Former top official gives scathing review to DOE’s current state

blast from the past

July 3, 2012

Former top official gives scathing review to DOE’s current state

by Philissa Cramer, at 11:45 am

Eric Nadelstern heads the Children's First Network, which is set to expand. (Via Cody Castro)

The city Department of Education is politically motivated, riddled with waste, and making policy choices that won’t lead to improved student achievement.

Those claims are frequently lobbed by longstanding critics of the Bloomberg administration’s education policies. But now they are coming from a chief architect of the Department of Education’s current structure: Eric Nadelstern, the number-two official until he retired in January 2011.

Nadelstern designed the department’s network school support structure upon the premise that principals should mostly be left alone, as long as they deliver performance results. When he left, Nadelstern said he was confident that his deputies would carry on the work they had been doing with him.

But in a working paper about the network structure published late last week by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, a research group associated with the University of Washington, Nadelstern says the department has lost its way. Instead of thinking about what would be best for students, officials have considered what would be best for Mayor Bloomberg, he says. Rather than trusting principals to make the right choices for their schools, officials are mandating instructional changes. The department is frittering away federal funds centrally rather than distributing them to schools. And instead of using the network structure to support schools, the department is using a “ruthlessly efficient structure for micromanaging” them, he writes.

All together, Nadelstern says the changes have him lying awake at night with worry. ”A new mayor will probably mean a new chancellor. With equal numbers of superintendents and networks, it is not hard to envision how easily the city’s schools can be returned to a geographically organized system of local districts,” he writes.

The portion of Nadelstern’s paper that assesses the Department of Education’s current state is excerpted in full below, followed by the complete paper.

Can the Movement Outlast Its Leader?

In retrospect, it is easy to see that our work began to unravel the summer before Joel Klein’s departure and my retirement in January 2011. Key staff members to Mayor Bloomberg had advised him not to run for a third four-year term and left soon after he narrowly won reelection. These people were replaced by political operatives who had not lived through the reforms of the previous decade and who saw their primary role as creating opportunities for Bloomberg to step onto a national political stage after he left city government. Education reforms would now be evaluated on the basis of whether they contributed capital to the mayor’s political aspirations.

In November 2011, Klein announced that he would be leaving at year’s end, and that Bloomberg had selected Cathy [sic] Black, a longtime publishing executive, to take his place. Black proved unequal to the task, and was soon replaced by Dennis Walcott, who had been deputy mayor for education throughout the Bloomberg administration. By that time, after 39 years with the New York City public schools, I retired and accepted a position as professor of educational leadership at Teachers College, Columbia University. One of my deputies became the Department of Education’s chief academic officer, and the other became chief operating officer. As of this writing, seven members of the chancellor’s cabinet have worked for me at one time or another time.

With that kind of continuity, I would have hoped that the reform work would continue, but that was not to be the case. Hundreds of millions of federal Race to the Top dollars flowed to the district, but the money didn’t go directly to schools; it was controlled by central office administrators, who thought they knew better how to spend it. During the worst recession since World War II, which significantly reduced funding for schools, the central office wasted millions of dollars—proving yet again that it is the part of the district least likely and able to innovate. Millions more are now being squandered on the failed assumption that imposing a core curriculum from central office will significantly alter classroom teachers’ behavior so that more students can be more successful.

While the network structure had proved to be an excellent vehicle for principal and school autonomy and empowerment, it has now also proven to be a ruthlessly efficient structure for micromanaging schools. School autonomy appears to be a thing of the past. In its place, the central office is using networks to once again attempt to control what takes place in 70,000 classrooms each day. Fortunately, the mandates are largely ignored when teachers close their classroom doors each morning, just as they always have been.

Another regret I continue to harbor is that networks were not given more autonomy on my watch. I had hoped that, after a period of scale-up and capacity-building, we could devise a way for networks, at least the most successful ones, to spin off from the Department of Education and function as independent educational management organizations. As it often does, the clock simply ran out.

These days, I lay awake nights thinking about the next administration. In 2013, New York City will elect a new mayor. After 20 years of Republican administrations, it is more than likely that this heavily Democratic city will elect a Democrat as mayor. A new mayor will probably mean a new chancellor. With equal numbers of superintendents and networks, it is not hard to envision how easily the city’s schools can be returned to a geographically organized system of local districts. How long after that will it take for politicians to reassert their privilege to receive constituent services once again?

Early in his tenure, Klein told me, one of the borough presidents asked him who he should go to with requests for constituent services. When Klein asked what he meant, the borough president explained that from time to time, he would need to secure a job for a loyal constituent, or get a constituent’s child into a good school. Klein responded that when he redesigned the school system, he forgot to create an office of constituent services. That “omission” is not likely to recur in the next administration.

Despite my regrets and fears, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish. We proved that networks of schools can play an invaluable role in efforts to improve student achievement. In the process, we established a different way to organize schools that supports school-based autonomy in return for greater accountability for student learning. Students and their families can choose from hundreds of good schools that did not exist just a few years ago. And the high school graduation rate moved from 50 percent, where it had been stuck for decades, to 65 percent today.

http://twitter.com/nycdoenuts nycdoenuts

I think what he fails to realize is that having a system bent on politics and pleasing the mayor is one of the things that can happen when you completely destroy the community based districts that were the counter balance to centralized city-wide control. If the Nadelstern is having sleepless nights, he should consider that they may be caused by the unintended consequences of his last contribution to New York’s school system.
JoJoK

The answer to this is simple. Leave politicians out of schools and in the hands of true educators and watch schools flourish.
Michael Fiorillo

Now that the blatant viciousness, dishonesty (those graduation rates he touts are known by all to be a sham) and destructiveness (of which he was an integral part) of the Bloomberg regime is becoming ever more apparent, this moral midget seeks to distance himself from the train wreck he helped engineer.

Pitiful.
cj

Of course Eric spent a couple of years licking Klein’s rear end and doing a lot of his dirty work helping to destroy school communities. Then when the system showed its thanks to him by passing over him not only for the Chancellorship but for the post of Chief Academic Officer, he retires. His most recent statement as report on GothamSchools was that the 24 schools should have been closed but let’s not forget his statement, when working for Klein, about 2/3 of the teachers being incompetent. If ever there was a person who is two faced, it clearly is Eric. Who can take anything this man says seriously.
Chaz

Mr Naldestern:

Let me remind you that your policies were a major part of the problem and not a solution for better schools. If you left the DOE without completing your vision, who’s fault is that?

The only positive thing you did, besides resigning, was to give principals more autonomy. However, you ignored principal quality and many principals were incompetent and vindictive and did what was best for them not what was best for the students. Further, it was under your guidance that the DOE had a double standard in disciplining teachers and principals. Finally, weren’t you in charge when over 800 teachers were sent to the “rubber rooms” for what turned out to be frivolous and bogus charges because you gave the Principal the power to reassign teachers?
Invictus

In what world he lives, must I wonder. If it is a numbers game, sure his planned structures might have ‘pressured’ enough working class teachers into a ludicrous grade boosting when it comes to assessment and giving credit, thus numbers have gone from 50% to 65% in terms of graduation but that does not truly show the students that walk the graduation pews with the lack of skills and that in general will fail out of community college or city colleges in horrendous rates.
Nadelstern cannot divorce himself from the fact that the DOE as it is now, is a derivation of his plan. In due time, history will pass judgment in what he has done consciously and within its descriptions, there is no shade where to hide his hand in allowing the capitalistic and nepotism filled ranks of the DoE from squandering a great opportunity with what federal moneys have come its way.
Truly amazing how he describes the reality that is the DoE that he helped establish:
“During the worst recession since World War II, which significantly
reduced funding for schools, the central office wasted millions of
dollars—proving yet again that it is the part of the district least
likely and able to innovate. Millions more are now being squandered on
the failed assumption that imposing a core curriculum from central
office will significantly alter classroom teachers’ behavior so that
more students can be more successful.” To make matters worse, several key figures that were shaped under him continue these destructive policies. When one lives by a certain moral mantra that he justifies under every step, one cannot divorce himself from the reality its upbringing has created criminals that use the shield of education to rob the future of the great majority of children in NYC public schools.
Truly pathetic he truly is.
Youdontneedtoknow

Sour grapes – He’s upset that Shael was promoted to CAO when he thought he would get it. Now he criticizes? Hundreds of closed schools later? Hmmmm.
BXTeacher

Nadelstern sat on the stage 10 years ago when he announced that South Bronx High School would be closed for poor performance. When asked why then, would the principal at the time, Eduardo Genao, be promoted to Bronx Superintendent, he left the stage without an answer. He was a weasel then and he’s a weasel now. No one has any sympathy for him and most of us know that he was instrumental in creating the corruption that exists now.
Guest

I don’t care for Nadelstern or his reforms, but it is clear that the network role changed this year and involved far more micromanagement and less support than in the years since my school first became an empowerment school.
Michael Fiorillo

The consequences of Nadelstern’s implementation of Bloomberg and Klein’s policies – a power grab intended to shut out stakeholders, administrative dominance (increasingly wielded by people explicitly chosen for their minimal teaching experience), constant disruption and destabilization, undermining of teacher’s professional autonomy, etc. – have been anything but unintentional.

On the contrary, they are central to the neoliberal project to privatize the schools and turn them into profit centers. If he failed to see that, it was his opportunism that blinded him.Disruption, destabilization and creating a climate of fear and intimidation in the schools is the only thing these people are competent at. To re-phrase Tacitus, they create a desolation and call it learning.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

What a piece of crap this guy is. In my book worse than even Klein. He was in all he way — until Black got the job instead of him and he left with his tail between his legs. What? A no-nothing over the superior Eric? I guess he missed all those no-nothing slugs the Leadership Academy was sending into the schools — many of them make Black look good. But he looked the other way.
http://profile.yahoo.com/CMXWBLXJHWO7I5VZEFTBJJOZKQ Geraldine

Nadelstern is a HYPOCRITE of the worst kind. Tell us Nadelstern, how you cried the morning when you heard you were out and BLACK was in. What goes around comes around. You have much to ANSWER FOR!
http://twitter.com/leoniehaimson leonie haimson

I don’t understand his point. Is he saying the choice of Cathie Black helped Bloomberg, rather than the schools? How? Instead, it opened him up to ridicule. And while it is indeed impossible for parents to get “constituent” services from anyone at DOE (as though that’s a bad thing) you can bet the charter school operators and the hedge funders know just who to call.
claudius

Not sure why you call these policies “neoliberal”. Privatization of state institutions, education as profit centers, and attacks on civil service employees and unions hardly seems liberal in any traditional sense of the term. Neo-conservative seems more appropriate to me. But hey, I’m just a teacher and don’t have time these days after lesson plans, teaching, and all the new time killers principals think up to keep teacher running to follow the new political terminology here. I am trying though and have learned that we need more “rigor” in my “failing school” so we can be more “accountable”. So help me out Michael.
Mr. Flerporillo

I think the “constituent services” described by Nadelstern are pretty clearly a bad thing.
Nycdoenuts

I read Leonie’s comment as highlighting the problem with what the DOE sees as a constituent, vs. who the real constituents are.

It’s a real problem -and, thanks to this guy, one of the most fundamental problems the DOE has.
Michael Fiorillo

Claudious,

You’re right, there’s nothing “liberal” (in the mid-20th century sense of the term) about union busting and privatizing the common wealth of society, but that’s exactly what Neoliberalism is about.

Instead, you have to think about the word’s earlier, 19th century meaning, which essentially meant laissez faire and absolute property rights. That old, New Deal-ish liberalism that Rush Limbaugh loves to bark about – pluralism, the common good, labor rights as a necessary brake on the built-in nastiness of unregulated business – was interred by Bill Clinton in the ’90′s, replaced by NAFTA and other trade agreements that undermine living and wage standards, elimination of social safety nets that have further lowered wages, economic domination by Finance at the expense of the broader economy (thus the omnipresence of Wall Street in every corner of so-called education reform) and the almost complete absorption of the Democrats into little more than a self-deluded and less visibly insane wing of The Money Party.

Of course, Neoliberals trumpet their social liberalism – support for gay and abortion rights, which are good things – but that costs them nothing, and in the case of abortion, keeps their employees more productive (see Michael Bloomberg’s feelings about this in testimony given at a sexual discrimination suit he faced: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/nyregion/a-testy-bloomberg-emerges..).

Sure, they’re big social liberals, but the minute someone wants a pay raise, or some say on the job, or simply wants to teach without being continually blamed for problems not of their making and interfered with by arrogant know-nothings, out come the knives (for the good of the children, of course!).

Here are two links that describe neoliberalism far better than I can:

http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/610/1/21

The second link is to an article by the eminent geographer David Harvey, who lays it all out.
Mitch

Are we supposed to believe that when Klein was in power and principals were pressuring us to give out more passing grades, they weren’t trying to make the mayor look good?
Mr. Flerporillo

“Of course, Neoliberals trumpet their social liberalism – support for gay and abortion rights, which are good things – but that costs them nothing, and in the case of abortion, keeps their employees more productive”

First, people do tend to support policies that don’t cost them anything, or that cost them so little that they can afford the cost. Even more people will support policies that benefit them directly. We see this dynamic on these message boards every day, including in your posts.

Second, your NY Times link doesn’t work. Is this the discrimination suit that got dismissed a few years back? It’s been a while, so could you remind me what “testimony” established that Michael Bloomberg is pro-choice because he believes it makes women more productive workers? I’d like to know, and I’m also curious what kind of evidence you need before making a statement like that.
ASTRAKA

“Despite my regrets and fears, I am proud of what we were able to
accomplish. We proved that networks of schools can play an invaluable
role in efforts to improve student achievement……… And the high school graduation rate moved from 50 percent, where it had been stuck for decades, to 65 percent today.”

The pomposity and hypocricy of this man has no bounds. Your paper may impress people who are not teachers or the Gates Foundation, but we know your conclusions are wrong and your statistics are wrong. Your so called reforms and networks are not helping children and they are destroying the teaching profession. Your paper and self-congratulatory conclusions may have had some weight a year or two ago. Now they are meaningless. Perhaps you should have a friendly talk with Diane Ravitch on how to change your opinions on the education reform movement with some dignity and backbone.
I feel sorry for you.
old teach

This is what we would call a “break in the ranks”. This top DOE official states emphatically that decisions are being made that are good for Bloomberg and not the students. Guess what? many people have known this for years now maybe this report will open up the public at large as to the failures of the administration and the atronomical cost to tax payers. I can only hope that enough people with the power to resist the mayors failed policy of closing schools will stand together to stop him during his last three school terms of mayoral control!!!
limpia

Shael doesnt seem to great to me.
Ellen

Aw, c’mon! You are only providing him with legitimacy by commenting. The failures occurred on the Mayor’s watch….and the mayor is leaving, not soon enough, but soon. What’s happening now is the death throes of an administration that will not be remeberd for education reforms, but for creating the blood sport of NYC education.
Ever hopeful, I would say that now is the time to turn to the future and ask questions of those who are running, or want to run, or who may run. The candidates have thier battle plans drawn up for the next few months. We should be creating our aims and goals (and it’s not just ridding the city of Mayoral control).
claudius

Thanks for the clarification of “neo” liberalism. I was aware of the much older definition of liberalism, which goes back to the Whig party in Britain if I remember correctly. Before becoming a teacher, I worked on Wall St. where a lot of my colleagues were libertarians a la Ayn Rand, so I am aware of this socially “liberal” streak in the conservative movement. Still, neoliberalism seems a somewhat anachronistic use of the term liberal in today’s context, at least to me. Additionally, as a teacher who automatically receives free copies of the NY Post every day, I am aware of the relentless propaganda battle being waged in the press, so naturally I am suspicious of who is defining what terms for their own interest. Otherwise I am in much agreement with what you say and appreciate your many comments.
Jjman36

Nadelstern lives in a dream world. His ego blinds him from the reality of the damage he and Klein inflected. His small high school approach forced the lowest functioning students into the remaining large schools which were destroyed! Meanwhile the small schools changed grades and provided easy credits to improve their grad rates. THE BIG LIE OF NADELSTERN!
Anonymous

When you treat so many talented, dedicated and highly effective people like garbage and screw over students and parents right and left with a sickeningly dismissive self-righteous arrogance, you don’t deserve respect, a settled conscience or a livelihood.
East Sider

Forget about the Nadelstern comments – read the introduction to the article and the description of portfolio districts. Increasingly districts around the country are moving toward this model … and the word “union” is absent from the discussion.

It is attractive because it allows mayors to claim credit for successes and avoid blame for failures – the portfolio manager, be it a for profit or not for credit takes the hit.

Nadelstern and Bloomberg are the past – the future is more troubling.
Citizen X

As Gary Orfield has pointed out, a public school system designed around “choice” gives the best choices to those with the most money…….Eric Nadelstern has nothing to be proud about in regard to the network structure although it is quite amusing to see him airing his spoiled grapes and claiming he is a professor at TC….a position you can only hold if you have a doctorate. (Unless they changed the rules for him…..)
Anx

The Union should do what Unions are supposed to do. File grievances for everything the Doe does and take them to court. File for everything and tie them up for hours defending the things that are against the contracts. Every atr should file suit to get their jobs back and every administrator who lost their jobs should do the same thing. Keep this guy so tied up that he will not be able to do anything for the next year. Any of his administrators that he put in place and have done things to hurt members should be tied up defending what they did. The Unions needs to get balls and make Bloomberg and Walcott bleed at every level. He has nothing to lose as a lame duck and the union should use his tactics against him at every level.
As far as Nadlestein goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” Use every word of his to bring down the evil Bloomberg.
Start a recall of the mayor.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

I have some memory of woman who got pregnant who worked for Bloomberg were told by him to “get rid of it.” There’s choice for you.
Mr. Flerporillo

Some memory of something somebody read about what somebody said someone said. Fiorillo’s integrity remains at its all-time high.
Michael Fiorillo

My apologies for the non-working NY Times link. Perhaps you could ask someone to help you use The Google to find it, since the topic is quite clear and has been extensively covered online and in print, rather than attempting to be slick and imply that my reference was bogus.

Yes, the EEOC lawsuit against Bloomberg, LLC. – the basis of which referred to actions taken by the company after Bloomberg left the company – was dismissed. The judge ruled that while clear instances of discrimination occurred, they were not proven to have risen to the level of a class injury.

As the Times reported on 4/14/11, “One of the most vivid excerpts (from a trial deposition, MF) involves Matthew Winkler, the longtime editor of Bloomberg News, who helped Mr. Bloomberg with his memoir. Complaining that pregnant employees who went on maternity leave often did not return, he was quoted by one plaintiff as saying, ‘It’s like stealing money from Mike Bloomberg’s wallet. It’s theft. They should be arrested.’ ”

The woman who made the allegation that Bloomberg personally made the, “Kill it!” and “Great, that’s number 16!” (presumably referring to the number of women then on maternity leave) statements settled out of court.

Since the majority of your comments and questions are red herrings intended for misdirection and diversion of useful debate into dead ends – with just enough relevant comments to inoculate you against the charge of being a Troll – I’ll direct my questions to other Gotham Schools readers: does any of this not ring true, and seem contrary to the Mike Bloomberg we’ve all come to know and love, and does it not perhaps partially explain elite support for abortion rights (again, a good and necessary thing) during a time of otherwise rapidly diminishing personal privacy and freedoms?

After all, with just a few exceptions, S&P 500 companies have shown little or no interest in overturning legalized abortion – though, as Thomas Frank has written, they’re perfectly happy to let it be used as a political wedge issue – in contrast to their enthusiasm to offshore jobs, attack what’s left of the labor movement and support if not implement the privatization of the schools.
Pogue

Some lawyer hack making some comments against some educator who has dedicated more than some years to the education of some public school children.

Some nerve.
Ms. P

What a deplorable piece of……….*add expletive of your choice*

If only someone would have taught me how to sear my conscience w/an hot iron….I too could have had the world in the palm of my hand. And New York City could have certainly been my personal playground.
Mr. Flerporillo

“Since the majority of your comments and questions are red herrings intended for misdirection and diversion of useful debate into dead ends – with just enough relevant comments to inoculate you against the charge of being a Troll ”

I suppose utility is in the eye of the beholder, but in all seriousness, I don’t recall you ever engaging in “useful debate” on this web site. Nor do I recall you ever posing a genuine question with the goal of learning something you didn’t know, acknowledging that anyone who disagrees with you might have a point, or supporting any of your assertions with evidence. What you do is make speeches. You appear to have your fans among the rank-and-file, and you’re certainly entitled to do your thing, but you shouldn’t pretend you’re interested in actual debate.

And naturally, you are wrong on the facts, so I’m glad I asked about it. Read the decision. The judge did not “rule . . . that clear instances of discrimination occurred,” as you claim. For other Gotham Schools readers who might care, this is what she ruled: (1) the EEOC presented “only anecdotal evidence and no statistical or other evidence to combine with its anecdotal evidence”; (2) “the EEOC’s anecdotal evidence was, on its own, insufficient”; (3) “the EEOC’s evidence of a pervasive bias and negative stereotypes consists of much inflammatory hearsay combined with a handful of isolated comments from a few managers over the course of nearly six years”; and (4) “[n]one of this evidence, even taken all together, is sufficient to make out a pattern or practice claim. At most, it shows possible instances of individual discrimination.” See Opinion at 48-50.

Translation, if you need one: The EEOC presented no evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination. The only evidence it provided was a series of anecdotes that likely wouldn’t be admissible at trial. And if you were to accept all of those anecdotes as true for argument’s sake, the most they could show is “possible instances” of discrimination.

But who cares, right? All we need to do is type “[e]lites like Bloomberg want women to abort their fetuses to make corporations more profitable,” and it’s done.
Pogue

Thank you, Deputy Chancellor.
Anonymous

Slim distinction, long speech.
Michael Fiorillo

I am happy and confident to have my integrity and very modest contribution to education and it’s political economy be judged by my students, colleagues and GS readers, rather than you. As you may not have noticed, your opinions and standing transact at a very high discount on this forum.

To start, I need to mention that all of this is tangential and distracting – clearly your mission on this site – from the original discussion about what neoliberalism is, and it’s role in so-called education reform. My point about Bloomberg was incidental to that, yet you seek to turn it into the entire debate, as befits a troll. Sorry, but teachers are waking up to what Is happening to them and their students, and see right through your attempts to derail open debate and advocacy.

As for the dismissed suit, “Judge Preska … dismissed the statistical experts that the EEOC had called as witnesses, but accepted the company’s experts.” (NY Times, 8/17/11). In her decision, Judge Preska also approvingly quoted DOE consultant and former GE head Jack Welch on (no one’s right to a) work-life balance, in what amounted to a channeling of neoliberal, employer-friendly orthodoxy.

So, let’s get this straight: the judge refused to accept statistical analysis from the EEOC, relying solely on data and analysis supplied by the company, and then dismissed the lawsuit on the premise that no data had been supplied by the plaintiffs, and that their charges were only anecdotal. And you would have this seen as a total vindication for the company? Perhaps what in your mind is a magisterial legal decision is closer in legal and moral credibility to Bush v. Gore, and instead merely demonstrates the company’s success in judge shopping.

And you of course neglected to mention the quotes attributed directly to Bloomberg, which have never been refuted and are in keeping with a plethora of reports about the Mayor’s foul language, temper and arrogance. Again, I’ll ask GS readers, do those quotes sound out of character for the man, and if not, might they shed some light on his support for legalized abortion, especially when his overall record on privacy and civil liberties is horrendous?

Now, after being foolish enough to deal with you yet again, I need to go take a shower.
Mr. Flerporillo

“I need to mention that all of this is tangential and distracting – clearly your mission on this site . . . My point about Bloomberg was incidental to that, yet you seek to turn it into the entire debate”

I’m not sure what to make of somebody who can assert that Bloomberg wants his pregnant employees to get abortions for productivity reasons as an “incidental” point in what should be a straightforward definition of a term. If you don’t want incidental points to get turned into the entire debate, then don’t make a habit of making outrageous assertions in a casual, throwaway manner, especially when you can’t back them up.

I’ll address your statements about Preska’s decision as best I can, even though you still don’t appear to have read it. And I’ll answer them frankly, without any advocacy or spin. As an initial matter, though, do you understand now that Preska did not “rule that . . . clear instances of discrimination occurred” at Bloomberg LP? Regardless of whether you have some gut feeling that they may have occurred, and regardless of whether you care if the “incidental” accusations you make are true, do you understand that, as a factual matter, what you wrote was incorrect?

1. You write: ”So, let’s get this straight: the judge refused to accept statistical analysis from the EEOC, relying solely on data and analysis supplied by the company, and then dismissed the lawsuit on the premise that no data had been supplied by the plaintiffs, and that their charges were only anecdotal.”

That’s right. To introduce scientific expert testimony, the testimony has to pass certain standards of reliability. It’s Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The guiding case is Daubert. Each side made a Daubert motion to exclude the others’ expert testimony. The EEOC lost its motion, and Bloomberg LLP won its motion. I can’t tell you the details, because I haven’t read the decision or the motions. So I can’t tell whether I think Preska got that decision right or wrong. I’m not sure if you’re telling me that you think she got it wrong, but if you are, that speaks volumes, given that there’s no question that you haven’t read any of the papers.

2. You write: ”And you would have this seen as a total vindication for the company?”

I’m not sure I follow your question. Do I see the dismissal of the complaint as “total vindication” for Bloomberg LP? Well, yes, in the obvious sense that any defendant in a civil case is “vindicated” when a complaint against it is dismissed. Or in the sense that a criminal defendant is “vindicated” when a “not guilty” charge is returned by a jury, or a judge dismisses an indictment before trial. That’s called winning your case.

Or are you asking whether I view the dismissal of the case as affirmative proof that all the factual allegations against Bloomberg LP were false? If that’s what you’re asking, the answer is no.

For sensible reasons, the law places the burden of proof on plaintiffs — or, in criminal cases, the government. If the plaintiff or the government fails to prove its case, it doesn’t mean the defendant is “innocent.” There are a lot of plaintiffs that file complaints with true allegations but have their complaints dismissed for various reasons, just as there are criminal defendants who “beat the rap.” And when the plaintiff/government can’t prove its case (or a judge rules that there are no set of facts that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the plaintiff/government could prove its case), the defendant gets to walk out of the courtroom clear and free. That doesn’t mean that you have to agree that the jury or the judge got it right. You’re even free to do what the law would forbid in a court of law — you can put the burden on the defendant to disprove the truth of the allegations against it. Personally I think it’s a disturbing position to take, and anyone who takes that position has zero credibility with me, especially if they elsewhere decry the erosion of “due process” for teachers accused of misconduct. But you’re certainly free to go that route if that’s how you like to roll.

3. You write: ”Perhaps what in your mind is a magisterial legal decision is closer in legal and moral credibility to Bush v. Gore, and instead merely demonstrates the company’s success in judge shopping.”

I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say there. Defendants don’t shop for judges, but maybe some win the lottery. Anyway, if you’re just asking if it’s possible that Preska dismissed the case because she was sympathetic to Bloomberg LP, sure, I suppose it’s possible. On the other hand, it’s possible she was annoyed by what she saw as a borderline frivolous claim by the EEOC. Maybe her annoyance made her sympathetic. I don’t know.

4. ”you of course neglected to mention the quotes attributed directly to Bloomberg, which have never been refuted and are in keeping with a plethora of reports about the Mayor’s foul language, temper and arrogance.”

The two quotes you mentioned were ”Kill it!” and “Great, that’s number 16!” You say they’ve never been “refuted,” and I take you to mean that they’ve never been disproved. To that I would respond, please see point #2 above. It’s never been proven that he made those comments. And do I think on some gut level that Bloomberg is the kind of guy who would say “Kill it!” to a pregnant employee? Actually, no, I don’t. There’s a lot of evidence that the Mayor is (shocker) astoundingly arrogant and short-tempered. MAYBE I could imagine him saying the “that’s number 16!” comment. But the “Kill it!” comment doesn’t ring true to me.

But you know what? Who the heck cares what rings true to me or you? What are we, the Mentalist? The point — and it’s mindblowing that this even needs to be said, much less repeated ad nauseam — is that we don’t require defendants to disprove allegations against them in court, and we should apply the same rule out of court especially when it comes to “he said, she said” allegations. Would you require a teacher to affirmatively prove that he didn’t make an inappropriate sexual remark, or would you require the DOE to prove that he did? Why would you apply a different rule to Bloomberg? Just because you dislike him? Or because you dislike his policies, and so anything that damages his reputation God’s work? If that’s your position, how can anything you say be taken seriously?
Pogue

There’s some kind of Napoleon Complex going here.
JJkemp

FWIW, flerp, i’m glad that there’s at least one person on this site who’s willing to call this condescending fool out on his dishonesty.
Harringtonian

As hinted at below by “East Sider” below, I would strongly recommend that GothamSchools readers peruse the remainder of Eric’s piece NOT excerpted in the article.

In it, Nadelstern openly (albeit self-servingly) describes his complicity in Joel Klein’s agenda of “creative destruction”. In particular, he gushes over the elimination of ALL local political accountability in the delivery of education. He thus champions the obliteration of ANY geographic nexus with schools administration. Accordingly, he convincingly argues, the elimination of all neighborhood or community connection to school oversight was at the core of Klein’s “reforms”. Furthermore, he sees that as fundamental to their shared vision going forward.

Klein openly advocated the model being trumpeted by Nadelstern in a book published over five years ago. He firmly believes that central bureaucracies should get out of the actual learning business altogether and instead, dole out contracts to educational entrepeneurs and calculate the profits (er. I mean “progress”) at the end of the fiscal year.

This is the model that John White wants to establish statewide in Louisiana and that will soon be coming to a location near you (aka Philadelphia). O what a Brave New World we’re approaching! Welcome to the new, improved! Bill Gates hobby horse.
Anonymous

School exist to serve the public, not parents. Direct political control, i.e. the old Boards of Education, are not in the interest of children or society. There need to be more layers of insulation between the whims of activist parents and the classroom. Doubtful? Research the “Children Of The Rainbow” debacle. The results of that are still being felt city-wide, twenty years later.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

How about layers of insulation between whims of a mayor? “Layers of insulation” is code for “the democratic process need to be undermined and subverted.” We already have layers on the political level. The wealthy get to filter out candidates and the public is left with a narrow choice, Really, why waste any more money on voting at all or even a phony political process? Let the 1% hold an internal vote and make it all transparent.
Mr. Flerporillo

I didn’t follow this. Can you elaborate on your distinction between the public and parents? By “parents,” do you just mean “activist parents,” and if so, what do you mean by “activist parents”?
Anonymous

I’m a member of a despised minority (I’m a gay man) and the democratic process has been screwing me over for half a century. 33 states have voted to forever deny the validity of my marriage. I’m all for representative democracy, but not for rule by popular vote- and the old Boards Of Education were much too close for that.
Anonymous

Parents typically engage with schools for the duration of their child’s enrollment, and on issues which directly affect their child. Then they disengage. This is fine at the classroom/school level, but at the policy level -Boards Of Education- this dynamic does not produce the most representative policy decisions. That’s why I point out the “Children Of the Rainbow” controversy from 1993 which is a case study in zealous, prejudiced parents overruling professional judgements.
The real problem is not that parents engage, but the rest of the citizenry disengages from school policy issues, as if what gets taught and how is of little concern to them. The next time one is menaced by a group of teens in the subway late at night, it’s worth remembering that half their waking hours are spent in schools that we all pay for. They learn a lot of their values there.
Mr. Flerporillo

Ok, gotcha. Maybe a counter-point is that as parents disengage when their children exit the system, they’re replaced by new parents with children entering the system. It’s a small subset of the citizenry, but it’s probably the only set with incentives direct enough to lead them to engage in the process. But I take your point.

I’m not sure how much we can expect schools to accomplish in the way of instilling values in students when you consider the massive influence of family and peers. Teachers seem to have a hard enough time teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic to students (again, often because of the massive influence of family and peers).
Curious

Why not?
Derek

Unfortunately, Eric Nadelstern… network leaders did not hire experienced, wise service minded “experts’ in their filed. Many were and are inept at their jobs, fail to get back to Principals with a solution/resolve to their day to day concerns. They fail miserably in supporting students deserved academic achievement. Their main concern is getting all mandated reports from schools before the due dates so that they satisfy their ego-maniacle dysfunctional personalities in being the first in the city to have 100% of the schools in their network in ‘compliance’ with submission of reports regardles as to how these reports are carefully written to sustain student ahievement. They attempt to micromanage others and are themselves limited in their capacity to lead in addition to having severe gaps, and working knowledge in the field they were hired to support schools in. One such newtwork is in the poorest district in the Bronx. Unfortunately, that network belongs to one of the most recognized and influential PSOs. So sad that the network leader lacks the skills to scout the most talented, experienced, knowledgeable and people oriented employees. The system is as corrupt as ever! Schools with these ‘Principalls from the fast track Leadrship Academy are not experienced enough in instruction, school management and administration to make the cut. They are immature, ,inexperienced and lacking in deep understanding of effective human relations strategies that motivate others to achieve excellence.

GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

blast from the past

July 3, 2012

Former top official gives scathing review to DOE’s current state

Tips, questions, feedback?

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

From Our Jobs Board

Featured Employers

Recent Jobs

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

Events Calendar

RSS Feeds

Archives

Copyright Notice

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31