The shocking report describes in dramatic detail how a "verbal altercation" between the former Indianapolis mayor, 64, and his wife in their ritzy house turned ugly at around 11:30 p.m. July 30.

"I should have put a bullet through you years ago!" Margaret, 59, allegedly told Goldsmith, the report revealed.

Stephen Goldsmith then "shoved [Margaret into] the kitchen counter," according to the report.

"You're not going to do this to me again, I'm calling the police," Margaret responded, the report said.

Goldsmith "then grabbed the phone from her hands and threw it onto the ground, breaking the phone. He then grabbed [Margaret] and refused to let her go."

"She kept screaming, 'Let me go, let me go,' " as Stephen refused to let her out of his grasp, according to the report.

"She dug her nails into [Stephen's] forearms," causing him to release Margaret, who then "ran to the other room to call police."

Cops arrived and arrested Stephen for "simple assault domestic violence," the report said. Margaret complained of back pain but refused medical attention.

Goldsmith spent two days locked up in a DC jail, but prosecutors declined to press the case after Margaret decided not to pursue it.

It was that shameful incident that spurred Goldsmith to resign Aug. 4 after just 14 months as the city's operations chief -- not, as first reported, his botched handling of the city's response to the blizzard.

The July 30 arrest was "the overriding reason," Margaret Goldsmith told The Post yesterday. "It would become a huge distraction to Bloomberg, and Stephen would never allow that to happen. He wasn't planning to resign when he resigned."

Bloomberg was informed of the arrest, and Goldsmith then quit, a source said yesterday.

"The mayor did not feel he should play judge or jury, but innocent or guilty, it was clear [Goldsmith's] service at City Hall was no longer tenable," said the source.

Bloomberg spokesman Marc LaVorgna declined to comment.

Margaret Goldsmith, who suffers from lupus, yesterday strenuously denied that her husband got violent with her.

"There was no domestic violence that occurred between my husband and myself," said Margaret, who wed Stephen in 1988 after prior marriages for both. "Nor has there ever been in the history of the marriage.

"It was a big mistake," she said of his arrest. "I can only tell you it was an enormous misunderstanding. It just got out of control."

Stephen said, "Because, according to the officers, DC law required an arrest, one was made over the objection of my wife, and no charges were ever filed.

"Although Margaret, under oath, has affirmed the absence of violence and my actual innocence, I offered my resignation in order not to be a distraction to the mayor and his important agenda for the city."

He added that his family has "faced difficult times," but "anyone who knows us as a couple understands that this is not who we are."

dan.mangan@nypost.com
September 1, 2011
Bloomberg Hid Crucial Detail as Aide Resigned: An Arrest
By MICHAEL BARBARO, NY TIMES

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s management style has its hallmarks: unwavering loyalty to aides and a deep distaste for exposing private lives to public scrutiny.

So when he described the resignation of a deputy mayor a few weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg left out a crucial detail — the aide had just been arrested over a domestic violence complaint.

On Thursday, Mr. Bloomberg’s instinct to protect, rather than disclose, engulfed his administration in controversy, as prominent city officials harshly criticized his decision to keep the episode hidden from the public.

The deputy mayor, Stephen Goldsmith, who had overseen the city’s Police, Fire and Transportation Departments, was arrested on July 30 after an altercation with his wife at their home in Washington. His wife told officers that he had shoved her and smashed a telephone against the floor.

Mr. Goldsmith, who spent at least 36 hours in police detention after the episode, immediately reported the matter to Mr. Bloomberg. But when Mr. Goldsmith abruptly resigned five days later, the mayor’s office declared in a statement that he was “leaving to pursue private-sector opportunities in infrastructure finance,” language that was reviewed by the mayor himself, people with knowledge of the situation said.

While acknowledging that Mr. Goldsmith, 64, had to step down, these people said, Mr. Bloomberg insisted that the departing aide, a former mayor of Indianapolis and a well-known expert on municipal government, be allowed to characterize the move on his own terms.

Pressed on why City Hall had not disclosed the arrest or the reason Mr. Goldsmith had stepped down, a spokesman for the mayor, Marc La Vorgna, declined to comment.

Mr. Goldsmith’s departure from City Hall had already seemed all but inevitable: it capped a tumultuous 14-month tenure in which he clashed with city commissioners, inflamed municipal unions and oversaw the much-criticized response to the December blizzard, which he coordinated from Washington, where he spent many weekends. When he resigned, many assumed he was ousted for poor performance, a perception City Hall did nothing to dispel. On Thursday, Mr. Goldsmith said that he had actually resigned so that his arrest would not “be a distraction to the mayor.”

Mr. Goldsmith’s arrest, made over his wife’s strenuous objections, first became public in The New York Post on Thursday. The revelation, and the decision by the administration to cloak the circumstances surrounding Mr. Goldsmith’s resignation, roiled New York’s political world, especially because the mayor has made government transparency and combating domestic violence priorities during his tenure.

“It appears that the mayor was not up front with New Yorkers,” said John C. Liu, the city’s comptroller, who called on the mayor to “level with the city” about Mr. Goldsmith’s conduct.

Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, said he was “very troubled that this information was purposely withheld from the public” and suggested that, in this case, the mayor’s penchant for privacy had crossed the line.

“You don’t want to tell the people where you go on the weekends? We can have that discussion,” Mr. Stringer said, alluding to the mayor’s frequent trips out of town. “But it’s absolutely unacceptable to conceal a set of circumstances like this.”

Even domestic violence experts who have worked closely with the administration and spoke glowingly of its track record on the issue said they were unsettled by the situation.

“If we are going to hold the regular people of New York City accountable for not being violent in their relationships, we need to hold our senior leaders and officials, too,” said Liz Roberts, the chief program officer at Safe Horizon, a group that has worked with the mayor to pass laws protecting victims of domestic abuse.

“It’s troubling — absolutely,” she said.

Based on the police report, it appears that prosecutors did not want to charge Mr. Goldsmith, because his wife did not want to pursue the case.

His arrest, according to a report released Thursday by the Washington police, stemmed from a loud and at times violent argument starting around 9:30 p.m. on a Saturday in the couple’s red-brick town house in the wealthy Georgetown neighborhood.

“I should have put a bullet through you years ago,” Margaret Goldsmith, 59, screamed at her husband, according to the report. Mr. Goldsmith then shoved her into a kitchen counter, she told the police.

Mrs. Goldsmith threatened to call the police. According to the report, she told him, “You’re not going to do this to me again.”

At that, Mr. Goldsmith grabbed the telephone and threw it to the ground, breaking it, Mrs. Goldsmith told the police. He grabbed her and refused to let her go, the report said.

Mrs. Goldsmith said she yelled, “Let me go, let me go,” and dug her nails into her husband’s forearms; when he released her, she ran to another room and called the police, the report said.

Mr. Goldsmith was arrested around 10 p.m. on a charge of simple assault domestic violence.

The Goldsmiths, in a statement released Thursday morning, confirmed the arrest but denied that they had engaged in any violence and suggested that the police report had misrepresented their behavior.

The report, Mrs. Goldsmith said, “is a summary of what discussions occurred that evening in our home, and those comments have been misconstrued as well as taken out of context.”

Mrs. Goldsmith said the arrest, which was required under Washington’s domestic violence laws, “was made over my strong objections and numerous appeals to the officers.”

Mr. La Vorgna, the spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said the mayor’s office had “nothing to add to Mrs. Goldsmith’s account of the incident.” Once Mr. Goldsmith had brought the arrest to Mr. Bloomberg’s attention, Mr. La Vorgna said, “it was clear to the mayor and Mr. Goldsmith that he could no longer serve at City Hall, regardless of his guilt or innocence.”

Mr. Bloomberg, 69, has long prided himself on standing by employees who run into trouble, both at his company and in City Hall, expressing disgust for executives who abandoned aides at the first whiff of scandal.

He stuck by Steven Rattner, who managed Mr. Bloomberg’s personal wealth, after the financier was caught up in an investigation into kickbacks to New York State’s pension system. He defended Nicholas Scoppetta, then the city’s fire commissioner, amid intense criticism of the city’s role in the deadly fire at the former Deutsche Bank building. And he declined to dismiss Mr. Goldsmith even as doubts intensified about his competence.

With a mix of admiration and dismay, even those closest to the mayor describe him as loyal to a fault.

Susan Lerner, the head of Common Cause New York, a good-government group, said that Mr. Bloomberg faced “a tricky situation,” given that Mr. Goldsmith had not been charged with a crime.

“I don’t think you need to necessarily say what happened,” she said. However, she added, “It’s never, to us, a good idea to misrepresent to the public, even with the motives of trying to prevent a trial by the media.”

On Thursday, Councilwoman Letitia James, a Democrat from Brooklyn, said that she had spoken with several members of the administration who argued that Mr. Goldsmith’s resignation was a “private matter.”

Ms. James called that explanation jarring. “They huddled together and they maintained silence,” she said. “They tend to protect their own.”

Reporting was contributed by David W. Chen, Raymond Hernandez, William K. Rashbaum and Liz Robbins.

Budgets chopped at 51 failing middle schools, despite funding initiative designed to help
by Rachel Monahan, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, Friday, September 2nd 2011, 4:00 AM
LINK

A parent of a student who graduated from Middle School 22 in the Bronx said the school suffered from high teacher turnover and needed more funding.

The 51 troubled middle schools the city wants to turn around with an infusion of cash have instead had their budgets slashed over the last two years, the Daily News has learned.

At the same time, their standardized test scores have remained far below average, an analysis by the Coalition for Educational Justice found.

"The whole thing has virtually unraveled," said Carol Boyd, a CEJ parent leader. "These are schools where students struggle on a daily basis."

The middle school initiative, supported by the City Council, sent $5 million to the schools over the last four years - or an average of nearly $100,000 a year to each.

Meanwhile, each school's budget has been hacked by an average of more than $125,000 a year for the last two years, the CEJ analysis found.

The schools - five have closed and another two are phasing out - face additional cuts this fall because these guaranteed grants have ended.

At the schools still open this year, fewer than a fifth of the students passed the state reading exams and just a third passed the math tests.

Esperanza Vasquez, whose son, Alexis, 15, graduated Middle School 22 in the Bronx a year ago, said the school suffered from high teacher turnover and could have benefited from more funding.

"The principal has really good ideas. She doesn't have enough support from the Department of Education to do those programs," she said.

"Low-performing schools need enough funding to provide sports and arts - programs to keep the students motivated."

City Department of Education officials yesterday provided no new specifics on how they intend to improve their middle schools.

"While the current fiscal reality has necessitated budget cuts across all schools, we remain committed to improving the educational outcomes for our middle school students," said spokeswoman Barbara Morgan.

rmonahan@nydailynews.com



Statistics, Beloved by Mayor, Show a Slump in City Services
By SAM ROBERTS, NY TIMES
LINK

“In God we trust,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is fond of saying, before invariably adding a caveat: “Everyone else, bring data.”

Mr. Bloomberg, after all, became a billionaire by founding a company that was built on mining statistics.

And since becoming mayor nearly a decade ago, he has minutely quantified virtually every detail of his government, from the number of mentally ill inmates in city jails to the days left in his current term. A video screen at City Hall regularly updates the progress of dozens of agencies in meeting their goals.

But for a mayor who advertised his managerial expertise to win a third term, some of his administration’s own numbers show a clear slump in the performance of agencies Mr. Bloomberg oversees as the city’s chief executive.

While many performance indicators registered gains since 2001, a higher share declined and fewer improved during most of the last fiscal year than in any year since Mr. Bloomberg’s first term. The slump, magnified in the past two years, has apparently not been lost on his constituents. Before the mayor’s timely, aggressive, reassuring and highly visible response to Tropical Storm Irene — in contrast to his administration’s lackadaisical handling of last December’s blizzard — his job approval rating had declined to its lowest point since 2005, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll.

“Clearly you get a sense of a city straining, certainly in some areas,” said Doug Turetsky, chief of staff of the city’s Independent Budget Office. “You can see families staying longer in shelters. Child welfare workers’ caseloads are creeping up. It certainly gives pause.”

For most of the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Citywide Performance Reporting system initiated by the mayor, responses to emergencies by the Police, Fire and Buildings Departments were slower than in the year before. More water mains broke, the streets were dirtier, the backlog of broken hydrants increased and the time it took to arrange for a home health attendant doubled to 26 days, according to the administration’s report card on how city services were delivered. Medical examiners took a week longer to sift DNA evidence in sexual assault cases. The average time between a passenger’s request for a taxi complaint hearing and a final decision rose to 63 days from 56 the year before.

Among seven broad services provided by the city, a majority of indicators improved in only a single category: economic development. In two categories, public safety and education, more indicators declined than improved.

Among all of the 478 indicators or measurements of progress monitored by the mayor’s office, about 48 percent improved and 45 percent declined, according to an analysis by The New York Times — a record that may undercut Mr. Bloomberg’s reputation for applying business skills to city government even during a recession. Administration officials defended their performance, saying the sagging economy inevitably led to some service cuts, even as agencies are still expected to show year-to-year improvements.

“It’s very important to remember the premise here,” said Stu Loeser, the mayor’s chief spokesman, referring to the online color-coded Citywide Performance Rating. “The dashboard is designed with the expectation that we do better than the previous year — if agencies don’t do as well as before, they get a yellow or red. Green only goes for significant improvements — hard to do. It’s a high standard we set for ourselves.”

Henry J. Stern, a former parks commissioner who is the director of New York Civic, a nonpartisan government watchdog group, said the decline in services was self-evident. “The snow wasn’t picked up,” he said, referring to the city’s slow response to the blizzard in December. “People know that; you don’t need statistics.” Some of the sheen of Mr. Bloomberg’s business acumen has also faded as a result of the corruption charges and investigation involving CityTime, the administration’s automated payroll project and another data-driven effort embraced by the mayor.

“Given the magnitude of the CityTime scandal, I think the mayor has already squandered most of his smart management reputation,” said James A. Parrott, chief economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute, a labor-supported research and advocacy group.

Of course, even if some services have started to slip, most New Yorkers are experiencing a generally safer and cleaner city than the one Mr. Bloomberg inherited.

Since 2001, when Mr. Bloomberg was first elected, major felony crimes have declined by 39 percent (though murders have increased since 2009) and traffic fatalities have declined by nearly 40 percent, according to a 10-year snapshot of indicators chosen by the mayor’s office.

The response time for crimes in progress is 8 minutes 54 seconds, better than in 2001, when it was 10 minutes 6 seconds, but is climbing again. So is the response time to medical emergencies (a full minute higher than in 2001 after declining). Street cleanliness is higher, but slipping again. The number of children in foster care, civilian fire fatalities and the infant mortality rate have all plunged and the number of families placed in permanent housing has increased.

More potholes have been repaired (305,001 in 2011 compared with 121,331 in 2001), and response times to complaints about clogged sewers have improved.

“While overall performance is important, we think New Yorkers care most about key quality of life measures like crime and cleanliness, which have dramatically improved over the past 10 years,” said Julie Wood, a mayoral spokeswoman.

Elizabeth Weinstein, director of the Mayor’s Office of Operations, said that the raw accounting of declining and improving performance could be misleading. For example, the number of building-related fatalities has declined, but is that because of better safety monitoring or because the economy has put a crimp in construction? That senior centers are serving fewer lunches is considered a decline, but maybe it means fewer elderly people are hungry or more are relying on food stamps or other substitutes.

Moreover, managing a city is not necessarily the same as running a business, where improved productivity might generate more sales and revenue that could be invested to improve results further.

“If they have one fabulous February, then this year you’re going to be yellow or red unless you match it,” Ms. Weinstein said, referring to the color codes the city uses to grade agencies.

Some analysts gave Mr. Bloomberg credit for being transparent about his administration’s performance, be it good or bad, especially compared with some of his City Hall predecessors.

“I was surprised when I saw the amount that was declining,” said Mr. Turetsky of the Independent Budget Office, “but you could actually give the Bloomberg administration a high mark for honesty when you think back to the Giuliani era, when the sun was always shining.”

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The Best Reviews of Class Warfare: Mike Winerip and Richard Rothstein


Steve Brill is getting a name out there - no, he's getting many names out, depending on whose review of his new book you read. Because this is my blog, I picked my two favorites out of the pack: Richard Rothstein and Mike Winerip. See below. Just dont buy the book.

Betsy Combier
Grading the Education Reformers: Steven Brill Gives Them Much Too Easy A Ride
by Richard Rothstein

August 28, 2011

Teachers Get Little Say in a Book About Them
By MICHAEL WINERIP, NY TIMES
LINK

Can an education reform movement that demeans and trivializes teachers succeed? It’s hard to imagine, but that is what is going on in parts of America today.

In Steven Brill’s new book celebrating the movement, “Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools,” teachers are literally the least of it. Of the three million who work in traditional public schools, three are interviewed by Mr. Brill on the record; their insights take up six of the book’s 437 pages.

Nor do charter school teachers fare much better. At Harlem Success Academy 1, which produces top scores on state tests, Mr. Brill describes how teachers working around the clock continually burn out. Like kitchen appliances, they last a few years and then need to be replaced. One teacher describes being “overwhelmed, underappreciated and underpaid” and tells Mr. Brill, “There is no way I can do this beyond another year or two.”

Mr. Brill has little positive to say about teachers. Veterans “hanging on for 20 or 30 years caring only about their pensions and tenure protection are toxic.” While he admits that there are thousands of teachers who are skilled and highly motivated, “increasingly” there are those who put in an “8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. workday with a civil-service mentality.” (How Mr. Brill could possibly know whether the number of these teachers is increasing is unclear, since he provides no statistics or attribution.)

Until this project, Mr. Brill, 61, had rarely written about education. Nor was he well acquainted with public schools — he graduated from Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts and sent his three children to private schools.

The book grew from his New Yorker article two years ago about rubber rooms, where the city’s most dysfunctional teachers spent idle days, collecting salaries while waiting months or years for their cases to be resolved. “I see a guy asleep with his head on a desk and alarm clock,” Mr. Brill recalled in an interview. “I see another guy, if he were in a room with my daughter, I’d call the police.”

There were 744 teachers in rubber rooms at the time. For some, that is understandable in a system of 77,000 teachers; to Mr. Brill, it was a prime example of a union more interested in protecting its members than in educating children.

Mr. Brill, a writer (“Teamsters,” 1978), lawyer (Yale ’75) and entrepreneur (founder of Court TV and the American Lawyer publication), knows that every story needs a villain or an evil force. In “Class Warfare,” the problem is not the poverty the children experience, the violence they see in their homes and neighborhoods or the lack of vocabulary that the sons and daughters of adults who did not finish high school often take with them to kindergarten.

The villains of Mr. Brill’s story are bad teachers coddled by unions.

With his legal training and business background, Mr. Brill is expert at chronicling the union’s failings. He documents the growth of the New York City teachers’ contract from 39 pages in 1962 to 200 today, along with work rules that can be used at every turn to obstruct principals from improving schools. He details the case of a Stuyvesant High School teacher who was so drunk that she passed out at her desk, only to have the union claim on its Web site that she was disciplined as part of a scheme to harm senior teachers.

He goes a lot easier on the reformers who have spent recent years pushing the expansion of charter schools and standardized tests. Mr. Brill identifies the millionaires and billionaires who attack the unions and steered the Democratic Party to their cause. There is Whitney Tilson, who parlayed $1 million of his parents’, relatives’ and own money to build a hedge fund that he told Mr. Brill was worth $50 million; Ravenel Boykin Curry IV, who works for the family’s money fund and has homes in Manhattan, East Hampton and the Dominican Republic; and David Einhorn, who at age 38 “was already one of Wall Street’s successful short sellers.”

The book is called “Class Warfare.” I expected Mr. Brill to explore why these men single out the union for blame when children fail. If a substantial part of the problem was poverty and not bad teachers, the question would be why people like them are allowed to make so much when others have so little. I hear this all the time from teachers, but when I asked Mr. Brill, he said, “I didn’t see it as the rich versus the union guys, although now that you say it, I can see how you could draw that line.”

Harlem Success 1 shares a building with a traditional public school, P.S. 149. Mr. Brill presents numbers that show the charter school is far superior: 86 percent of Harlem Success students were proficient in English in 2010, compared with 29 percent of P.S. 149’s. He notes that charters are criticized for having fewer children with learning challenges, but “none of the actual data supports this.”

Actually, it does. According to the city, in 2010 P.S. 149 had more children poor enough to receive free lunch (76 percent vs. 67 percent for the charter); more children for whom English was a second language (13 percent vs. 1.5 for the charter); and more children with disabilities (22 percent vs. 16).

And that is what so scares those of us who see traditional public schools as vital to democracy: that they will become repositories for the poorest, most troubled children.

Reviewers have criticized Mr. Brill for making what seems like a bizarre turnaround in the book’s final chapter. When I asked him about it, he said the two years spent reporting had changed him.

In the book’s first 420 pages, he bashes the union and its president, Randi Weingarten, is dismissive of veteran teachers and extols charters.

Three people seem to have altered that thinking. First, David Levin, a founder of the Knowledge Is Power Program, the biggest charter chain in the country, told him that charter schools would never be able to train near the number of quality teachers needed to populate all public schools.

Second, Jessica Reid, an assistant principal at Harlem Success who worked night and day to improve the lives of poor children, burned out right before Mr. Brill’s eyes and quit midyear.

And third, against the odds, he came to like Ms. Weingarten. “She really cares about this stuff,” he told me.

The book ultimately concludes that only the union can supply quality veteran teachers on the scale needed.

At a time when education is so polarized, Mr. Brill seems to have found some middle ground. He even suggested to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg that he make Ms. Weingarten New York’s next chancellor to provide the balance necessary for real change.

On Page 426, the mayor responds. “It’s a really stupid idea,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Never in a million years.”

Oneducation@nytimes.com

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The Great Debate: Steve Brill v Teaching Matters



AUG 21, 2011 19:37 EDT

Steven Brill

The school reform deniers

By Steven Brill All opinions expressed are his own.
Every year I tell students in a journalism seminar I teach about the junior reporter forThe American Lawyer – the magazine I founded and edited –who committed a classic error when he submitted a draft of a profile about some lawyer in the news who had made it big. Midway through the article, the young reporter described a showcase this lawyer had in his office that displayed a bunch of combat medals. The reporter declared, matter-of-factly, that our legal hero had won the medals for his heroics in Vietnam, which was relevant, he added, because the lawyer made his war record and his lock-n-load approach to his work part of his pitch to potential clients.
In the margin next to the statement about the lawyer having won the medals I wrote, “Who says?” When the reporter came to ask me what I had meant, I told him to check with the Pentagon about the supposed medals. Which the reporter did, and which caused a mini-scandal after we reported in our otherwise positive profile that our hero hadn’t won them.
The story has three points. First, that reporters should believe nothing told to them by a biased source, especially when what they are being told is a checkable fact. Second, that while opinions deserve balanced reporting of both sides’ views, facts are facts. They are knowable. The guy either got medals or he didn’t. Third, the best way to test facts that you think you know is to put them in front of the person with the greatest stake in refuting them. In this case when we confronted the lawyer with the Pentagon’s records that he had not won any medals, he produced no evidence to the contrary and, in fact, ultimately confessed his deception. Case closed.
I have thought about the lawyer who didn’t win the medals a lot in the two years since I parachuted into a giant story that I started out knowing little about: the battle raging across the country over education reform. After I had seen a reference to them in the New York Post, I showed up one morning in June 2009 at one of New York City’s “Rubber Rooms.” These were the places that housed hundreds of New York City teachers whom the Department of Education had accused of misconduct or incompetence, but who were protected by union tenure rules and, therefore, remained on the payroll for years pending the outcome of endless arbitration hearings, which typically resulted in them being returned to class by arbitrators whose $1,400-a-day contracts had to be approved every year by the teachers’ union.
The minute I saw these people sleeping, playing board games, chatting, or — in the case of a cheerful, $85,000 a year former middle school teacher — lounging in a beach chair she had brought from home, the story seemed obvious. As schools chancellor Joel Klein and his staff had argued, the Rubber Room was a symbol of a system gone haywire.
However, there seemed to be another side. The union had maintained that the Rubber Room teachers were victims, and New York’s public radio station, WNYC, had broadcast a report in which several of these Rubber Room teachers were interviewed complaining about how they were being persecuted for having complained about Klein’s misdeeds or misconduct.
COMMENT

John Thompson On Steve Brill's New Book

We all are going to hear alot about Steve Brill's book in the future, and all views are important. Just dont buy the book.

Betsy Combier

Guest Post: The Facts Not Included in Steve Brill's Tell All

By John Thompson

Steve Brill’s Class Warfare is full of breathless accounts of the rich and powerful that are reminiscent of the biographies of Kitty Kelly. Ironically, the most valuable part of his Class Warfaremay be his accounts of dramatic decisions to undertake risky and revolutionary "reforms" based on minimal evidence and some strange assumptions.

According to Brill, "Identifying Effective Teaching Using Performance on the Job" by Tom Kane, Robert Gordon, and Douglas Staiger was used to convince Bill Gates and President Obama that "teacher quality," measured by standardized tests, must be the focus of reform. According to Brill, they argued that tests showed, "remarkable consistency among teachers," and that "obviously" this suggested that the person in front of the classroom was the key to closing the achievement gap. Gates was supposedly told that the "surprising" lack of volatility in the test scores of one district meant we could trust algorithms to drive the firing of teachers. If we believe Brill, because of the stability in the charts that Kane and Gordon presented to Gates, we should presume that 25% of teachers with the lowest test score growth should be fired.

Perhaps I should make no assumptions, and use my 90% low-income district to explain Urban Education 101 for reformers. In our six magnet and charter high schools, the attendance rates never drop below 95%, while our seven neighborhood schools struggle to reach an attendance rate of 80%. When you add in the far lower enrollment rates and the far higher suspension rates in the neighborhood schools, their students attend class at a rate that is 1/4th to 1/3rd less than their peers in selective schools (and far less than their previous three years in middle school.) It would take a superhuman effort for neighborhood school teachers, with kids who are five to six years behind grade level in reading, to meet growth targets that were not controlled for school selectivity.

By the way, those patterns are all stable. Should we thus assume that the teachers in the magnet schools are better than the teachers in neighborhood schools with deplorable scores?

Neither would anyone with firsthand knowledge of actual classrooms assume that a relative lack of test score volatility within schools justifies the "reformers’" extraordinary conclusions. I would assume that Kane, at least, would know that even when student assignment policies are stable, students are assigned differently to tested and non-tested classes. I wonder how he would address a stable pattern in my district where middle school "Science" classes are taught to the names, dates, facts, and figures of the benchmark tests, producing pass rates ranging from 70 to 73%. Then freshmen Biology students have a pass rate that fluctuates from 30% to 51% to 41% on tests designed to measure scientific thinking. Since the Biology teachers’ growth targets would be based on middle school tests, would Kane support the mass firing of those teachers for failure to meet targets generated from the results of different tests?

Recognizing that districts differ, let us take some more obvious examples of stable patterns from my school system. As 5th graders, the kids of Zip Code 73120 attend schools with poverty rates ranging from 23%, 50%, 69%, and 76%, with the special education populations ranging from 5.5% to 14%. The number of suspensions are 0, 14, 33, and 86. The pass rates for 5th grade Reading range from 81% to 95%.

Between 5th and 6th grade, the district's student population drops by nearly 1/5th as the numbers of special education and ELL students increase. In 73120, the decline is more remarkable as the majority of their students move to magnet, enterprise, and charter schools, including four that have gained national recognition. So, the 6th graders arrive at a school with 2,020 disciplinary actions, which lost its middle class students after the campus policeman was hospitalized in a riot, and where 1/4th of their class are on IEPs. Should the 6th grade teachers to be blamed for a Reading pass rate of 44%? Is it reasonable to expect those teachers to meet test score targets based on the three previous years of performance in very different types of classrooms, with incomparably different peer effects?

Similarly, a non-educator might be unaware that the challenges facing an Algebra II class are radically different to those of an Algebra I class next door. The demographic differences between the two math classes, however, are just as stark as the unbelievable differences between our 5th and 6th graders. My school was the lowest-ranked secondary school in Oklahoma, but the percentages of poor and at-risk juniors in Algebra II were not dramatically different to the percentages in many suburban schools. After all, 1/3rd or more of the freshmen Algebra I students drop out before reaching their 11th grade year. (By the way, 9th grade is the year when the enrollment rate reaches rock bottom, with the average freshmen being in school for less than 2/3rds of a year, and when the truancy and suspension rates explode. Should we fire most, if not all inner city Algebra I teachers for not raising the performance of students who do not attend class?)

Worst of all, the Gates shop has given no indication that they have become aware of the difference between a student with a math or a reading disability, as opposed to a conduct disorder or serious emotional disturbances. Neither have they dealt with the effect of federal policies on how schools are allowed to handle those students, and the implication for schools where 35 to 40% of their students are on Individual Education Plans.

In other words, they do not have the background knowledge to comprehend the scenario described by Paul Tough where an inner city class of thirty kids, because it has 8 to 10 kids who have been traumatized to the point where their brain circuitry has been altered, degenerates into a culture of hitting and fighting. Otherwise, how could Kane and Gates assume that teachers with those sorts of classes would have a chance of hitting their growth targets?

Unless these theorists assumed that Seriously Emotionally Disturbed students are distributed evenly throughout our diverse nation's classrooms, they betrayed a basic misunderstanding of peer effects in urban schools. A class where a third of the students are well- behaved kids with cognitive differences, can not be compared to a class with a critical mass of children who have been victimized to the point where they can not control their behavior. And if the theorists have that level of ignorance, perhaps they also are unaware that schools facing an impossible load of the most difficult-to-educate students tend to turn certain classes into dumping grounds.

Brill’s Class Warfare included 19 pages of sources and endnotes, but there is no indication that he read any of the immense body of social science on teaching, learning, and schooling. According to Brill, Gates gave the go-ahead for his Measuring Effective Teaching effort after two hours of discussion. There was no indication that Gates was exposed to scholarship that contradicted the hypothesis that teacher quality must drive reform.

Had Gates been briefed on the way schools are organized, and the need for early education, a concentration on reading comprehension and socio-emotional skills before 3rd grade, the need for high-quality curriculum, and the promise of community schools that turn education into a team effort, I doubt this smart man would have assumed that there was only one way to fix urban schools.

If Gates, or for that matter, if President Obama (who later adopted the Gates agenda) had been provided a full and fair briefing by educators as well as economists, it would be no skin off Brill's nose. There are still plenty of Kitty Kelly-type books out there begging to be written by a person with Brill's confidence that he obviously knows all of the answers.

Dr. John Thompson was an award-winning historian, lobbyist, and guerilla-gardener who became an award-winning inner city teacher after crack and gangs hit his neighborhood. He blogs atthisweekineducation.com, and huffingtonpost.com, and is writing a book on 18 years of idealistic politics in the classroom and realistic politics outside.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Should Education Schools Have "Higher" Standards For Graduating New Teachers?

How education schools fail the nation

By MICHAEL A. WALSH, NY POST, August 25, 2011
LINK

Which college field of study has the lowest standards and the highest grades -- a magical Lake Wobegon world in which all the students are not just above average but way above average? If you guessed “teaching,” you’d be right.

That’s the conclusion of a new study from the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, “Grade Inflation for Education Majors and Low Standards for Teachers.”

“Students who take education classes at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in every other academic discipline,” says the report. “The ... explanation is that the higher grades in education classes are the result of low grading standards.”

The study, authored by Corey Koedel, notes that education majors -- the future teachers of America, especially at the grade-school and high-school level -- routinely get top marks in the gut courses that ed majors generally take. And yet they consistently score lower on college entrance exams than students in other disciplines.

It’s an amazing disparity between ability and academic “achievement” that translates in the real world into high performance evaluations and failing schools, especially in urban areas.

What’s wrong with this picture? Nothing less than the future of the country.

Progressives like to defend their pet programs as “for the children,” but if anything ought to be for the children, it’s education. And yet secondary and high-school education in this country has too often become a sinecure of last resort for people who have no business teaching in the first place.

Teachers unions play a key role in this madness: Whenever the issue of “teacher quality” comes up, they push for more “certification” -- more degrees from the ed schools -- as the answer, rather than any sort of competency testing. And the unions would just as soon the certification came in meaningless areas -- that way it’s no threat to anyone’s job.

In fact, the theories of education have become far more important than the subjects themselves. The heck with reading, writing and arithmetic -- these days, it’s all about “strategies for learning.”

So it’s no wonder that American schoolkids have fallen far behind their international counterparts. Today a high-school diploma too often simply signifies four years spent under adult supervision in juvenile-detention centers for the largely nonviolent -- rather than any specific level of knowledge or attainment.

In turn, this has led to such futile barn-door closing as the No Child Left Behind act, which sought to set measurable standards of achievement through standardized tests. That brought us dumbed-down tests -- plus scandals like the Atlanta “erasure parties,” where teachers and administrators “improved” student test results. Investigators found misconduct in 44 of the 56 schools they examined, and at least 41 teachers implicated in the scandal have quit, among them 13 school principals.

The chances this scandal is confined to Atlanta? Slim or none.

The fact is that education in America has been turned on its head. It’s not about book learning any more. Instead, it’s about allowing teachers to stick another gold star of self-esteem on their resumes when their charges manage to conquer what would have been considered just a few decades ago the most rudimentary of exams.

It’s also about career advancement -- and, of course, getting more taxpayer dollars. And so as high schools have turned into grade schools, colleges -- especially state colleges -- have had to become very expensive remedial high schools.

This madness has to end. We must return to the days before education majors got a stranglehold on the schools, before the vicious cycle of bogus achievement leading to invincible ignorance. And it starts by hiring teachers who can teach subjects, not theories.

As Koedel notes, “Low grading standards in university education departments are part of a larger culture of low standards for educators, and they precede the low evaluation standards by which teachers are judged in K-12 schools.”

And for this we spend more than $600 billion on public primary and secondary education in America? There is a better way.

Friday, August 26, 2011

First Department Rules Against The UFT, Says Teachers' Scores Can Be Released

For second time, a court rules city can release teachers’ scores

by Philissa Cramer, Gotham Schools
LINK

The city can release teacher ratings data to news organizations, the state’s second-highest court ruled today in another serious blow to the union’s effort to keep individual teachers’ scores out of the press.

The release won’t happen right away while the legal fight continues, Department of Education officials said.

But the union is running out of chances to stop the ratings from being published. In December, a State Supreme Court judge ruled that the city could release Teacher Data Reports for at least 12,000 teachers who have them. After the Appellate Court ruling today, the union’s last hope is the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

The union is already working on its appeal, UFT President Michael Mulgrew announced moments after the Appellate Court ruling.

Because the four judges on the Appellate Court ruled unanimously against the union, there’s no guarantee that the Court of Appeals will hear the case. Instead, the Appellate Court has to give permission. Within days, the union will ask the appellate court for permission to have the case heard in the Court of Appeals. If permission isn’t granted, the union can also ask the Court of Appeals itself. If the Court of Appeals declines to hear the case, then the Appellate Court’s decision would stand and the union would be out of options.

“We will await the court’s decision on [the UFT's] request to appeal before we release the data,” said Natalie Ravitz, a DOE spokeswoman.

The Teacher Data Reports are “value-added” evaluations, which grade teachers by comparing their students’ test scores to forecasted scores. They were created as an internal assessment, designed to help teachers gauge their own performance. But the city announced it would release the ratings publicly after several news organizations filed Freedom of Information Law requests for them. That announcement prompted the UFT lawsuit.

The Appellate Court judges ruled that making teachers’ ratings available is in the public interest. “The reports concern information of a type that is of a compelling interest to the public, namely, the proficiency of public employees in the performance of their duties,” the judges wrote.

But the union argues that the data reports’ wide margin of error means it would be irresponsible to publish them.

“Experts agree that an ‘accountability’ measure with a 58-point swing — like the DOE’s teacher data system – is worse than useless,” Mulgrew said in a statement. “Parents and teachers need credible, accurate assessments rather than guesswork.”

Teachers union loses suit to keep teacher ratings anonymous

by Anna Phillips, Gotham Schools, January 10, 2011
LINK

New York City’s teachers union lost its suit to block the city from releasing 12,000 teachers’ ratings and names that, for years, have been kept confidential.

State Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Kern ruled today to deny the United Federation of Teachers’ request that the city redact teachers’ names from the Teacher Data Reports. The reports measure a teacher’s effectiveness based on how good she is at improving her students’ test scores from the beginning of the year to the end.

Underpinning the union’s lawsuit was the claim that releasing teachers’ ratings with their names included constituted an unlawful invasion of privacy.

A spokesman for the union said that the union’s lawyers are reviewing the decision.

Kern’s ruling:

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Teachers Cannot Be Evaluated Only By Student Scores - Union Wins

Teacher Tests Overhaul Goal Struck Down
By JACOB GERSHMAN, Wall Street Journal, AUGUST 25, 2011
LINK

New York's effort to overhaul its system for evaluating teachers suffered a setback on Wednesday when a state judge ruled that public-school educators can't be deemed ineffective based only on the performance of their students.

Siding with the state's teachers union, a state Supreme Court judge in Albany struck down a provision of new state regulations that give schools more leeway to fire teachers whose students persistently get poor marks on standardized tests and other assessments.

Justice Michael C. Lynch specifically rejected the section allowing schools to give teachers the lowest rating if they fail the student performance part of their evaluation, even if they score higher on other measures.

State officials said they would appeal. "That is the most disappointing aspect of this decision," said New York's education commissioner, John King Jr. "The notion that a teacher whose students show no academic growth or lose ground academically would be able to get a positive rating is highly problematic."

Under the new system approved last year, 40% of a teacher's review is based on student achievement. The rest is determined by other factors such as classroom observations.

Last June, New York State United Teachers sued the state Board of Regents, charging that the regulations violated state law. The union, a federation representing hundreds of thousands of teachers, contended that the regulations put too much emphasis on test scores, going beyond what lawmakers intended when they revised the evaluation system last year.

Justice Lynch agreed in part.

"Since multiple measures must be considered," he wrote, "the scoring ranges developed by the Commissioner must allow for the 60 point category to have meaningful impact in the composite score, even in an instance of poor student achievement."

The judge also ruled that only 20% of the evaluations can be based on a single, uniform assessment tracking a student's test scores year to year. The state wanted to push that percentage up to 40%. The judge said schools would have to come up with different ways of measuring student performance.

"This decision upholds the role of practitioners and the value of collective bargaining," the union president, Richard C. Iannuzzi, said in a statement.

The new regulations, parts of which still must be collectively bargained, are supposed to kick in for about 60% of the state's public teacher work force—whose contracts expired in July.

As part of New York's winning bid for about $700 million in federal grants, the state said it would launch the new system this school year, beginning with most math and English teachers in grades four through eight. Unless the state loses an appeal of Wednesday's decision, the regulations will still hold.

Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com

August 24, 2011
For State Teachers’ Union, a Victory on Evaluations
By SHARON OTTERMAN, NY TIMES
A judge ruled Wednesday that the New York State Board of Regents overreached in its interpretation of a new law on teacher evaluations, offering a victory to the state teachers’ union.

The decision, by Justice Michael C. Lynch of State Supreme Court in Albany, invalidated aspects of a recent Regents vote on teacher evaluations, and may further delay the introduction of the law, which is scheduled to go into effect for all fourth through eighth grade teachers, pending union approval, in the coming school year.

“We are extremely pleased with the outcome,” said Richard C. Iannuzzi, the president of the union, the New York State United Teachers.

In June, the union sued the Board of Regents, which sets state education policy, arguing that last-minute changes the Regents approved had increased the role of student test scores in teacher evaluations beyond what the 2010 law permitted.

In hs 16-page decision, Justice Lynch largely sided with the union, writing that the Regents had failed to give sufficient weight to the law’s collective bargaining requirements, and that it had not fully acknowledged the law’s stipulation that test scores alone cannot determine a teacher’s performance review. “The Regents is unquestionably invested with broad rule-making authority,” Justice Lynch wrote, “but such authority must be exercised subject to and in conformity with the law of the state.”

John B. King Jr., the state education commissioner, said the state planned to appeal.

We are disappointed,” he said, by the aspects of the decision “that undermine the rigor of the evaluation system.”

Heeding a call from Dr. King and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Board of Regents voted in May to permit districts to base 40 percent of a teacher’s annual review on students’ scores on state standardized tests. But the law specifies that 20 percent of the evaluation must be based on state tests, with an additional 20 percent based on other, locally developed student tests. The other 60 percent of the evaluation is based on subjective measures, including observation.

In a compromise that pleased both the union and the state, Justice Lynch ruled that districts could use state tests for both the local and state measure, if the local union chapter approved and the tests were used in more than one way.

But he invalidated a Regents decision that would have required any teacher who received a rating of “ineffective” on the test score component of his or her evaluation to get an “ineffective” rating over all — no matter how well that teacher scored on subjective measures.

The new law replaces the simple “satisfactory/unsatisfactory” scale that teachers have been judged against for decades with a four-tiered rating: ineffective, developing, effective or highly effective. It was passed in a compromise between state education officials and the teachers’ union in 2010, to help the state win a $700 million grant from the federal Race to the Top competition.


Tuesday, August 23, 2011

City Teachers Scramble For Jobs

City Teachers Scramble for New Positions

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 04:49 PM
By Beth Fertig, NYC News Blog
LINK

More than 1,900 city teachers let go by their principals because of budget cuts are still looking for new jobs this fall — and continue to receive salaries while they're assigned to work as subs and look for permanent positions within the school system.

Letting go of teachers for budget reasons has become an annual tradition in New York City, known as "excessing." This is the fifth consecutive year in which schools have had their budgets slashed. This year, individual schools lost an average of 2.4 percent of their city funds. Principals have responded by raising class sizes in order to let go of a teacher, or by moving librarians back to the classroom.

As many as 3,325 teachers were in the excess pool at its peak this summer, compared to 2,993 last summer — a figure that included more than 1,000 teachers who lost their jobs in previous years. But the total number of teachers still looking for work shrank to 1,940 by August 19, about the same number as this time last year.

It Could Have Been Worse

The teachers unions said it's not as bad as it feared.

"One potential reason could be that a larger-than-expected number of retirements and attrition could have created an unusual number of vacancies in schools," United Federation of Teachers spokesman Dick Riley said.

This allowed principals to pluck more teachers out of the excess pool, which is also called the Absent Teacher Reserve.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been lobbying to put a time limit on how long teachers can stay in the ATR pool if they don't find permanent jobs, because it costs the city about $100 million annually. As of August 19, 68 teachers have been in the ATR pool since 2006.

This year, as part of the deal to avoid any layoffs, the union agreed to give the Department of Education more flexibility in assigning teachers from the ATR pool to work as subs.

Other Positions Cut from Schools

The city expects to reassign 555 principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, psychologists, social workers, attendance teachers and school secretaries to other positions because their principals couldn't afford to keep them on staff. There are no comparable figures for last year.

The city also has new estimates for how many non-teaching positions will be cut from schools this fall because the no-layoff pledge only applied to the teachers union.

It appears that a total of 777 positions were axed, including school aides, family workers, parent coordinators, health service aides, drivers and engineers.

Most of those come from District Council 37

Can Teachers Alone Overcome Poverty?

Can Teachers Alone Overcome Poverty? Steven Brill Thinks So

Steven Brill
Filed under: Education Policy,Poverty — millerlf @ 8:20 pm
By Dana Goldstein, The Nation – Wed, Aug 10, 2011
LINK

Steven Brill, the journalist and media entrepreneur, has come a long way since he helicoptered onto the education beat in 2009.

That’s when The New Yorker published Brill’s exposé of the New York City “rubber rooms,” where the Department of Education parked the one-twentieth of 1 percent of the city’s 80,000 public school teachers—about forty people—who had been accused of gross negligence and removed from the classroom. As they awaited the due process hearings guaranteed in their union contracts, rubber room teachers received full pay and benefits, sometimes for up to three years.

The article sparked outrage among readers, who were appalled that millions of tax dollars were spent annually paying the salaries and arbitrating the cases of teachers who came to work inebriated or practiced corporal punishment. Despite the fact that the Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers shared responsibility for creating the clumsy and cumbersome arbitration process, Brill laid the blame solely at the union’s doorstep.

He followed up with his hyperbolically titled May 2010 New York Times Magazine feature “The Teachers’ Unions Last Stand,” which admired the Obama administration’s attempt to pressure states to tie teacher evaluation and pay to students’ standardized test scores. The article lavishly praised nonunionized charter schools while entirely blaming teachers unions for the achievement gap between poor and middle-class students.

Together, the two pieces had the kind of impact most journalists can only dream of. Rubber room teachers were reassigned to desk jobs, and their arbitrations were sped up. More significant, Brill’s framing of the education debate, borrowed from reformers like Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee—teachers unions vs. poor kids—infiltrated the popular consciousness more deeply than it had before, presaging the September 2010 release of the pro–charter school, anti–teachers union documentary Waiting for Superman. Brill began to appear on panels with key figures in the education debate, including American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Randi Weingarten and Harlem Children’s Zone President and CEO Geoffrey Canada. And he embarked on an ambitious book project: a comprehensive history and analysis of the standards-and-accountability school reform movement called Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools.

Not surprisingly, given Brill’s history of interest in only the most controversial school reform issues, the book is filled with misleading discussions of complex education research, most notably a total elision of the fact that “nonschool” factors—family income, nutrition, health, English-language proficiency and the like—affect children’s academic performance, no matter how great their teachers are. (More on this later.) Class Warfare is also studded with easy-to-check errors, such as the claim that Newark schools spend more per student than New York City schools because of a more cumbersome teachers’ contract. In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that the state must provide supplemental per-pupil funding to all high-poverty school districts, including Newark. As a result, New Jersey is considered a national leader in early childhood education, and Newark graduates more African-American boys from high school—75 percent—than any other major city.

But here’s the thing: by the closing chapters of his breezy, 478-page tome, Brill sounds far less like an uncritical fan of charter school expansion, Teach for America (TFA) and unionbusting and far more like, well, a guy who has spent several years immersed in one of the thorniest policy conversations in America, thinking about a problem—educational inequality—that defies finger-pointing and simple solutions.

Welcome to the beat, Brill!

One of Class Warfare’s stars, a charter school assistant principal named Jessica Reid, unexpectedly quits her job at Eva Moskowitz’s Harlem Success Academy in the middle of the school year; the charter chain’s rigorous demands pushed the 28-year-old Reid, a dedicated and charismatic educator, to the brink of a nervous breakdown and divorce. “This wasn’t a sustainable life, in terms of my health and my marriage,” she tells Brill, who concludes that he agrees (at least in part) with education historian and charter school critic Diane Ravitch. You can’t staff a national public school system of 3.2 million teachers, Ravitch tells Brill, with Ivy Leaguers willing to run themselves ragged for two years. Most of these folks won’t move on to jobs at traditional public schools, as the uncommonly committed Jessica Reid did, but will simply leave the classroom altogether and head to politics, business or law, where they’ll be paid more to do prestigious work, often with shorter, less pressure-filled hours.

One school principal has said that Randi Weingarten, of the teachers’ union,“would protect a dead body in the classroom.”

That’s the model of Teach for America, of course, another school reform organization with which Brill is somewhat frustrated by the end of his book. He comes to grasp the fundamental problem with TFA’s conception of the teacher pipeline: Let’s say the lowest-performing 10 percent of career teachers—320,000 people—are fired. How will we replace them? TFA will contribute only about 9,300 corps members to the nation’s schools in the coming school year; even if every graduate of a selective college entered teaching—and some would surely be terrible teachers—we’d still have a shortage. Education Secretary Arne Duncan was “actually making an important point,” Brill concedes, when he said, “You can’t fire your way to the top.”

Faced with these complexities, Brill comes up with a strange conclusion: Maybe New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg should give Randi Weingarten control of the city schools in a “Nixon goes to China” move. If she were responsible for student achievement instead of teacher job security, Brill suggests, the labor leader would be forced to push union members harder to prioritize instructional excellence and embrace tenure reform.

But in fact, the sea change in union attitudes that Brill believes can only be achieved by this unlikely move has already taken place. The AFT and, more recently, the National Education Association have accepted the fundamental premise of tying teacher evaluation to student performance. The details need to be worked out in statehouses and school districts across the country—the most controversial issue, and rightly so, is the role that data from standardized tests will play. Nevertheless, the unions’ evolution into more student-achievement-focused organizations is, at this point, foreordained. In Colorado last year, the local AFT affiliate even supported legislation that requires student achievement data to account for 51 percent of a teachers’ evaluation score. Colorado teachers who receive a bad evaluation two years in a row will now lose their tenure protections.

All that said, it is truly ignorant to reduce school reform to a labor-management question. States with teacher collective bargaining routinely outperform right-to-work states academically, and teachers are unionized in most of the nations—such as Finland, Canada and France—whose kids kick our kids’ butts on international assessments.

School reform is just as much about the three Cs: curriculum (what knowledge and skills students actually learn); counseling (how we prepare young people, professionally and socially, for adult life); and civics (whether we teach students how to participate in American democracy).

Brill never mentions any of this. Class Warfare is built around the idea of children, particularly poor children, as test-score-producing machines, with little to no attention paid to other aspects of their personalities or lives. The book’s heroes are philanthropists, school administrators, policy wonks and politicians. We meet few students or parents.

Most pernicious is Brill’s repeated claim that the effects of poverty can be not only mitigated but completely beaten back by good teachers. “A snowballing network of education reformers across the country…were producing data about how teaching counted more than anything else,” Brill writes in the book’s opening pages. Later, he devotes a chapter to economists Thomas Kane and Douglas Staiger, whose work on value-added teacher evaluation has powerfully influenced Bill Gates’s education philanthropy. “It wasn’t that poverty or other factors didn’t affect student performance,” Brill summarizes. “Rather, it was that teacher effectiveness could overcome those disadvantages” (emphasis added).

In fact, the work of the many researchers Brill approvingly cites—including Kane, Staiger and Stanford’s Eric Hanushek—shows that while teaching is the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement, family and neighborhood characteristics matter more. The research consensus has been clear and unchanging for more than a decade: at most, teaching accounts for about 15 percent of student achievement outcomes, while socioeconomic factors account for about 60 percent.

It is tiring to make this point over and over again. The usual rebuttal is that determining exactly how much teachers matter is irrelevant, because they are one of the only levers in a poor child’s life over which school systems exert some control. This is true, and it’s a fine argument for focusing education policy efforts on sustainable teacher quality reforms, such as recruiting more academically talented young people into the profession, requiring new teachers to undergo significant apprenticeship periods working alongside master educators, and creating career ladders that reward excellent teachers who agree to stay in the classroom long-term and mentor their peers. This is what such high-performing nations as China and Finland do; they don’t, à la Teach for America, encourage 21-year-olds with five weeks of summer training to swoop into the classroom and swoop out again.

But because we know, without a doubt, that family poverty exerts a crushing influence over children’s lives, it is no small thing when standards-and-accountability education reformers repeat, ad nauseam, that poverty can be totally “overcome” by dedicated teachers. Of course, we all know people who grew up poor and went on to lead successful, financially remunerative lives. Many of them feel grateful to educators who eased their paths. But the fact remains that in the United States in 2011, beating the odds of poverty has become far less likely than ever, and teacher quality has less to do with it than does economic inequality—a dearth of good jobs, affordable housing, healthcare, childcare and higher education.

Advances in cognitive science have made it possible to pinpoint how these disadvantages hinder children academically. One-fifth of the middle schoolers in Providence, Rhode Island, for example, entered kindergarten in 2003 suffering from some level of lead poisoning, which disproportionately affects the poor and is associated with intellectual delays and behavioral problems such as ADHD. “It is now understood that there is no safe level of lead in the human body,” writes education researcher David Berliner, “and that lead at any level has an impact on IQ.”

Food insecurity is similarly correlated with cognitive delays, and rising in incidence across the country—more than 17 million American children consistently lack access to healthy, nutritious meals. Here’s how a team of Harvard School of Public Health researchers describe the relationship between hunger and student achievement:

When children attend school inadequately nourished, their bodies conserve the limited food energy that is available. Energy is first reserved for critical organ functions. If sufficient energy remains, it then is allocated for growth. The last priority is for social activity and learning. As a result, undernourished children become more apathetic and have impaired cognitive capacity. Letting schoolchildren go hungry means that the nation’s investments in public education are jeopardized by childhood malnutrition.

Acknowledging connections between the economy, poverty, health and brain function is not an attempt to “excuse” failing school bureaucracies and classroom teachers; rather, it is a necessary prerequisite for authentic school reform, which must be based on a realistic assessment of the whole child—not just a child’s test scores. Successful education reform efforts—such as the Harlem Children’s Zone, which provides “wraparound” social and health services alongside charter schools, or California’s Linked Learning schools, which connect teenagers to meaningful on-the-job training—are built on this more holistic understanding of the forces that shape a child’s life and determine her future.

Brill and the accountability crowd are correct to note that high-performing teachers are consistently able to raise the test scores of even the poorest children. Research shows that an improvement of one standard deviation in teacher quality leads to approximately two to four points of gain for a student on a 100-point test in reading or math. Five years of great teachers in a row, therefore, could raise a student’s test scores by ten to twenty points.

Whether this potential growth is incidental or transformative depends on where a student starts out: if he began at the twentieth percentile in reading, he’d still be failing; a jump from the seventieth percentile to the ninetieth could make him a candidate for selective colleges. Unfortunately, as Paul Tough demonstrated in a recent New York Times Magazine piece, at far too many “miracle” inner-city schools, the vast majority of students—despite impressive test-score growth—continue to score below proficiency in reading and math. These students may graduate from high school, but they are unprepared for college or work beyond the service sector.

Honest reformers are all too aware of this problem. As KIPP charter school co-founder Dave Levin tells Brill, “I’m still failing.” Indeed, only one-third of the KIPP network’s high school graduates are able to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years. This is a remarkable achievement in a country where only 30 percent of all young adults—regardless of family background—hold a college degree. It’s also a reminder of how very difficult it is to make huge leaps and bounds in closing the achievement gap. After all, a full 75 percent of the highest-income high school graduates are able to earn that BA by age 24.

Although Brill, by the end of Class Warfare, comes to recognize the limits of the education reform movement he so admires, he somehow maintains his commitment to the idea that teachers can completely overcome poverty. There’s a reason, I think, why this ideology is so attractive to many of the wealthy charter school founders and donors Brill profiles, from hedge funder Whitney Tilson to investment manager and banking heir Boykin Curry. If the United States could somehow guarantee poor people a fair shot at the American dream through shifting education policies alone, then perhaps we wouldn’t have to feel so damn bad about inequality—about low tax rates and loopholes that benefit the superrich and prevent us from expanding access to childcare and food stamps; about private primary and secondary schools that cost as much annually as an Ivy League college, and provide similar benefits; about moving to a different neighborhood, or to the suburbs, to avoid sending our children to school with kids who are not like them.

The fact of the matter, though, is that inequality does matter. Our society’s decision to deny the poor essential social services reaches children not only in their day-to-day lives but in their brains. In the face of this reality, educators put up a valiant fight, and some succeed. The deck is stacked against them.