GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

1. 

   NYC Educator

   November 10th, 2009 8:30 am

   I wonder what it signifies that our dropouts are worse test takers than dropouts of other states. And I wonder how long it will be before someone finds a way to blame the teachers whose classes they no longer attend.

2. 

   Michael M.

   November 10th, 2009 12:37 pm

   Where was this newfangled “…under the $25,000 cutoff, said Education Department spokesman David Cantor…” when the same NY ComPost was pillorying parents for hiring in-class aides, many but not all of whom HAD gone through DOE-REQUIRED background checks?

   As of this article in April 2009, “all but 13 of the 195″ aides had been fingerprinted.

   http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/pt_hey_rogue_school_hirings_Upr22sRLBUfM2e4a9XxkJN

   Can someone explain to me the missing consistency here?

   How about a policy that simply says ANY adult in contact with our kids under the auspices of the DOE gets checked out FIRST. Does it really matter WHAT the contract or wages are?

3. 

   KitchenSink

   November 10th, 2009 1:07 pm

   Regardless of the consistency, this article just sheds light on the fact that wealthier parents and those with children attending schools in wealthier communities have advantages that other schools don’t enjoy. Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood proponent of Fair Student Funding, which has disproportionately increased funding to high-poverty schools. These were previously under-funded relative to the schools that were, for example, supported by wealthier PTAs.

4. 

   Michael M.

   November 10th, 2009 1:22 pm

   KS,
   I raised the above contrast to highlight DOE’s and the NYPost’s inconsistency in dealing with children’s safety, which should NOT be a “financial threshhold” football, nor per your comment, another chance to bash PTAs. (My bad for dangling the lure, I s’pose.)

   And, as you may have seen me write up before, FSF is anything BUT.

   If we all have to wear shoes to school, is it fair we all have to wear a size 9?

   Going back three years, a good number of schools stigmatized as being rich actually stood to see a funding HIKE under FSF, and a good number of schools thought to be poor actually stood to see a funding CUT under FSF.

   The funds that at least my own PTA (PS41) raise has not in three years come close to making up for the funding shortfall. In that inaugural year, PS41 was getting $2k per kid less than citywide average. That year, our PTA raised roughly $500 per kid. I’m sure our situation was not unique. The facts don’t fit the stereotype. Shedding light on all that hooey was a prime factor in getting me interested in exposing DOE spin.

   And as we both know, there are limits in place on what the PTAs can spend on.

   Please stop banging that drum. It’s hollow.

5. 

   KitchenSink

   November 10th, 2009 1:48 pm

   Hey, hollow drums are the only ones that work - wrong metaphor?

   I’m not questioning your sincerity or your facts. I’d like to see citywide data on the impact of FSF. Everyone, including me, is blowing their ideological horn but it sounds like it’s unclear what this policy has actually done to school budgets in different communities. Is there any centralized location for this information? I’m not going in to school-by-school report cards, but maybe some intrepid soul has.

6. 

   Michael M.

   November 10th, 2009 4:50 pm

   KS,

   Tee hee.

   Amen to your call for accountability for FSF. (Irony? Got Tweed?)

   Nothing on funding in the School Progress Reports. Gawd ferbid anyone ever blew a Cray supercomputer’s motherboard figgerin out if there’s any (gasp) correlation between spending, let alone changes in spending, and the Random Letter Generator. And yet, DOE claims success constantly over those two Klein initiatives.

7. 

   David Cantor

   November 11th, 2009 12:16 pm

   To Michael M: ANYONE who works with children under DOE auspices must undergo a background check first–whatever their compensation or even if they are not being compensated. Separately, contracts worth $25,000 of more require DOE review of the status of the proposed vendor.

   David Cantor

   Press Secretary

8. 

   Michael M.

   November 11th, 2009 3:53 pm

   DC,
   Thanks for the clarification and the reassurance.
   Per the late Senator Moynihan, there may be differences of opinion, but we all need to share the same set of facts.

   Best,
   Michael M.

Leave a Reply