The DOE had a press release on reducing class size today. Thank goodness we have Leonie Haimson to decipher the gobboly gook for us.
Okay, what many of us were breathlessly waiting for turned out not to be worth waiting for at all.
There is nothing that
Moreover, they appear to think that they can charge $40 million for the interim assessments, including “data inquiry teams” and the Senior Achievement Facilitators (SAFs), to the state-funded contracts for excellence and the CFE funds; this doesn’t fall under any of the categories set out by state law – as even their own summary reveals: http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/CFE/ContractProgramAreas/default.htm
Instead of adding to instructional time, the interim assessments further diminish it.
More real analysis soon, particularly of their totally inadequate class size reduction proposal, or what they are trying to package as such.
Meanwhile for those who are interested, some highly tendentious and debatable documents are here:
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/CFE/ContractProposal/default.htm
I hope that all of you will come out to the hearings in each borough next week; save the dates and locations that are below. I will supply talking points for those who would like them.
Thanks,
Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
leonie@att.net
www.classsizematters.org
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/
Okay, Leonie, as you know I am not new to this issue, but can you play devils advocate and tell us is there any conceivable reason why the administration would not support a real lower class size initiative. During all my years it was always a goal in our schools and in our district to bring down class size where we could scrape together the funds to do so. So why, what is the reason, that the bloom/klein team don't want to do it. Something so simple that everyone seems to believe would be a real boon to education in NYC there has to be some reason why they don't want to do it.
I get asked this question all the time and I usually refuse to answer on the grounds that I would be speculating.
But between us, I would guess the following: It doesn’t fit their game plan; they don’t care/think it matters much, and they don’t want to have to bother to build enough schools to make it happen throughout the city. They have never been educators so they have no idea how difficult/impossible the job is when you have 28 or more needy students. They believe it’s just a matter of getting the right sort of teacher.
Of course they would never consider depriving their own kids of smaller classes…but you get the idea.
It is no longer a lack of funding. They would just rather spend the money elsewhere – on consultants, ARIS, more testing, data inquiry teams, school achievement facilitators, SSO’s and PSO’s, charter schools, small schools, etc.etc. You get the idea.
And so it’s our job to fight like mad, and to try to make sure that all the CFE funds don’t get wasted.
Leonie
I would add to Leonie's answer to Dorothy that class size reduction has many ramifications: many more schools, many more teachers, and the bureaucratic structure to support it. These are long-term solutions and they are only interested in short-term answers so they can make their political points in the limited time they are in power.
Everyone knows that top suburban schools and elite private schools have low class sizes. But the Bloom/Kleins, Eli Broads, KIPP, Green Dot, etc -- those phony reformers of the public education system -- envision a very different education for the inner city -- and they want to do it on the cheap: use narrow standards and narrow tests to create a narrow level education to prepare whatever kids come out "successfully" for the narrow job market that will be available to them -- a very different job market than available for the graduates of the elite schools where kids get a very different education. Check out blogger jd2718's post on two separate education systems for some good analysis related to the small schools.