http://socialistworker.org/2009/11/10/milwaukee-school-takeover
ANALYSIS: KATE O'NEIL
Kate O'Neil reports on grassroots opposition to a plan--apparently backed by the Obama administration--for Milwaukee's mayor to take control of the public schools.
November 10, 2009
SOME 250 people gathered at Milwaukee's City Hall on November 3 to announce their opposition to a bill in the Wisconsin state legislature that would place the city's public schools under mayoral control.
If the bill passes, the mayor of Milwaukee, currently Tom Barrett, would appoint the superintendent of the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and empower him or her with control over the system's purse strings, academic policy and collective bargaining. The publicly elected school board, which now has jurisdiction over these matters, would be reduced to a nearly powerless advisory body.
The rally was organized by the Coalition To Stop the MPS Takeover, which represents the key constituents affected by the proposed change and the broadest grouping of social justice groups here since the late 1960s.
Among the participants are the local chapter of the NAACP; the Milwaukee teachers' union (MTEA); Parents United for Milwaukee Public Schools (PUMPS); Milwaukee Inner City Churches Allied for Hope (MICAH); the progressive school reform journal Rethinking Schools; and a host of other influential grassroots organizations. They have been joined by several members of the school board and a local alderman.
The coalition planned the rally to coincide with a visit by President Obama to the state capital in Madison on Wednesday, where he met with Mayor Barrett and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle to discuss reforms to the state's education system. While Obama has not taken a public position on the mayoral takeover, activists rightly see it as a move to accelerate school "reforms" promoted by his administration and built into the so-called "Race to the Top" funding from the stimulus plan.
Doyle, a Democrat, announced his support for mayoral takeover at a voucher-supported high school, and bills are pending in the legislature to lift caps on the licensing of charter schools and prohibitions on tying teacher pay to student test scores--the two main requirements states must meet to receive Race to the Top money.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EDUCATION SECRETARY Arne Duncan says Milwaukee especially needs these reforms since it is one of the few cities where the achievement gap between Black and white students continues to grow.
But speakers at the November 3 rally made a clear case for why these changes don't get at the root of the problem. "Black households in Milwaukee earn $494 for every $1,000 earned by white households," explained parent and PUMPS member Jackie Ivy. "Blacks living in Milwaukee are four times more likely to be unemployed than their white neighbors."
Others pointed out that mayoral control hasn't worked in other cities. "We are familiar with the failed and marginal level achievements of school districts across this country--Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.," explained Mary Glass, chair of the Milwaukee Professionals Association. "We are presently looking at Boston, and we have concerns. It is our position that we do not need to add another failed idea on top of decades of systemic and infrastructural problems rooted in segregation, bad decision-making, flavor-of-the-day decision-making, and concentrated poverty."
Protesters also responded to claims in the local press that the mayor would be more accountable to the public than an elected school board, because there is higher voter turnout for mayoral elections than for school board elections. "His proposal concentrates power in one person, the mayor, when it's the parents and teachers who need more power," said Melissa Tempel, an MPS parent and teacher in the Educators Network for Social Justice. "His proposal echoes the interest of the business community."
Rozalia Harris, vice president of the Milteachers' union, called instead for "true collaboration among all stakeholders" in the everyday functioning of schools, and circulated a 12-page document with proposals for how this could be achieved.
Many Milwaukeeans already feel disenfranchised by the rushed and underhanded manner in which the change in the schools structure has been pushed. Members of the current school board didn't know Mayor Barrett was considering a takeover until this August, when School Board President Michael Bonds discovered Barrett was holding private planning meetings on the takeover bill with Governor Doyle and representatives from Arne Duncan's office.
At the time, Bonds was working with Barrett on an MPS Innovation and Improvement Advisory Committee, in which mayoral control was not even on the table. Furthermore, final details of the takeover bill weren't announced until October 26, a mere week and a half before the end of the state's legislative session on November 5.
These attempts to stifle debate on the issue have thankfully backfired. Opposition to mayoral control is widespread in Milwaukee, and the takeover bill does not yet have the votes to win.
Activists remain vigilant, however, as Doyle has stated he will call a special session of the legislature to continue debate. The Coalition To Stop the MPS Takeover is calling on residents throughout the state to contact their legislators and plan to mobilize for hearings on the issue in Madison once the special session dates are announced.
All signs point to the likelihood that the Obama administration is using Milwaukee as a test case for mayoral takeovers nationally. If the takeover measure passes the legislature, it will likely be used as a model for implementation of "Race to the Top" reforms in other mid-size cities. If it is defeated, it will send an inspiring message to residents of those cities that such top-down maneuvers can be stopped.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Demerit Pay
Dennis Danziger
Posted: November 7, 2009 02:25 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-danziger/demerit-pay_b_349580.html
Demerit Pay
In the spirit of generosity I've been thanking the gods that private school teachers' salaries are not connected to students' standardized test scores. Else Malia Obama's science teacher at the Sidwell Friends School might have lost her job faster than you can say "grade inflation."
On November 3, 2009, the one-year anniversary of his election, President Obama, speaking at a middle school in Madison, Wisconsin, told his audience that First Daughter Malia had recently come home from school with a 73 on a science test, but after renewed educational vigor she aced her next test. This was the same day President Obama reiterated his call for public school teachers' merit pay to be based in part on student performance on standardized tests.
I'm a 17-year veteran English teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District, so naturally I thought, "Yep, change has finally come."
After numbing my students with No Child Left Behind tests for the past seven years, I can now depend on Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to turn it all around.
But Secretary Duncan's not going to hand over any federal grant money willy-nilly. No sir. No money changes hands until the states beat down those all-powerful teacher unions (and if you want to see how powerful teacher unions are, just drive by your local public school and check out the cars in the faculty parking lot. The Cash for Clunkers program rejected my 1997 Toyota Corolla and most of my colleagues' cars as well).
I'm confident that connecting teacher salaries to standardized scores will so excite students they'll turn off their Play Stations and Xboxes and begin to memorize their times tables; that's how much they're certain to want their teachers to receive that extra $1200 a year.
The merit pay provision undoubtedly will make poor students with full-time jobs and little parental support more alert in class. It'll make their parents serve them healthier breakfast foods. It'll encourage parents to turn off ESPN and help their kids perfect their five-paragraph essays and give up drinking so they can pay for educational perks.
Public school students, realizing they do have the power to move their teachers from a rented apartment into ownership of a condo, will wake at dawn on Saturday mornings and work a few Sudokus; then they're likely rush to be first in line when the library doors open.
Of course, Secretary Duncan's plan might motivate some students to intentionally tank these tests so that their teachers eat it. Call it, "The Revenge of the D-Minus Students." I hope the government will factor in these scores so innocent teachers don't lose their credentials and their health care.
I look forward with curiosity and wonder to the system the Department of Education is devising to measure teachers' effectiveness. I'm all for merit pay, but I can't figure out how it will work. How does a test measure teacher effectiveness when we teachers teach different subjects to different groups of kids in vastly different universes?
I look forward with curiosity and wonder to the system the Department of Education is devising to measure teachers' effectiveness. I'm all for merit pay, but I can't figure out how it will work. How does a test measure teacher effectiveness when we teachers teach different subjects to different groups of kids in vastly different universes?
For example, in my wing of the building, I teach English to 12th graders; only three of 42 are applying to college. My next door neighbor teaches ESL to kids who've just immigrated. All day I hear her saying, "This is my pencil. This is my eraser. This is my bottle of Prozac."
In the room next to hers, our AP Physics teacher works with only those students who are applying to universities.
And just outside our building the varsity volleyball coach teaches drills.
How does a test compare students' mastery of spiking a volleyball with their ability to understand the properties of an atom?
While I wait for the federal government to grade my colleagues and me, my heart goes out to Malia's science teacher. What was she supposed to say to the Obamas when the First Daughter came home with a C?
"Well, Mr. President, Michelle, allow me to be straightforward. I think you sir, are spending way too much time golfing on Martha's Vineyard. And ma'am what's with the Double Dutching on the White House lawn? You need to spend more face time with your daughter. Or at least give her a turn."
Might the teacher have had the guts to say, "Malia's a bright and wonderful child. But frankly, I think her grade is a cry for help. Enough with flying off to Copenhagen in the middle of the night. Stay home and read to her."
My guess is that Malia's Sidwell Friends School teacher did the prudent thing; the next time she administered a science test, she made sure it was easier, and she thanked her lucky stars her pay wasn't tied to Malia's "C."
Read more at: http://www.huffingt
Folks,
It is highly possible for First Daughter Malia to get her act together RATHER than the Sidwell science teacher to water down her next exam. Afterall, Sidwell is not chained to teaching-to-the-test. Hence, Malia could get extra help AND the science teacher could give some extra time in class to explain something that might have been missed by many teachers because of a pedagogical error.... And because the Sidwell science teacher did not have the scripted learning/hi stakes testing yoke around her neck, she could spend a little extra time figuring out how to present the material better.
Then again, Malia could have been slacking off... thinking that she's probably the most privilege preteen in the world and didn't need to study. She also knew that she was not going to school the next day and get cheered on by her peers because she did poorly... and that attitude get re-enforced by her teacher and the general school culture.
This and more is what I get from Malia's experience as it relates to the vast majority of our public school youth- especially the Black & Latino youth of any class in public school.
Mr. Danzinger is right on point with his exposé of the miseducation processes of the NCLB mandate that's still being promoted by the Obama-Duncan forces. But I think he missed the point of the vast differences in Sidwell's education philosophy and school culture and your typical public school (not you Bronx Sciences or Stuyvesants or PS 11s).
By the way, that grade of 73 that Malia got, would have been a B or B- in may of our public schools....
In Struggle,
Sam Anderson
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Ed Notes on Governance, c., Feb 2002
This article reflects my thinking in early 2002, almost a year before ICE was founded and I was trying to think things through. I think I evlolved since then, at least a bit. It appeared in the Feb. 2002 hard copy edition of Ed Notes, some of which I'm reprising over at the ed notes blog.
When you think of all the unmanageable problems that beset our schools, many of them can be boiled down to one word: Governance! What a boring word! It makes you want to yawn. But exactly what forces influence how our schools are run from the top level down to the buildings themselves goes a long way towards illuminating a number of issues. So, here is a short primer on---ugh!---Governance.
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, schools
were run under a centralized system. Basic decision making, hiring, and curriculum flowed from the central authority down to the schools. Principals and other supervisors had to pass exams and based on the results, were hired off a list.
They were required to have taught for a number of years. Teachers were hired under a similar system. This civil service system supposedly reduced political influence.
Some people felt think this system worked fairly well. Others felt it worked mainly for those students who were motivated and didn’t work so well for those who weren’t. Increasingly, the percentage of the latter grew. There was a demand for change in the 60’s.
This led to the system known as decentralization, which began as an experiment in a few local areas. By this time, the UFT had grown into an influential entity and its leader Al Shanker was becoming a major figure in city and state politics. The UFT had just completed a very successful contract after a 1 week strike in the fall of ‘67. In the fall of ‘68 the decentralization experiment blew up when one of the districts insisted it had the right to hire and fire teachers. The UFT went on a cataclysmic strike. Most supervisors supported the strike and schools were closed for almost 3 months. The shake-out from that strike (which to some extent still continues today) led to a reduced concept of decentralization, the form of which was influenced by UFT lobbyists in Albany.
Really, the word decentralization was a misnomer as it just moved a centralized system down to a more local district level for grades k-8. High schools remained under central control.
Basic decisions for schools were now made at a district level through a District Superintendent appointed by an elected school board. These boards were controlled by local political forces and became major patronage machines. Hiring of supervisors was now done at the district level. A major requirement to become a supervisor was to be active politically, either at the district level or connected to some political entity. Politics entered into the equation like it had never done before. It became possible to become a supervisor with little or no teaching background. That is one of the major reasons the quality of supervisors has declined so severely. People have not really learned how to run schools by doing jobs from the ground up.
The UFT in many districts threw itself into these local politics with a vengeance and also played a role in “making” supervisors. Some District Reps became crucial point people. In some cases the district union set up machines of their own and had enormous influence. This process culminated with one Dist. Rep. actually becoming superintendent, completing a merger of the union and administration. Almost every Chapter Leader that was part of that machine became a supervisor.
One of the ironies of our system is just how many people have used the union to rise to a supervisory level. The fact that many of these people were part of Unity Caucus is naturally down played by the union leadership.
It is interesting to note that the centralized high schools were plagued by similar problems faced by the districts. Did schools at the high school level run any better that those in the districts? Most people would say the answer is a resounding NO! Patronage existed, but at a different level and in a different form. Citywide forces such as the UFT had a better opportunity to make their influence felt. The UFT continued to favor the concept of centralization and has opposed all proposals to place high schools at the district level. Dealing with one high school agency divided into 5 boroughs is much more manageable than dealing with the 32 districts.
One of the interesting sidelights of the centralized high schools is that it is the only division where Unity Caucus has continuously lost union elections, indicating the disaffection of high school teachers.
A number of local scandals led to the call for re-centralizing the system, (with one of the largest scandals taking place in the district controlled by the former UFT DR.) This has been accomplished in recent years by giving the Chancellor more power in the appointment of District Superintendents and thus, the power to influence events at the school level. The major impact has been the weakening of local school boards. The UFT, consistent as usual in its support for re-centralizing the system, backed these changes. Again, it is much simpler to try to influence 1 Harold Levy than 32 district superintendents.
Has this change made things better? Most teachers would say the answer still is not only a resounding NO, but conditions have actually deteriorated as Levy’s “corporate” style of management by the numbers has filtered down to the schools in a way that has severely damaged the educational process, a process that began under his predecessor, Rudy Crew.
Giving the Mayor Control
Many people were surprised this past June when Randi Weingarten came up with a plan that would give the Mayor control over the school system. The UFT plan includes maintaining a Board of Ed., whose members would be chosen from a list suggested by a blue ribbon panel appointed by the State Board of Regents (You know! The agency that has forced all these tests down our throats.) If local school board elections are abolished (they have been postponed until next year while the issue is being decided) that would lead to the total re-centralization of the school system. The union feels that giving Mayors control will make them more accountable. It allows the union to maintain influence without responsibility. Checking out the results of Mayoral control in Chicago points to another story. The former union leadership’s support for Mayoral control and its complicity in the management of the system was instrumental in its recent defeat.
Some view the change in the UFT’s position as a bargaining chip for a new contract. But given the general negative experience of a school system influenced by politics, how wise is it to give away the entire school system to any one politician who is clearly governed by a desire to see the system produce “results?” Results that will be interpreted in a political rather than an educational way.
Can re-centralization meet the needs of individual schools?
It has been difficult enough to meet the needs of individual schools, teachers and children with even the quasi-decentralized system. How can we expect the system to be responsive when a one size fits all template will be applied? When the method of dealing with standardized tests is to try to create standardized children by using standardized teaching methods? Instead of calling for educators to have more power over our school system, we are allowing political forces to control what we do in the classroom. People who don’t have a clue about education are making basic educational decisions. Instead of calling for teachers to have more control over the schools, our leaders have capitulated to political forces.
Does anyone think that any politician cares more about the children than they do about getting reelected? Given the choice, will they put enough resources into classrooms to help children really learn? Or will they take the politically expedient way out by calling for more tests and more blame on teachers when children don’t produce?
What kind of system should we have?
Education Notes has continuously been an advocate for a truly decentralized system where each school functions as an independent agent, with teachers playing a major leadership role. Pie in the sky? Maybe. Why not try an experiment? Take a number of failing schools. Reorganize half of them along current guidelines, with new staffs, administrators, etc. with decisions made from the top down as currently happens and would continue to happen under mayoral control. Take the other half and make an open offer to teachers around the city to come and run their own schools as if they were charters. Compare the results after 3 years.
Could such an experiment work? Certainly not without the backing of the UFT. But there is no way the UFT leadership would ever back such an experiment. The UFT is too involved in the infrastructure of the current system.
Should our union defend the system?
We believe our union leaders have become defenders of a rotten system. Oh, they verbally criticize administrators and the way things are done at the Board. But they do nothing about the situation in reality. Thus, our leaders come off as defenders of the status quo. Giuliani’s attacks that we have a system whose prime purpose is job protection weren’t totally off base. Ed. Notes feels the union should scour the budget, publicize abuses and demand positions be shifted to classrooms. Don’t hold your breath!
Where’s the vision?
Education Notes’ sponsored resolutions at the Delegate Assembly to have our union articulate a vision of what our school system should look like have fallen on deaf ears.
Such a vision has not only not been articulated to the public, it hasn’t even been put before our own members. How wasteful to see all of those expensive commercials miss the opportunity to place such a vision before the public! The real problem is that our union leaders do not have such a vision. Their vision is one of politics and legal maneuvering. What we get is shortsighted, short term solutions that will never solve the long-term problems our school system faces. Giving the Mayor control is just another gimmick.
When you think of all the unmanageable problems that beset our schools, many of them can be boiled down to one word: Governance! What a boring word! It makes you want to yawn. But exactly what forces influence how our schools are run from the top level down to the buildings themselves goes a long way towards illuminating a number of issues. So, here is a short primer on---ugh!---Governance.
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, schools
were run under a centralized system. Basic decision making, hiring, and curriculum flowed from the central authority down to the schools. Principals and other supervisors had to pass exams and based on the results, were hired off a list.
They were required to have taught for a number of years. Teachers were hired under a similar system. This civil service system supposedly reduced political influence.
Some people felt think this system worked fairly well. Others felt it worked mainly for those students who were motivated and didn’t work so well for those who weren’t. Increasingly, the percentage of the latter grew. There was a demand for change in the 60’s.
This led to the system known as decentralization, which began as an experiment in a few local areas. By this time, the UFT had grown into an influential entity and its leader Al Shanker was becoming a major figure in city and state politics. The UFT had just completed a very successful contract after a 1 week strike in the fall of ‘67. In the fall of ‘68 the decentralization experiment blew up when one of the districts insisted it had the right to hire and fire teachers. The UFT went on a cataclysmic strike. Most supervisors supported the strike and schools were closed for almost 3 months. The shake-out from that strike (which to some extent still continues today) led to a reduced concept of decentralization, the form of which was influenced by UFT lobbyists in Albany.
Really, the word decentralization was a misnomer as it just moved a centralized system down to a more local district level for grades k-8. High schools remained under central control.
Basic decisions for schools were now made at a district level through a District Superintendent appointed by an elected school board. These boards were controlled by local political forces and became major patronage machines. Hiring of supervisors was now done at the district level. A major requirement to become a supervisor was to be active politically, either at the district level or connected to some political entity. Politics entered into the equation like it had never done before. It became possible to become a supervisor with little or no teaching background. That is one of the major reasons the quality of supervisors has declined so severely. People have not really learned how to run schools by doing jobs from the ground up.
The UFT in many districts threw itself into these local politics with a vengeance and also played a role in “making” supervisors. Some District Reps became crucial point people. In some cases the district union set up machines of their own and had enormous influence. This process culminated with one Dist. Rep. actually becoming superintendent, completing a merger of the union and administration. Almost every Chapter Leader that was part of that machine became a supervisor.
One of the ironies of our system is just how many people have used the union to rise to a supervisory level. The fact that many of these people were part of Unity Caucus is naturally down played by the union leadership.
It is interesting to note that the centralized high schools were plagued by similar problems faced by the districts. Did schools at the high school level run any better that those in the districts? Most people would say the answer is a resounding NO! Patronage existed, but at a different level and in a different form. Citywide forces such as the UFT had a better opportunity to make their influence felt. The UFT continued to favor the concept of centralization and has opposed all proposals to place high schools at the district level. Dealing with one high school agency divided into 5 boroughs is much more manageable than dealing with the 32 districts.
One of the interesting sidelights of the centralized high schools is that it is the only division where Unity Caucus has continuously lost union elections, indicating the disaffection of high school teachers.
A number of local scandals led to the call for re-centralizing the system, (with one of the largest scandals taking place in the district controlled by the former UFT DR.) This has been accomplished in recent years by giving the Chancellor more power in the appointment of District Superintendents and thus, the power to influence events at the school level. The major impact has been the weakening of local school boards. The UFT, consistent as usual in its support for re-centralizing the system, backed these changes. Again, it is much simpler to try to influence 1 Harold Levy than 32 district superintendents.
Has this change made things better? Most teachers would say the answer still is not only a resounding NO, but conditions have actually deteriorated as Levy’s “corporate” style of management by the numbers has filtered down to the schools in a way that has severely damaged the educational process, a process that began under his predecessor, Rudy Crew.
Giving the Mayor Control
Many people were surprised this past June when Randi Weingarten came up with a plan that would give the Mayor control over the school system. The UFT plan includes maintaining a Board of Ed., whose members would be chosen from a list suggested by a blue ribbon panel appointed by the State Board of Regents (You know! The agency that has forced all these tests down our throats.) If local school board elections are abolished (they have been postponed until next year while the issue is being decided) that would lead to the total re-centralization of the school system. The union feels that giving Mayors control will make them more accountable. It allows the union to maintain influence without responsibility. Checking out the results of Mayoral control in Chicago points to another story. The former union leadership’s support for Mayoral control and its complicity in the management of the system was instrumental in its recent defeat.
Some view the change in the UFT’s position as a bargaining chip for a new contract. But given the general negative experience of a school system influenced by politics, how wise is it to give away the entire school system to any one politician who is clearly governed by a desire to see the system produce “results?” Results that will be interpreted in a political rather than an educational way.
Can re-centralization meet the needs of individual schools?
It has been difficult enough to meet the needs of individual schools, teachers and children with even the quasi-decentralized system. How can we expect the system to be responsive when a one size fits all template will be applied? When the method of dealing with standardized tests is to try to create standardized children by using standardized teaching methods? Instead of calling for educators to have more power over our school system, we are allowing political forces to control what we do in the classroom. People who don’t have a clue about education are making basic educational decisions. Instead of calling for teachers to have more control over the schools, our leaders have capitulated to political forces.
Does anyone think that any politician cares more about the children than they do about getting reelected? Given the choice, will they put enough resources into classrooms to help children really learn? Or will they take the politically expedient way out by calling for more tests and more blame on teachers when children don’t produce?
What kind of system should we have?
Education Notes has continuously been an advocate for a truly decentralized system where each school functions as an independent agent, with teachers playing a major leadership role. Pie in the sky? Maybe. Why not try an experiment? Take a number of failing schools. Reorganize half of them along current guidelines, with new staffs, administrators, etc. with decisions made from the top down as currently happens and would continue to happen under mayoral control. Take the other half and make an open offer to teachers around the city to come and run their own schools as if they were charters. Compare the results after 3 years.
Could such an experiment work? Certainly not without the backing of the UFT. But there is no way the UFT leadership would ever back such an experiment. The UFT is too involved in the infrastructure of the current system.
Should our union defend the system?
We believe our union leaders have become defenders of a rotten system. Oh, they verbally criticize administrators and the way things are done at the Board. But they do nothing about the situation in reality. Thus, our leaders come off as defenders of the status quo. Giuliani’s attacks that we have a system whose prime purpose is job protection weren’t totally off base. Ed. Notes feels the union should scour the budget, publicize abuses and demand positions be shifted to classrooms. Don’t hold your breath!
Where’s the vision?
Education Notes’ sponsored resolutions at the Delegate Assembly to have our union articulate a vision of what our school system should look like have fallen on deaf ears.
Such a vision has not only not been articulated to the public, it hasn’t even been put before our own members. How wasteful to see all of those expensive commercials miss the opportunity to place such a vision before the public! The real problem is that our union leaders do not have such a vision. Their vision is one of politics and legal maneuvering. What we get is shortsighted, short term solutions that will never solve the long-term problems our school system faces. Giving the Mayor control is just another gimmick.
On the Election
From Leonie Haimson
Bloomberg’s slim victory, with only 51% of the vote despite spending $80--$100 million or more (we won’t know the full amount until a month from now) is a moral victory for the other side.
No matter what spin comes out of Wolfson’s mouth, the Bloomberg camp was shocked at the narrowness of the win. His money may have allowed him to continue on for a third term; but as Abraham Lincoln said, you cannot fool all the people all the time. I wonder if those who sat on their hands feel any remorse.
See the following articles from the Daily News, starting with the indispensable Juan Gonzalez, one guy that the mayor has never managed to fool. Excerpt:
The mayor will still call this a democratic victory - final proof that New Yorkers endorse his naked power grab last year to overturn term limits.
He fools no one.
In the midst of the city's worst economic crisis in 60 years, Bloomberg spent money like a million drunken sailors to buy his job for the third time. Quite simply, he buried democracy under mountains of cash - because he could.
See also Juan’s and Errol Louis’s statements on education:
Juan: - “The mayor's biggest claim has been improving the school system. But as more independent reviews come out of his reforms - from charter schools to improved test scores - proof mounts that much of the progress is smoke and mirrors. City test scores could prove to be as reliable as all those Triple A-rated subprime mortgages Bloomberg's Wall Street friends peddled.”
Errol Louis: “When it comes to schools, the department of which the mayor is most proud, there's a gap between the statistical improvements Bloomberg touted, and the perception of parents and educators who think that students are learning how to take tests rather than how to think and thrive. “
Empty voting machines tell story: The disgusted & disaffected
Wednesday, November 4th 2009, 4:00 AM
The seven empty machines in the auditorium of Middle School 117X in the South Bronx said all you needed to know about this year's mayoral contest.
By 9 a.m., not a single voter could be spotted at any of them. Several machines had registered barely a dozen voters in three hours, and during the next half hour no one would walk in to cast a ballot.
"The low turnout is surprising," said Kathleen Larkins, one of the veteran election coordinators.
It was the same story from East New York in Brooklyn to Bushwick, to Washington Heights: poor voters, those most disaffected by the Bloomberg years, stayed away from the polls in droves.
His opponent Bill Thompson, despite a lackluster and poorly financed campaign, almost managed to pull off a stunning upset.
No doubt, many voters rebelled against the constant harangue of Bloomberg flyers and those nasty Bloomberg commercials and phone calls and just wanted them to end.
The mayor will still call this a democratic victory - final proof that New Yorkers endorse his naked power grab last year to overturn term limits.
He fools no one.
In the midst of the city's worst economic crisis in 60 years, Bloomberg spent money like a million drunken sailors to buy his job for the third time. Quite simply, he buried democracy under mountains of cash - because he could.
Mike Filippou, a former worker at the Stella D'Oro factory, was one those in the Bronx who voted for Thompson.
A Connecticut private equity firm shuttered Filippou's factory a few weeks ago. The closing followed a yearlong struggle between the plant's owner and its unionized workers. The owners wanted to drastically cut pay and benefits. When they couldn't succeed, they closed the plant and sold the brand to an Ohio company.
"Bloomberg never lifted a finger to save our jobs," Filippou said. "At least Thompson tried."
Governing during this third term will be far tougher than the mayor and his aides ever imagined.
Watch for key accomplishments Bloomberg has touted to blow up, much as happened during Ed Koch's third term.
The likeliest areas:
1) Computerization of government. Under Bloomberg, city agencies spent billions for new computer systems that haven't delivered what they promised and have exploded in cost - beginning with the new 911 system. Many of those contracts were awarded with little or no bidding. It's a scandal waiting to be unearthed.
2) Land development. Bloomberg's people spent years giving favored developers public spaces, city subsidies, and friendly zoning for huge megaprojects - many of which stalled in the economic slowdown. The price will now come due.
3) Education reform. The mayor's biggest claim has been improving the school system. But as more independent reviews come out of his reforms - from charter schools to improved test scores - proof mounts that much of the progress is smoke and mirrors. City test scores could prove to be as reliable as all those Triple A-rated subprime mortgages Bloomberg's Wall Street friends peddled.
So let Bloomberg version 3.0 begin. He sure paid enough to barely beat Bill Thompson.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election_2009/2009/11/04/2009-11-04_empty_voting_machines_tell_the_story_the_disgusted__disaffected.html#ixzz0VuG2fdMo
Mayor Bloomberg's narrow win means he must build groundwork for next mayor
Wednesday, November 4th 2009, 4:00 AM
http://www.nydailyn
Honda/Getty
Mayor Bloomberg won his third term, but now much make sure things are set for whomever succeeds him.
In the end, lightning did not strike for Bill Thompson: he could not overcome Mayor Bloomberg's billions and the power of incumbency.
Still, Bloomberg's surprisingly narrow election to a third term means he must go beyond his status-quo campaign promise to "keep the progress going."
Instead, he should focus on the parts of his legacy that go beyond the policy successes endlessly trumpeted in one commercial after another.
That starts with dropping the pretense of being above and beyond politics.
The hundreds of millions Bloomberg spent greasing palms to bend laws, secure endorsements and buy loyalty - or, at least, silence - make him a one-man political organization, better funded and more disciplined than any county machine.
He has proved his ability to beat the city's Democratic organization three times over, against white, Latino and black candidates - Mark Green, Fernando Ferrer and Bill Thompson, respectively.
We don't know if Bloomberg's Party of One has staying power. He has anointed no successors, transformed no political institutions and created no lasting infrastructure to carry on beyond his time in office.
If the main rationale behind a third Bloomberg term was to prevent the city from slipping back into the clutches of Democratic orthodoxy, then the mayor must ensure that he hasn't merely postponed the day of reckoning by 48 months.
He should begin grooming and supporting a farm team of public leaders across the city.
Some might be candidates for state and city office, others might be commissioners and agency heads recruited for a future in electoral politics.
Preparing others for the public spotlight would begin convincing skeptics that the Bloomberg years were more than an exercise in ego.
It would also allow for new approaches to problems whose solutions have eluded Bloomberg for the past eight years.
We clearly need an entirely new approach to the record homelessness that the mayor had vowed to cut by two-thirds.
When it comes to schools, the department of which the mayor is most proud, there's a gap between the statistical improvements Bloomberg touted, and the perception of parents and educators who think that students are learning how to take tests rather than how to think and thrive.
When it comes to public safety, more of the same isn't good enough in neighborhoods where shootings are on the rise and a generation of teens are being doubly traumatized - witnessing horrific gang, drug and domestic violence and then being told that the city has never been safer.
Above all, we need to stop the middle-class flight that led 1.1 million people to leave an increasingly unaffordable city on Bloomberg's watch.
It's one thing to marshal stats and slogans for a campaign, and quite another to write a new chapter in the history books. Let's hope Bloomberg is wise enough to tell the difference.
Tense night for victorious Mayor Mike Bloomberg's camp as results are far closer than expected
Wednesday, November 4th 2009, 8:41 AM
Mayor Bloomberg celebrated his victory Tuesday night in the same way he achieved it: with lavish spending and an obsessive attention to detail.
But the luxe party he threw at the Sheraton New York turned into a longer - and tenser - evening than expected when the vote count showed the cakewalk turning into a tightrope.
Cheers that went up when NBC projected the mayor an early winner died away as the vote counters uncovered a squeaker and potential upset.
As thousands of supporters milled around waiting for a victory speech they expected hours earlier, Bloomberg aides sat glumly in an anteroom staring into their BlackBerries as the embarrassingly close results trickled in.
"This is not what they expected," a Bloomberg campaign consultant fretted. "People are going to think it's a waste of $100 million."
Another aide sorrowfully checked his iPhone, muttering, "This is hardly a mandate."
Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson, who can spin any failure into smashing success, declared it was "the most difficult environment for incumbents since 1994" and called Bloomberg's narrow win "an enormous victory."
"Given the climate, Mike Bloomberg won and won big," Wolfson said.
The mayor's victory speech made no mention of his narrow escape. The campaign kept all news off the TVs in the ballroom, even avoiding showing Thompson's concession speech.
The party was as over the top as the mayor's $35,000-an-hour campaign.
Revelers had the choice of wine and beer at six open bars.
Various food tables were laden with hot pretzels, hot dogs, pizza, cookies and brownies.
Movie theater-style poppers dispensed bags of freshly popped corn.
Tuxedoed waiters passed trays of minisliders and regular hot dogs, which must have been the city's priciest - beating even Yankee Stadium's wieners.
Big TVs scattered throughout the room flashed images of the mayor campaigning in different neighborhoods with various ethnic groups.
Bloomberg's slick campaign ads played one last time.
An 11-piece band played soul and rock tunes, and Ed Koch kept the crowd going.
Armies of operatives in headsets scurried around, ensuring the elaborate production went smoothly.
Nothing was left to chance: the campaign even had hand-painted banners on hand to suggest a grass-roots campaign.
In wake of 5% loss to Mayor Bloomberg, Dems left asking, 'What if we'd done more for Bill Thompson?'
Wednesday, November 4th 2009, 2:41 AM
The most nagging question among Bill Thompson's supporters on Wednesday is this: What if fellow Democrats had actually backed - rather than abandoned - him?
In the end, despite polls showing him trailing by 18 points in the final days of the campaign, Thompson lost to Mayor Bloomberg and his $100 million campaign by a mere 5 points.
So what if?
What if President Obama - instead of delivering a squishy, nonendorsement-
"There are a number of people around Bill who felt that he was let down and that, yes, it could have helped if President Obama had campaigned with him," one senior Thompson adviser said last night. "But that's not who Bill Thompson is. He has not been bitter."
Bitter or not, the question remains.
What if Vice President Biden, in town Monday to raise money for other Democrats, had taken 10 minutes to say something nice about the controller?
What if City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, instead of sitting on her hands for months, used the power of her purse strings to rustle up some support for Thompson?
What if the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was happy to stand onstage last night at Thompson's concession speech, had stood a little closer during the campaign?
What if the more powerful city unions like the United Federation of Teachers and SEIU Local 1199, Democratic check writers or for-hire strategists had stayed true?
"A lot of Democratic donors who sat on their wallets are kicking themselves tonight," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, who bowed out of the race for mayor early on, but did what he could for Thompson down the stretch.
One senior campaign official conceded no one thought "we could come that close."
"Could we have gotten more support, from people who endorsed and the party itself? Yes," said the official. "We won't know what would [have] put us over the top, but it would have helped - extremely."
Others were not sure anything could have saved Thompson, who never exuded the passion voters want in a mayor.
"It wouldn't have done a thing, just like Bloomberg's money didn't make a difference," said Hunter College's political Prof. Ken Sherrill. "People who have lived in New York know what their lives are like and whether they are satisfied with Bloomberg."
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Chief Factor in Mayor’s Race: Bloomberg Influence
Geoffrey Canada intervened to keep Obama out of the race; Canada who has received millions from Bloomberg’s pockets and from taxpayer funds also pushed for renewal of mayoral control -- he has a lot to be responsible for. - Leonie Haimson
November 4, 2009
http://www.nytimes.
The White House switchboard lit up with calls from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s emissaries several weeks ago with a message that was polite but firm: The mayor is going to win re-election, they said. We think the president should stay out of the race.
Members of Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle were especially worried because they knew President Obama planned to visit the region to campaign with Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, and he would face pressure to support the Democratic candidate, William C. Thompson Jr., the city’s first black comptroller.
At the request of the mayor’s aides, Geoffrey Canada, chief executive of the Harlem Children’s Zone, telephoned Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the president.
“I know she is close to the president and has his ear,” said Mr. Canada, whose nonprofit group has received $600,000 in personal donations from Mr. Bloomberg.
A close adviser to the mayor, who stayed neutral in the presidential race, described the campaign’s pitch to the White House this way: “He didn’t pick sides in your race. Don’t pick sides in his.”
The president’s office agreed, and in early October alerted Bloomberg aides that it would offer only a halfhearted Friday afternoon endorsement for Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Obama did not campaign with him.
In the race for mayor of New York City, there was one campaign on the surface. But there was a more dramatic effort, unfolding behind the scenes, that really mattered: ensuring, through money and muscle, that Mr. Bloomberg faced no serious obstacle to winning a third term.
The critical moments were not widely watched debates or speeches, but triumphs celebrated privately inside the cavernous Midtown Manhattan headquarters of Bloomberg 2009: the elbowing out of Representative Anthony D. Weiner and the neutralizing of any powerful Democrat who could hurt the Bloomberg campaign.
Underlying it all was a sophisticated strategy, and at times intimidating tactics, seemingly at odds with Mr. Bloomberg’s image as a nonpolitician, that his aides sketched out during a marathon meeting in the fall of 2008.
This account is drawn from dozens of interviews with top aides, consultants and friends of both candidates, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly without inflaming two powerful public officials.
In the days after the mayor had emerged, victorious, but badly bruised, from his fight to rewrite the city’s term limits law, Mr. Bloomberg and his three top deputies, Edward Skyler, Patricia E. Harris and Kevin Sheekey, gathered in the Staten Island room in City Hall and began to plot his campaign.
They warned him that it would be entirely different from his campaigns in 2001 and 2005. “This will be really hard,” one participant said.
Mr. Sheekey, the mayor’s political guru, urged him to quickly send a warning to potential challengers. He suggested recruiting a high-profile attack dog for the campaign and disclosing it to the press. The choice was obvious: Howard Wolfson, the combative former communications director for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential run.
Mr. Skyler suggested that the campaign be run by his best friend, Bradley Tusk, a former deputy to Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, who was leaving Lehman Brothers and eager to return to politics. Mr. Tusk spent weeks last fall helping Mr. Sheekey ram the term limits legislation through the City Council.
Mr. Sheekey pushed what he called the Powell Doctrine — a burst of overwhelming force that would discourage anybody who was even thinking about taking on the mayor.
Mr. Tusk, extremely self-confident and forceful, talked about “taking the oxygen out of the room”: hiring so many staff members, rolling out so many endorsements, and tossing up so many television ads that opposition seemed futile.
A sky-is-the-limit ethos, unfettered by spending limits, infused the effort. Mr. Tusk told his outreach coordinator for Asian voters, Oliver Tan, to find him a Bollywood star to endorse the mayor. After weeks of transcontinental phone calls, he did.
“It was selling inevitability,” a campaign adviser said.
In many ways, what the campaign was selling was a charade. Inside the campaign, pollsters and consultants fretted over surveys that showed New Yorkers angry over term limits, anguished over the economy and eager for change. Mr. Bloomberg’s re-election numbers were alarmingly low for a two-term incumbent.
Polls showed that Mr. Weiner, a scrappy, politically agile Brooklyn Democrat, posed the greatest threat. Not only could Mr. Weiner compete with the mayor for the white middle-class vote, he was undaunted by the mayor’s power in a city where most politicians bow to him.
Mr. Tusk started to hold daily meetings about how to knock Mr. Weiner out of the race, unleashing a two-pronged attack: making on-the-record statements belittling his record and encouraging embarrassing articles in the New York dailies. Negative articles began appearing, the most colorful of which purported to show that Mr. Weiner had skipped votes in Congress to play hockey in Manhattan.
Despite angry denunciations of what he called a smear campaign, the congressman slowly lost his will to take on the mayor.
On May 26 Mr. Weiner announced he would not run, and Mr. Tusk and Mr. Wolfson held a celebratory dinner at Peter Luger’s, splitting an $85 porterhouse steak.
The only obstacle remaining was Mr. Thompson. At Thompson campaign headquarters near Union Square, Mr. Bloomberg’s display of political might over the summer — he had spent $37 million by July 11 — was having its desired effect. By August, Mr. Thompson’s advertising team had stopped trying to track the mayor’s television and radio spending, standard practice in a campaign, telling colleagues it was too depressing. Anne Fenton, Mr. Thompson’s press secretary, told friends that she was intimidated by Mr. Wolfson.
At times, the Bloomberg campaign, waging what they proudly saw as a presidential-
Midway into the campaign, Mr. Thompson scheduled a publicity tour through a foreclosure-
Team Bloomberg swung into action, dispatching a group of researchers to dig up Mr. Thompson’s ties to what they called an “anti-union developer” and $400,000 in campaign donations from real estate companies. They tapped out a 2,000-word e-mail message to the news media, titled “Thompson’s Rhetoric on Affordable Housing Doesn’t Match His Record” and prepared to hit the send button.
But to their astonishment, the Thompson campaign attracted almost no press to the event. The e-mail message never went out.
Mr. Tusk’s high level of organization, and his demand for corporate-style accountability, earned him admiration and occasional resentment within the campaign. He kept meticulous checklists and spreadsheets on a dozen topics at a time, and sought daily, sometimes hourly, updates from staff members.
Mr. Bloomberg, pleased with the effort, focused on his mayoral duties and tried to avoid being drawn into the campaign back-and-forth, with one exception. Three weeks before the election, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani made an appearance with Mr. Bloomberg before a group of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn.
Whatever message they had hoped to convey was drowned out by Mr. Giuliani’s speech, in which he suggested the city could not afford to return to the bad days before 1993, when the city’s first black mayor reigned, adding, “And you know exactly what I’m talking about.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who had prided himself on lowering the city’s racial temperature, was furious. The mayor’s advisers recognized the statement could become a nightmare if Mr. Thompson’s campaign exploited it deftly.
Mr. Thompson’s advisers pleaded with him to seize the opening.
“I talked to the Thompson campaign and said, ‘This is the decisive moment, it may be the best opportunity to change the race,’ ” a Democratic leader said.
But Mr. Thompson refused to make a big fuss about the statement. He addressed it only in passing, relying on surrogates to take on the mayor.
The Bloomberg campaign braced itself. But the storm never came.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
More Tsouris for Rhee
We've had a week of startling revelations about two of the latest Fenty administration scandals. We've heard how the administration manipulated city funds so that it could steer construction contracts to cronies and hide the contracts from the city council and the public. We've heard how Chancellor Rhee fiddled with the DC public schools' budget so that she could fire a few hundred teachers and other employees. Rhee testified at a city council hearing that she didn't plan the Reduction in Force, that she didn't intentionally hire several hundred more teachers than she needed over the summer in order to break the union contract. No, she insisted, she wasn't being malicious; she had simply been incompetent, bumbling, and unable to plan ahead. She had the right to ignore the legal budget of DCPS that the council passed and the mayor signed because she was the head of the agency, and that meant she had the ultimate power. The city council had approved her nomination, so from then on she wasn't accountable to them or anyone else for her actions. And she used, over and over again, the magic words, “for the children.” As long as she was doing it “for the children,” she could do whatever she wanted with the budget, with the staff of DCPS, with the teachers, the principals, and the students. She didn't have to report to the council and her budget officer didn't have to report to the Chief Financial Officer. The only way she could think of to improve management of DCPS was to make a vague promise to in some way “improve communications.” (See Chancellor Rhee's and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi's testimony at http://www.dcpswatch.com/rif, and the video of the hearing at http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/october2009/10_29_09_COW_1.asx, http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/october2009/10_29_09_COW_2.asx, and http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/october2009/10_29_09_COW_3.asx.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
Rhee ignored instructions about cuts, council says
By Bill Turque
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 30, 2009
D.C. Council members angrily accused Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee on Thursday of skirting the law by deciding unilaterally to lay off teachers and staff -- instead of trimming summer school operations -- to save $9 million in the school system's budget.
The decision, which Rhee defended on legal and policy grounds, was one of a series of disclosures during a contentious day-long oversight hearing that shed new light on the layoffs. The dismissals have sparked vociferous street protests, a union lawsuit and the most intense public debate of Rhee's 28-month tenure.
For some council members, the revelations confirmed suspicions that Rhee ignored a council directive to trim the summer school program and manipulated this year's budget process to further her goal of replacing a large portion of the city's 4,000 teachers. They vowed to press their investigation of the dismissals.
The hearing also laid bare festering tensions between Rhee and D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), a possible mayoral candidate next year, who has for months criticized the school leader for a lack of communication and transparency. He said her decision, which he called "incredibly cavalier," violated legal requirements that she submit a "reprogramming" request to the council when shifting funds.
"I'm talking about the law," Gray said. "Why bother to have a legislative body if the people in the executive branch do whatever they choose because they don't like the decision of the legislative body?"
Others took issue with Gray's analysis, but even some of Rhee's most steadfast supporters on the council rebuked her for the bitter state of relations between the school system and elected officials.
"We cannot continue to have this kind of craziness," said Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who noted encouraging signs of progress in the schools but lamented that "we are sitting in a chamber where tensions couldn't be higher." Under Rhee, test scores have risen recently, and enrollment appears to have stabilized after a long decline.
'Change is hard'
Testifying under oath, Rhee said she was open to improving communications but added: "Change is hard. Some of the decisions we are making are going to cause some opposition and push-back. We can't shy away from those decisions because we don't want to hear the noise."
Rhee said the Oct. 2 layoffs of 266 teachers and other educators were needed to help close a $43.9 million shortfall in the 2010 budget. Union leaders have denounced the action as an illegal mass firing designed to purge older educators. They have gone to court to have the teachers reinstated.
Rhee also revealed new information about the teachers who were fired and the 934 she hired during the spring and summer. In written testimony delivered Wednesday night, she told Gray that the average age of the District's teachers is 42 and that the average age of those who were laid off is 48. The average age of the 934 new hires is 32.
Rhee had deflected claims of age discrimination in interviews this month, saying that the average age of the laid-off educators was consistent with the age of the school workforce.
Thursday's hearing centered on $20.7 million the council cut from the school budget July 31, part of a citywide belt-tightening because of declining tax revenue. About $9 million of the cut came in the form of a reduction in 2010 summer school operations.
Rhee said that summer school has become a critical component in helping high school students catch up academically, recover course credits and stay on a path toward graduation. Given a choice between protecting the interests of adults and students, she said, she chose to protect students. The $9 million represents a little more than 100 of the 266 teacher layoffs.
A visibly exasperated Gray was not swayed, citing what he called Rhee's violation of city regulations.
"You think that's inconsequential?" he asked. "You think that's okay?"
Rhee responded: "I think that at times you are making difficult decisions, and things don't always happen in the ideal manner," adding that Attorney General Peter Nickles and James Sandman, the school system's general counsel, advised her that she was on firm legal ground. She added that she will submit the reprogramming request next year before the beginning of summer school.
Mixed phone signals
Gray asked why the council had to wait until Thursday to learn that rerouting summer school funds was part of her strategy for meeting the shortfall. Rhee, in turn, accused Gray of being unwilling to pick up the phone.
"There have been multiple occasions in the last few months where I have tried to get on the phone to talk to you about these issues," she said, describing one particular day in which two scheduled conference calls fell through because he was not available.
Council members also denounced Rhee's chief financial deputy, Noah Wepman, who acknowledged that he was aware in mid-July that as the school system was hiring hundreds of new teachers it faced a deficit of between $12 million and 13 million in its 2009 budget. Wepman said he briefed Rhee on the deficit, which eventually grew to $20 million, and said she would need to adjust the 2010 budget to close the gap. One of the options discussed, Wepman said, was layoffs.
Wepman also acknowledged that he never shared information about the deficit with his superior, the District's chief financial officer, Natwar M. Gandhi, who certified the 2010 budget without knowing of the potential shortfall. Wepman conceded that he should have been more communicative.
Joyce E. Smithey, an employment lawyer with Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, said in an interview that "if the evidence shows that the chancellor hired employees in bad faith, then the question is whether she did so with the goal of forcing a layoff of older employees. If that's the case, then any admission about advanced knowledge of budget troubles could be damaging."
Rhee's pride could trip up admirable effort
http://www.washingt
by Robert McCartney
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The future of the District's school system may well be decided by whether Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee's forceful reform campaign becomes mired in a swamp of her own self-defeating hubris.
A lively, dramatic D.C. Council hearing Thursday illustrated again the need for Rhee to temper her autocratic approach, especially by communicating and collaborating better with the body that approves her budget.
On balance, I think she'll continue to move forward despite the emergence of potential legal problems. Her admirable, ambitious efforts are showing results in the form of higher test scores, spruced-up buildings and stabilized enrollment.
However, part of any schools chief's job is dealing effectively with the city's elected representatives, and there, Rhee is coming up short. The hearing revealed instances in which she circumvented the council's action and delayed giving it important information about the origins of last month's controversial teacher layoffs.
For now, Rhee can count on just enough support in the council to keep it from blocking her and her patron, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), from pushing ahead. That could change, though, if she doesn't wise up.
Admittedly, some council members postured for television at the hearings and bullied Rhee to show how tough they are. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) has a political motive for bludgeoning her, as he is considering running for mayor partly on an anti-Rhee platform.
But even some of Rhee's strongest allies were practically begging her to share more information with them and get along better with Gray.
"I will continue to support your reform. I need you to be a better communicator," David A. Catania (I-At Large) said. "I need more respect and understanding directed toward the chairman, and I don't know how many more times we can have this discussion."
Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) told Rhee: "I do know you were making progress. . . . Now I think you're further apart from our labor force."
The strained relations between Fenty and Rhee, on one side, and the council and the Washington Teachers' Union seem to be out of sync with the goals of some powerful people in the Obama administration. Recently, Education Secretary Arne Duncan strongly praised the cooperative spirit that led to a labor agreement between the city of New Haven, Conn., and the American Federation of Teachers, the WTU's parent organization.
"This is a really important progressive labor agreement. It's one that folks around the country should take note of. Basically, everyone came together, the school district, the union, the city," Duncan said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
Two-year-old negotiations between Rhee and the union over a new contract are currently in a deep freeze while the union fights the layoffs.
At the hearing, Rhee was poised and even conciliatory at times. She also sounded self-righteous, though, especially in her repeated statements that she acts only in the interest of children. That maddened some council members, who said they, too, care about children first.
Three revelations at the hearing illustrated the communication problems, and some could mean legal difficulties for the D.C. school system:
-- Rhee acknowledged that she decided on her own in August to reverse a council decision to cut back sharply on summer school. She chose to save money instead through the Oct. 2 layoffs. Gray and other critics apparently were wrong to suggest that Rhee's switch broke the law. But they had every right to complain that she should have told them earlier.
-- Rhee said she was aware in July of a budget shortfall of at least $12 million but didn't tell the council until September. Meanwhile, the council approved the 2010 budget on July 31 and Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi certified it, without knowing about the deficit. Rhee said she planned to cut central office spending to cover the gap, but it widened unexpectedly in early August.
-- Even staunch Rhee supporters, including Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), said they didn't fully understand what caused the deficit of $43.9 million that Rhee blamed for the dismissals of 266 teachers and others. Several council members accused her of creating it artificially, at least in part, by such actions as hiring 934 teachers from April to August. The union is saying the same in a lawsuit seeking to reverse the layoffs. Rhee denies concocting the shortfall.
Rhee said after the hearing that she plans to reach out. "Everyone agrees that we want to move toward a more productive and positive climate," she said. "I am going to talk to as many council members as I can to get as much input as possible in the steps that we can take to move in that direction."
She can still rely on the backing of at least five of the council's 13 members -- Catania, Wells, Evans, Graham and Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4). That number is significant, because it's just enough to keep the council from getting the nine votes necessary to override a Fenty veto.
Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), who supports school reform but is growing more critical of Rhee, said in an interview that the chancellor should see the world less starkly. "She has this dichotomy which is not a correct one: Either do what I want, everybody be damned, or I'm giving up," Cheh said. "You can accomplish your goals and work with other people. "
E-mail me at mccartneyr@washpost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)