Ken,

In my initial comment on this story I referred to the DOE and District 79 Superintendent Anderson’s closing of a program for pregnant teens. Is that not a policy issue?

As for my comments about how to refer to public school students, I did not mean to attack you – well, I did mean to attack you, but not in the sense in which you took it, or it may have come off – for speaking as a concerned citizen about NYC public schools and their students. What I should have said is that by using that term (“our most vulnerable kids”) you are putting yourself in the same rhetorical company as the Mayor and Chancellor, who use the phrase in a highly scripted and politically-intended way. Your rhetorical question struck me as straight out of their talking points playbook. In that sense, I stand by my statement: people who have not taught or sent their own children to public schools should not automatically be given a free pass when they speak this way, especially when there is ample evidence that some of “their” kids (Eva Moskowitz’s, for example) are more favored than others. At that point it shades into subtle deception and propaganda.

To phrase it another way, when these folks are alone and talking among themselves about “we” “us” and especially “our”, I don’t think it’s public school students and their parents they’re referring to.

If you still think I’m warped, please join the club, and I’ll just have to live with that.

KS,

As I’ve written before, possibly in a tete-tete with you, there’s a big difference between free speech and citizen engagement, and tsunamis of money employed to set the terms of debate, buy policy and train cadre, which is what education malanthopy does. You seem to think I’m attacking the former, whereas I’m referring to the latter.

I don’t care about Ms. Anderson’s opinions. I care about her implementation of policies set by her corporate sponsors. As the US Supreme Court has ruled, money is speech, and these folks use it to drown out other points of view. They also use their wealth to identify and groom those who would implement their policies and interests. Like Michelle Rhee, with whose professional background she shares some traits – especially their effusive statements of love and concern for students they rushed to get away from – Ms. Anderson is among this group. In other words, I don’t object to their opinions, but to their actions. Your comment says otherwise, and I reject your assertion.

As for what you term “character assassination” and “vitriol,” I consider myself a courteous and respectful person, and consider those traits important. And as I stated to Ken, my criticisms of Ms. Anderson follow from her actions and reports from multiple sources of how she is viewed within the District. If my words were intemperate, then perhaps I should change “loathe” to “dislike,” and “monster” to “people doing monstrous things.”

And you know what? Being part of a prominent part of a process that takes away people’s right to have a vote and a say in the decisions that affect their children (which is never suggested for prosperous suburban districts), pitting communities against each other and privatizing scarce public resources IS a monstrous thing.

I should also state, that as important as courtesy is, it can also be used as a tool of social control and maintaining inequality. Demanding justice can appear impolite, and when people do bad things that hurt others, they should be called on it, especially when they do it serially. If that is harsh, so be it.

I’m sick and tired of listening to teachers being dishonestly blamed for problems they didn’t cause and have little control over (the Secretary of Education, for example, has gone so far as to blame teachers for the US’s lack of economic competitiveness, despite our having no say whatsoever in the investment decisions that drive the economy), and those lies then used as a pretext for a hostile takeover of a public resource that, for all its many shortcomings, is irreplaceable.

Or at least irreplaceable in a functioning democracy.

Peter,

According to the DOE web site and others, the LYFE program is geared more towards young mothers. The program I referred to was for pregnant teens.

My initial comment on this issue explicitly referred to the dismantling of a program for pregnant teens in District 79. Is that not a policy matter? That I then mentioned the hypocritical contrast between this action and the rhetoric of Ms. Anderson is something that I felt was relevant. That I also mentioned the distrust and dislike felt toward her by people in the district was also something relevant to the issue at hand. And that I see her as part of a cohort of people coming from similar backgrounds and implemeneing similar disastrous policies, is something I also felt to be relevant.

You and I disagree on almost all matters related to this site, so it’s no surprise that we disagree about referring to students in the public schools. While I wouldn’t be surprised if I am in the minority on this issue, I nevertheless feel strongly that people who are actively destabilizing the public schools, did not send their own children to the public schools, and prior to recent years demonstrated no interest whatsoever – read Bloomberg’s autobiography: nothing about the schools – in them, are being duplicitous by talking about “our” kids. Perhaps I should frame it this way: I am convinced that when these folks are among themselves and talking about “we” and “us,” public school children and their parents are not included in that group, and that their actions demonstrate this. Some of “our” kids are favored more than others. For them to thus talk about “our” kids is one of the many deceptions they employ.

KS,

We’ve had this skirmish before, but I’ll repeat a point I’ve made previously. In what remains of our democracy, oligarchs and plutocrats of course have the right to express their opinions. But please don’t suggest that they are just “plain folks” who are participating as lone individuals in democratic debate. As the US Supreme Court has ruled, money is speech, and these people have been able to set the terms of debate and buy policy. That’s a far cry from simply voting on election day. So I’m not going to stand by and let you paint me as the one who won’t let those poor, unfairly demonized billionaires exercise their democratic rights. As I recall, it’s under mayoral control that the right of parents to have some say in their children’s education has been taken away. As for the civility issue: I think of myself as a courteous and respectful person, and I think both those qualities are important. However, civility and politeness can also be tools of social control, and I feel no obligation to provide undue respect to people who are hypocrtites and integrity-challenged: that’s a job for the mainstream media. And frankly, I am angry that an immense, multi-decade media campaign has vilified teachers and blamed them for problems that are not of their making and out of their control. We are routinely blamed for the problems our students face, despite our limited capacity to influence them. The Secretary of Education has blamed us for the lack of economic competitiveness of the USA, despite the obvious fact that we have no say whatsoever over the investment decisons that drive the economy. At the moment, it is teachers and other public workers, not Wall Street, who are being blamed for the financial crises facing states and localities, and attacks on our pensions are being proposed as the solution. How polite should we be in speaking about those whose actions, in stark contrast to their empty words, constitute a direct attack upon us?

I hope you focus more on attacking policies and a bit less on over-the-top attacks on people that you don’t seem to know very much about.  

You write: “Do you teach in the public schools or have children attending them? If you do, then you may rightfully speak about “our” kids. ”

As a voting, tax-paying, and residing citizen of the community, not to mention as someone that cares about people, I’m comfortable using “our kids” to refer to the kids of NYC.  If I hadn’t read this blog frequently, I would be shocked that some people think only teachers and parents can use that phrase.  What a warped concept.

Even if a teen has some other day care arrangement and does not need the LYFE centers, nothing can make up for the support of other students dealing with the same problems and trained social workers who can assist you in the process. This is what the schools for parenting students offered and this is what Community Prep offered for students returning from detention. This kind of support has ramifications beyond the classroom. It’s unfortunate that the only statistics that matter are whether students are passing their exams.

Across-the-bow character assassinations are particularly counter-productive. I would suggest you focus on the actions you find despicable (like the canceling of the pregnant teens program) and challenge the rest of us to find out what the hell happened rather than sink your jaws into Cami Anderson’s reputation.

Where are the advocates on this? Does anyone know if they are involved?

My words were harsh, and well deserved by their target.

As I stated in a previous comment, in 2007 Anderson and Klein eliminated a GED program for pregnant teens that the district had been running for years, and that had successfully served an extremely needy population. At the time of dismantling it, they both claimed that similar services would be provided elsewhere. They lied, and to this day there is no comparable program for students in this situation. Is that what you would call “acting in the interests of our most vulnerable kids?”

I don’t care how hard she works, given the destructive agenda she is implementing, the contempt with which she treats teachers and the transparently false concern she claims to have for students. That she believes in what she does proves nothing: the annals of empire are filled with people who passionately served the interests of Pharoah/Caesar/King, and who no doubt also felt they were helping the “little” or as Obama’s Social Security hired gun Alan Simpson revealingly phrased it the other day, “lesser” people. Current reality, to say nothing of histories yet to be written, shows her and her analogs to be functionaries in a destructive and anti-democratic usurpation of public resources, and student, parent and teacher rights.

I have not met her but, as I said, know someone who works in the district and sees her actions first hand. I can confidently report that she is feared, distrusted and loathed by the overwhelming majority of those unfortunate enough to work under her, including other administrators

And by the way, Ken, I see that you, like the Mayor and Chancellor are given to talking about “our” kids. Having neither taught, nor sent their children to the public schools, and having sent them to private schools with class sizes and resources most of our students cannot imagine, they are being extremely dishonest by using that term.

Do you teach in the public schools or have children attending them? If you do, then you may rightfully speak about “our” kids. If not, you should re-phrase things, lest you imitate the Mayor and Chancellor by misrepresenting yourself with language that obviously comes straight from their PR consultants.

Those are pretty harsh words.  Have you ever met Cami Anderson?  I’m curious to know what exactly makes it “obvious that by axing programs for the most vulnerable, Anderson is doing what she was hired to do.”  Is it possible that she is an extremely hardworking and well-intentioned person that is doing things she believes are in the best interest of our most vulnerable kids?  Or can you and your close family member reject that possibility as obviously wrong?

What is incredulous is that Cami Anderson, the Superintendent of D79, is getting away with eliminating programs that serve the most vulnerable students due to statistics. It is the same reason why she did away with the pregnancy programs, CEC and the other programs that served students which the system has rejected. The closing of Community Prep High School is an outrage.

When District 79 was reorganized in 2007, the program for pregnant teens was scuttled. The NY Times even did its bit, by publishing a nasty, one-sided piece of work that belittled the work of the students and teachers.

At the time, the DOE said that the students would be placed in comparable, alternatives programs. That never happened, and the girls were cast to the winds.

About this story, I have yet another point. Transferring these kids to a GED program is not equivalent to one that prepares them to receive a regular HS diploma. Though the DOE likes to conflate these two options, they are very different.

the DOE claims that they maximize choice, but they leave thousands of kids in the lurch; both at the Kindergarten level, on waiting lists, and in HS. And transferring out of MS or HS is nearly impossible; for reasons that are hard to understand. Why do they make everything to difficult?