Response to "School Matter: The Bloomberg Defense"

The following is in response to this post on School Matter. Here also are links to Jim's initial post and my initial response:

Not sure if this was clear or not on my last comment, but I'm with you 90-95% of the way. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and also to make sure you're making the best possible argument. Does the fact that management companies are going to be non-profit mean they won't be evil like the College Board? Of course not. But I think it's important to differentiate between the corporatization of public schooling (which is happening in NYC) and the privatization of public schooling (which, though seems to be coming down the road, isn't what is happening here now).

I have my doubts as to whether any remaining middle class parents who continue to have kids in NYC public schools will allow their kids' funds to be drained off. It has never happened before, and I don't expect it happen now in this reverse Robin Hood era.

There's a good chance you're correct here. Though Bloomberg may be addressing this with the increase in schools with admission test a la Stuyvesant. With that said, I'm not complaining that my school will be getting some of the funds that used to go elsewhere. With that said, I fear NYC Educator may be spot on with his Trojan Horse comment. The shift from allocating a certain number of staff positions to a certain dollar amount for salaries is part of what allows for this change. This is worrisome.

Sad, indeed. This is the typical neo-liberal treatment to the poverty and racism issue: ignore the real problem, provide services that only the middle class can use, and then blame the poor for not using them.

I have to admit, I was very disappointed to read this remark. Let's get fact straight again first - 86% of students at my school get free lunch - we have no middle class. The extra services we provide at Bronx Lab ARE being used by the poor and working class students who we serve. Well I am well aware of the neo-liberal argument you are critiquing here (and am with you on it), I don't think it applies. We are trying to create a culture of transformation and empowerment for our students. Of course this does nothing to address the larger societal issues creating the need for transformation - and when the revolution begins that addresses these, let me know so I can be out there fighting side by side with you for it. But I until that point, I can't see any better bet than the transformational power of education.

That Bloomberg and Klein would be falling over themselves to pander to the "empowerment" schools in order to prove their superiority should be expected, I think. That is the Marc Tucker horse they have their money on, after all. Wonder if the schools served by the remaining superintendents have the resources to honor every requst from teachers?

I don't get resources because we get extra money from the city. I get resources because my principal has the freedom to bring in outside funds, and has control over the funds we do get from the city. We actually get less than average per pupil funding from the traditional sources. Not to mention we're supposedly at 145% overcrowding, and share an old building in lousy condition with six other schools. When Bloomberg/Klein start falling over themselves to pander to us it will be one happy day.

The fact that the City, the State, and the Nation have ignored the poverty, repression, and racism that produced what "hasn't worked" does not seem reason enough to give up on the public schools for not accomplishing what no school system alone can ever accomplish, anyway. If Bloomberg's privatization plan is allowed to succeed, I am sure, Steve, that the Mayor's Office will stay busy congratulating you, your colleagues, and themselves for the new bright successes that were so recently painted as dismal failures. Something new, indeed.

You're right - weak point on my part in terms of the "why not" argument for change. That's for jumping all over it. I hope it doesn't happen again.

Another Perspective on the Bloomberg/Klein Reform Efforts

I have tried to stay clear of education policy issues in this blog. However, I feel the need to post an opposing voice to a recent post from Jim Horn at Schools Matter attacking the recent announcements by NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein regarding various reform initiatives they are taking. I generally agree with what Jim has to say - he is a powerful voice for radical education, but I think he is missing some of the radical potential of these initiatives. (Originally submitted as a comment on Schools Matter):

I've been reading your blog for a couple months now and usually appreciate and am with you on most things. I think you're a little quick to jump the gun here though.

First - the facts. The "private management companies" will be non-profits. This isn't a KBR situation. Also, Bloomberg announced this is his his State of the City address the previous day (though didn't go into all the details).

Second - I think the revolutionary part of what Bloomberg/Klein are doing has been lost - the Fair Student Funding Initiative. This means a school like mine in the Bronx that serves the students who need the most will be seeing more money at the expense of schools that tend to serve the Middle Class and Upper Class in nicer part of Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens.

Third - yes, Empowerment Schools can outsource services to other companies. But Empowerment Schools can also partner with community organizations and receive funds that are unavailable to most schools. I teach in an Empowerment School, and we get somewhere in the range of 25%-50% of our total budget from our partner organization - FEGS. Among other things, this allows us to increase our support staff (we have a full time college placement specialist, just like the top private schools) and we can provide a comprehensive after school program. Not to mention the fact that literally every request I have made for classroom materials - from technology to books to curricular materials - I have received.

Are there flaws with the Tucker model of education reform? Of course, and you've highlighted a lot of them. But with that said, there are a lot of benefits, which I am seeing first hand (and believe me, we are not a KIPP like school - I'd like to think people like Paulo Freire and Myles Horton would be proud of most of what they saw at Bronx Lab).

Maybe I am being a little naive here - but I always come back to the fact that the Bronx has something like a 30% graduation rate. What has been done in the past hasn't worked. Isn't it worth trying something new?

Update: In the interest of full disclosure, I feel I should add that my wife works in the Press Department of the NYC Department of Education.

BLS Featured in Washington Post

Very interesting and balanced article in the Washington Post today about DC's consideration of the NYC model of mayoral control of schools. I'm certainly benefiting from Bloomberg and Klein's two biggest policy initiatives (small schools, and the autonomy given by the Empowerment Zone), though I would like to see more information and data on the seemingly valid criticisms raised in the article in regards to the overcrowding of schools before wholeheartedly putting my hat in the Bloomberg cheering section.

But of course the real reason I'm posting this is because my school is featured in a very positive light in the article. I had the pleasure of talking with Mr. Nakamura and welcoming him as a guest in my classroom and was very happy to see his positive portrayal of BLS.