The signers of the Children First support letter that the mayor and chancellor released yesterday are an interesting bunch. A quick look at the original 20 turned up 12 who either had no-bid contracts with the Department of Education or were recipients of Bloomberg philanthropic donations.
In case you’re coming in late on this: the Mayor held a press conference yesterday in which he proclaimed widespread suppport for the DOE’s latest restructuring. He said the UFT stood in the way of his reforms, likened the union to the National Rifle Association, and said his agenda was the only one in town.
Part of the show included a letter signed by some 100 individuals representing various organization, endorsing the mayor and chancellor. (A good source reports that the original version of the letter directly attacked the UFT by name, but that sentence was deleted from the final version.)
Readers of the blog saw this letter last week on an Edwize post as DOE was circulating it around to get signatories. At the time we wondered where this “bleating” letter would show up. Now we know.
As today wore on, there was a second and third pass at the whole list. These reviews turned up 11 recipients of Bloomberg largesse, another two who are bidding for contracts to advise schools next year, and at least 11 with no-bid contracts with DOE. There are several charter operators, who of course need city space to run their schools, and seven operators of small high schools, who by definition work for the the DOE, even if indirectly. Columbia University needs the city’s signoff on its bid to seize land by eminent domain in Harlem.
Who’s not there? There isn’t a single parent organization on the list. Not one that would sign up, despite probable retribution from the city. There are almost none of the big education advocacy organizations, but instead places like the Museum of Modern Art.
This is shameless on the DOE’s part, shameless on the mayor’s part, and a miscalculation too. Stay tuned.
4 Comments:
1 xkaydet65
· Apr 10, 2007 at 6:27 pm
As a member of the NRA as well as the UFt I guess I’m doubly screwed. Bloomie may put me on a boat to his own version of Gitmo.
On a serious note Columbia has quite a bit more than its expansion plans at work. It too is bidding, through Teachers College, to become one of the providers for those principals who choose the private provider model.
2 curious3
· Apr 13, 2007 at 9:12 am
Hey Leo,
First, I hope everyone that reads this post uses the link you provided to see the actual names. (I always admire that you include these links so people can form their own opinions.) Unlike many advocacy efforts, this is a list of full names along with their affiliations.
I think the list is quite impressive. Leo, are you accusing someone of some sort of corruption? Which people? This is not the first time that you have posted something that might be interpreted as implying corruption.
Are you suggesting that the list is devoid of people with significant experience with education in NYC? That would be a nutty accusation. Pointing out MOMA as representative of the group was pretty ridiculous. There are many organizations and people on the list that are extremely active in education advocacy. I think you know that, but you chose to spin instead.
My best guess is that you are implying that a large number of the signatories have an inappropriate conflict of interest. What are you suggesting exactly? Give an example please. Meanwhile, although I don’t get your point, how can someone that as a huge part of his job represents the salary interests of teachers make this complaint? I am tempted to call that “shameless”, but, meanwhile, thousands or parents couldn’t get into charter schools because of the cap. That’s a much bigger shame than routine hypocrisy.
Ken
3 Patrick
· Apr 17, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Ken,
I don’t think the point is so complicated. The people are lined up behind the Mayor because they do business with the city, would like to, or they are beneficiaries of his personal largess. On our blog, http://www.nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com, we published an email circulated within one of the organizations. Their key concern was what would the damage be from refusing the request to sign. No elected parent groups (PTAs, CECs, District Presidents Councils) joined the Mayor, in fact many have passed resolutions firmly against the restructuring. The fact that the Mayor, through publication of this letter, admits to having no parent support for his reforms is a startling admission of failure.
In response to your complaint about the charter school cap, yes, there may very well be thousands who would like to get into a charter school. But there are hundreds of thousands who want smaller classes. In fact, much of the demand for charter schools would evaporate if the Mayor allowed public schools to have the smaller classes that charter schools are permitted.
Patrick Sullivan
4 curious3
· Apr 19, 2007 at 11:54 am
[I think I submitted an incomplete posting.]
Thanks Patrick.
I would love to learn more about this situation. Does the UFT get involved in CEC and/or PTA elections? Also, what is the relationship amongst “Class Size Matters”, “NYC Public School Parents”, and the UFT? Is everyone involved with “NYC Public School Parents” a current NYC public school parent? Do some of them have other roles that are affected by these issues other than being NYC public school parents?
Separately, how do you know that the demand for charter schools would “evaporate” if the Mayor allowed public schools to have the smaller classes that charter schools are permitted? Have you polled charter school parents?
Ken