The NYT editorial page has been VERY strong in supporting reform (see below), but today's editorial is an exception:

The New York State Legislature made a much-needed change when it reauthorized the law that gave Mayor Michael Bloomberg direct control of New York City schools. It required him to confer more closely with parents, community groups and other stakeholders before closing schools. We have long been concerned about Mr. Bloomberg's commitment to that process — and a recent ruling by the State Supreme Court made us worry more.

It focuses on the point that the DOE didn't dot every "i" and cross every "t" in terms of "community involvement" when trying to shut down 19 schools, but misses the big picture.  First of all, what exactly is "the community"?  My observation, when it comes to school reform, is that those who claim to speak for "the community" often don't represent the community at all – instead, it's a bunch of agitators who are either teacher union members directly, or groups paid off by them – in short, members of The Blob who are pursuing their own agenda, NOT what's best for kids. 

 

Take Harlem, for example: even though 20% of public school students are now in charter schools, there are THOUSANDS of children on waiting lists, and 2/3 of all eligible parents applied to Harlem Success's most recent lottery – so it's obvious that the REAL Harlem community is DESPERATE for high-quality charter schools (not surprising, given that in 19 of the 23 district schools, the MAJORITY of children are reading and doing math at the lowest level.  But go to a public hearing in Harlem about closing one of these failing schools or co-locating a high-performing charter school with one of them and you'd think that "the community" didn't want reform.  What nonsense!  It's a shame that the NYT doesn't see what's really going on here: for the most part, mandating all sorts of "community involvement" is yet another clever way for defenders of the status quo to throw sand in the gears of reform.

 

Which brings me to my second point: one of the most important, yet most difficult (both politically and logistically), steps to fixing our school system is shutting down chronically failing schools.  Doing so is no guarantee of success (as Ravitch and her union buddies like to point out), but we know that not doing so – and instead adopting most other types of "reform" – almost certainly guarantees continuing failure.  Here's why: the two main reasons for chronic failure are: A) Way too many low-caliber people (both leadership and teachers), and B) A deeply ingrained toxic culture (among BOTH staff and students) of low expectations, disorder, etc.

 

Regarding the former, union rules make it impossible to remove the large number of failing people in a careful, selective way – the ONLY way to get rid of them is to close the school and require everyone to reapply for their jobs (see: Central High School).  Ditto for the latter: it's nearly impossible to change a deeply ingrained toxic culture by tinkering around the edges.  A fresh start is required.

 

Given the importance of shutting down failing schools, and the firestorm of protest that always ensues (no matter how horrific the school is), in the rare case when a mayor and chancellor are willing to do so (as in NYC), reformers should cut them a lot of slack, rather than supporting nit-picking judges enforcing a law that was designed to throw up roadblocks to reform.

----------------------

April 2, 2010

NYT Editorial

www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/opinion/02fri3.html

This Time, Listen