We Love NYC Teachers!

This video was made by a friend of mine...Watch it..!

A short video put together by NYC public school students and parents opposed to the planned layoff of over 4,100 teachers

City Council Member Mark Weprin Blasts DOE Plan to Add Sixteen Tests

New York City Council Member Mark S. Weprin (D-Oakland Gardens) denounced the New York City Department of Education (DOE)’s plan to use sixty-four million dollars of federal grant money for sixteen new standardized tests for public school students.

“Enough is enough,” said Council Member Weprin. “It is time for parents to rise up and give the DOE a wake-up call. Stop the insane obsession with testing.”

Council Member Weprin noted that as the fiscal climate has worsened in recent years, many schools have lost arts, music, physical education, and sports programs. The added tests will almost certainly mean less time and money available for these vital components of a well-rounded education.

“At a time when DOE is planning to lay off teachers, choosing to spend sixty-four million dollars on additional standardized tests is truly an outrage,” said Council Member Mark Weprin. “These tests will do nothing to improve education in our public schools and will only continue to sap time and resources that should be going toward helping our children learn.”

Shockingly, DOE plans to make students take tests for the sole purpose of evaluating teachers; the results would have no impact whatsoever on students, who will continue to spend more and more classroom hours on testing and test preparation drills without any resulting advantage in terms of actual learning.

“In short, the children are being used,” said Weprin.

“Fourth graders already spend ten percent of the school year taking tests,” said Council Member Weprin. “How much more testing do we really need?”

Council Member Weprin is also concerned that there are many cases in which students’ test scores are beyond a teacher’s control. Even the best instructor cannot change a child’s home situation, socioeconomic status, previous educational experience, or attention span, all of which can factor considerably in how well that child does on a standardized test. So besides harming students, an additional bevy of City tests would likely fail to achieve the stated goal of tracking teachers’ abilities.

In recent years, test preparation has already crowded out a broad curriculum, as time and resources consistently shift away from any subject matter that will not appear on state examinations. There is a monetary cost too, in the form of millions spent on test-prep materials as well as on administering and then grading the exams.

“Parents need to write to DOE Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott to make it clear that we are fed up with the extreme emphasis on standardized tests in City schools,” said Council Member Mark Weprin.

NYC Comptroller John C. Liu on the Mayor’s Fiscal Year 2012 Executive Budget

New York City Comptroller John C. Liu today presented testimony before the New York City Council Finance Committee regarding Mayor Bloomberg’s Fiscal Year 2012 Executive Budget.

Comptroller Liu’s testimony as prepared for delivery is below:

Good afternoon Chairman Recchia and members of the Finance Committee, and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present testimony on the Mayor’s Fiscal Year 2012 Executive Budget.

The Mayor’s FY 2012 Executive Budget totals $65.7 billion after various prepayments. The FY 2012 budget is the product of a series of actions which closed a $3.26 billion gap in the July 2010 Financial Plan stemming from a structural imbalance where expenditures exceeded revenues. The gap was further exacerbated by State actions that took place during the year.

While it is estimated that FY 2011 will end with a $3.217 billion surplus, when compared with the $3.646 billion surplus similarly transferred from FY 2010 to FY 2011, it becomes clear that in the current year, the City is drawing on more resources than it is generating. However, if past history is any indication we can anticipate that the year may end with a budgetary surplus.

Overall spending in the FY 2012 budget has decreased by 0.4 percent when compared to the FY 2011 budget. But these numbers mask the fact that while overall expenditures have been held flat, the City-funded portion of the budget has increased from 67.1 percent of the FY 2011 budget to 70.7 percent of the FY 2012 budget. The City-funded portion of the budget is $2.2 billion greater than the FY 2011 budget and $2.1 billion more than was planned a year ago. The Financial Plan assumes that by FY 2015 the City-funded portion of the budget will exceed 74.5 percent. This trend is a direct result of a reduction in State and Federal aid to New York City.

As we hear talk of layoffs and cutbacks it is critically important for the City to identify as many areas of savings as possible.

You are well aware of the outcome of my office’s work on the CityTime issue. As a result of our steadfast oversight, the project is now nearing completion without any additional cost to the taxpayers. While that may be good news, it does not make up for the fact that the costs ballooned from $68 million to more than $700 million. My office will continue to work closely with the investigative authorities on this issue in hopes of possibly recouping some of the money that has been allegedly funneled to subcontractors on the project.

In addition, it was a welcome sign that the Department of Education has decided to cancel a $43 million contract with another high priced consultant, Future Technology Associates, who have been suspected of utilizing subcontractors to overbill the City. My office has been conducting an audit into the vendor for quite some time and will continue to do so in order fully disclose what really went on.

While we are discussing the DOE, I would like to point out that a review of OMB documents within the past week has found that after years of looking the other direction, the Department of Education has decided to finally seek additional Medicaid reimbursement funding from the State for occupational and physical therapy and speech and language services. The Executive Budget assumes an additional $100 million in revenue as a result of increased Medicaid reimbursements on top of the previous estimate of $17 million presented in the Preliminary Budget.

My office has been working with the City’s Office of Management and Budget and the UFT to identify the actual value of funds eligible for the City. While the current estimate of $117 million is enough to significantly impact the cuts proposed to the classroom, we believe this to be a cautious estimate. The City may be eligible for greater reimbursements, which would free up funds for use elsewhere.

The $100 million in additional reserves have been allocated to cover various other expenses in the DOE budget, such as $48 million for general education non-personal service and $26 million for charter schools. These dollars and any additional Medicaid funds realized during Fiscal Year 2012 should be used to help offset the proposed teacher layoffs, which have a more direct negative effect on classroom services.

In the Executive Budget, the Mayor has allocated nearly $1 billion towards funding anticipated changes in the actuarial assumptions and methods used in computing pension contributions. The City actuary is currently reviewing an independent audit of the rate change and will offer his recommendations to the pension boards. While it is expected that the actuary will recommend a change in the assumed rate of return of the City’s pension funds, there is more uncertainty about what other modifications would be proposed. As such, the eventual cost of the any recommendations is unknown at this point. It is also uncertain as to when the recommendations and the eventual changes would take effect.

Another potential area of savings is through the City’s settlement of claims. My office is responsible for authorizing monetary amounts of settlement where we feel the City may have been at fault for personal injury or property damage. The City has indicated that they expect a rise in the cost of settlements to occur. However, my office anticipates that based upon historical data, the City is overestimating this total by at least $50 million.

As always, my office will seek the most fair and equitable results in our claims settlement process and continue to act in the best interest of the taxpayer when doing so.

We have also identified some risks to the Mayor’s plan. Most significant is the assumption that contract discussions with the UFT and CSA will not result in any additional cost to the City. These are placed as risk because the Mayor has not budgeted for raises consistent with those of other municipal unions, and has instead relied on a labor strategy that uses productivity initiatives to offset cost.

Another risk to the Mayor’s plan is his underestimation of overtime. In fact, my office has estimated that the overtime costs will be upwards of $195 million more than the Mayor anticipates.

As we gradually move out of this recession, it is important to note that the City is continuing on a steady but slow path to recovery. Despite mostly positive indicators for the City’s short-term economic condition there exist the possibility of negative externalities that could hinder the current expansion. Factors outside of the City’s control such as rising energy prices, the continued depression of the construction industry specifically within the residential construction sector, and the potential European debt crisis can be expected to produce additional drag on the US and local economies.

One area that has shown strength is our City’s pension systems. After posting returns of 14 percent last Fiscal Year, the most recent data show that the funds are up more than 20 percent in the current year. These gains will help offset future payment towards the pension systems.

My office released a study last week, the first of its kind, which revealed the past decade of fluctuation in the markets will cause pension costs to rise in the short term. However, due largely to already enacted benefit reforms that took place between 1995 and 2009 the long term costs to the City will steadily decline. These projections are sound and have been verified by independent professional actuaries.

The study shows that over the next 30 years City pension costs as a percentage of the City's budget will decline from 11.4 percent in FY 2016 to 5.1 percent FY 2040.

I hope I was able to be helpful today in presenting an accurate look at the City budget, as well as provide some areas worth exploring during phase of the budget process. As always my office is available to assist you in any way necessary.

NYC Comptroller John C, Liu: High School Progress Reports Don't Measure Progress

Audit Finds that Department of Education’s Revisions to its High School

Grading System Leave Educators, Students Chasing a Moving Target

******************************************

New York City Comptroller John C. Liu announced that an audit of the Department of Education’s (DOE) High School Progress reports raised questions about the usefulness of the reports in comparing the yearly progress of schools.

“It’s troubling that a system that is used to decide school closings leaves teachers and students confused about what they need to do to improve,” Comptroller Liu said. “The Department of Education should not leave parents, educators or students in the dark when it’s deciding their fates.”

High School Progress Reports are a DOE accountability tool that assigns schools an annual grade of A through F. The Report grades play a significant role in the DOE’s decisions to reward high performing schools, perhaps with added funds, and restructure or close low-performing schools.

According to the audit, the DOE has revised the complex formula behind the grades every year. The frequent changes the agency has made to its grading and other formulas — without determining the impact of those changes — makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get a true picture of a school’s progress by comparing its grade from one year to the next. As a result, the High School Progress Reports paint an unreliable and confusing picture of a school’s progress or failure over time. Auditors recorded complaints from schools that the DOE’s lack of consistency made it difficult to set goals for students.

The audit focused on 10 high schools representing the five boroughs. It included three schools (Jamaica, Metropolitan Corporate Academy, and Norman Thomas high schools) that the DOE selected in January 2010 for closing.

CHIEF AMONG THE FINDINGS:

1. Inaccurate Picture of Year-to-Year Progress

The DOE’s changes to the formula behind the Progress Report grades make it difficult for parents and educators to measure a school’s performance from one year to the next.

The DOE says the Progress Report grades are meant as “a one-year snapshot” comparing one school against another in a given year, and not as a measure an individual school’s progress over time. Yet, the agency itself uses the formula to track achievement from one year to the next. For example, a school that receives a “C” three years in a row may be targeted for corrective action.

Example:

One school, Metropolitan Corporate Academy High School, which is set to close in 2014, improved its score every year from 2006 to 2010, but because of the DOE’s changing formula Metropolitan never rose above a “C.” In fact, the school fell to a “D” in the 2008-2009 school year even though its numeric score would have earned it a “B” under the 2006-2007 grading formula. It is impossible to tell to what extent Metropolitan’s scores reflect changes in its own performance or DOE’s changes to the grading formula. (See Table)

“The Comptroller’s audit of the High School Progress Reports demonstrates the difficulty of comparing a school’s letter grade over time when a school’s peer group composition and the cut scores for the grades change from one year to the next,” said Professor Aaron Pallas of Teachers College, Columbia University. “The recommendation that the DOE report high school progress report grades using both the old and new criteria would enable stakeholders both inside and outside of the schools to understand trends in school performance more completely.”

Action:

Since the audit, the DOE has posted an advisory on its website regarding year-to-year comparisons of High School Progress Report grades.

2. Lack of Communication

The audit determined that, while DOE met with school principals and others about changes, auditors found no evidence that it actually integrated feedback from them into the Progress Report. In fact, some educators told auditors that they felt as if they were chasing a moving target as they attempted to understand the changes that the DOE made to the grading formula each school year and to prepare students. The audit also found that the DOE did not do enough to inform schools what effect the changes to the grading system were expected to have on Progress Report grades.

“Taken alone, Progress Reports are an unreliable index for determining school closures or related high-stakes decisions,” said Professor David C. Bloomfield, chairman of the education department at the College of Staten Island. “Greater feedback by stakeholders, as recommended by the audit, might help to improve Progress Reports’ utility in this process.”

Action:

The DOE has since published materials summarizing and responding to feedback from educators and others involved in the 2010-2011 review process.

3. Data Reliability

The audit found that the data — student grades, Regents exam scores, and other information — that the DOE used to calculate each year’s Progress Report grades was representative of student data recorded in the DOE’s computer systems and verifiable. However, while the data in a given year was accurately recorded, it was not useful as a measure of an individual school’s progress over time.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The DOE generally agreed with nine of the audit’s 10 recommendations and has begun to implement a number of them. However, the audit notes that “DOE inappropriately misinterpreted and even exaggerated, many of the audits ‘positive’ conclusions as an endorsement for the progress reports,” while simultaneously discounting its weaknesses.

SCOPE:

The audit was launched in March 2010 using data from the high schools’ 2008-2009 progress reports, the most recent data available at that time. The audit was expanded to include progress reports for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2009-2010 school years. In addition, auditors interviewed staff at the high schools in April and May 2010.

High School	Borough	2006-2007 Score/Grade	2007-2008 Score/Grade	2008-2009	2009-2010
ACORN Community HS	Brooklyn	63.3/B	64.4/A	65.4/B	71.7/A
Baruch College Campus HS	Manhattan	81.2/A	82.6/A	83.6/A	74.5/A
Curtis HS	Staten I.	64.2/B	59.4/B	68.8/B	69.8/B
DeWitt Clinton HS	Bronx	47.7/C	42.7/C	49.7/C	48.1/C
Flushing International HS	Queens	n/a	73.0/A	70.9/A	64.5/B
Jamaica HS	Queens	44/C	37.3/C	41.7/D	45/D
Metropolitan Corporate Academy HS	Brooklyn	35.9/C	39.1/C	43/1/D	48/C
New World HS	Bronx	n/a	97/A	92.1/A	85.6/A
Norman Thomas HS	Manhattan	33.4/D	29.7/D	36/D	36/F
Ralph R. McKee Career and Technical Education HS	Staten I.	63.8/B	67.6/A	79.5/A	76/A

BACKGROUND:

High School Progress Reports are a DOE accountability tool that assigns schools an annual grade (A through F) based on a variety of factors, including student performance, student progress, school environment, and comparisons between schools with similar populations. The letter grades were introduced in the 2006-2007 school year.

Comptroller Liu credited Deputy Comptroller for Audit H. Tina Kim and the Audit Bureau for presenting the findings. The full report is available at http://comptroller.nyc.gov/audits.

Why the NAACP is Suing New York by Benjamin Todd Jealous - The Washington Post

Read original...

For 102 years, the NAACP has fought to ensure that all our children have access to high-quality public education. Our founders made improving education our primary strategy for improving America. They did so because they knew from experience that educational inequities are not only the product of broader inequalities and dangerous social tensions but also maintain them.

We believe that if we make all our schools great places to learn, we will have more than better institutions and better-prepared students — we will have a better country.

Toward this end, we filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of New York City’s public schoolchildren and their parents.

The NAACP has a long history in New York. One hundred years ago this month, our first local branch in the nation was founded in Harlem. Since then, thousands upon thousands of New York students, parents and grandparents have volunteered with the NAACP to end the mistreatment of schoolchildren.

This lawsuit was filed for the most common reasons we have sued boards of education across the decades: Students are being grossly mistreated, their parents are being deeply disrespected and the entire community stands to suffer.

There are two issues we are particularly concerned about.

First, the city has located charter schools under the same roofs as traditional public schools in a way that is unfair and unjust. Their poor handling has led to many complaints from our members and their neighbors, including:

■ Students in the traditional public school must now eat lunch at 10 a.m. so that charter school students can enjoy lunch at noon.

■ The “regular school’s children” had library access for a little over four hours so that the “new charter school’s kids” could have access for almost seven.

■ “Traditional school students” were moved to a boiler room to make room for their charter school peers, and teachers of the regular students were forced to teach in the halls due to lack of space.

We are asking that the court require the city to follow state law and handle these shared space situations equitably.

Second, inequitable co-locations exacerbate the problem created by the city’s persistent failure to follow the law and engage parents before making major changes. New York state law requires the city to involve parents before announcing its intention to shut down a school or make way for a charter to share a school’s space.

We filed suit against the city in February 2010. New York City’s Department of Education lost the case in March 2010 and lost its appeal in July 2010. Yet it continued to close schools without regard for the law or a court order enforcing the law. The lawsuit we filed last month asks the court to enforce its judgment requiring the city to collaborate with communities on efforts to support and improve local schools before it shuts them — something the city has failed to do time and again.

The city’s actions impede learning, increase tensions among students and tear at the fabric of communities. When one set of students is perceived as getting preferential treatment over another, or the city refuses to work with parents to fix problems at a school before closing it, the inequity leaves all our children suffering.

Some have criticized the NAACP for joining the teachers union in this cause. Unable to refute the facts of our case, these critics question our motives, apparently also unable to comprehend that we are independent actors.

We have always been clear that just as we praise teachers for dedicating their lives to a heroic profession, we have no tolerance for bad teachers or bad schools. To spur the changes needed to help students succeed, we even stood with many of these critics when a Rhode Island district fired all the teachers at Central Falls High School.

For a century, the NAACP has practiced the maxim that Shirley Chisholm often reminded us of: There are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests. In this case, as with our past education cases, our permanent interest is clear: High-quality public education for all children and a stronger nation for us all.

The writer is president and CEO of the NAACP.

Parent Day of Action for NYC Schools and Teachers - Thursday, May 26

This Thursday, May 26th, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and hundreds of parents will be flyering, petitioning and talking to New Yorkers at dozens of locations across the city as part of a citywide Parent Day of Action. I hope you can join us. To volunteer or learn more send us an email at organize@pubadvocate.nyc.gov or visit:
http://advocate.nyc.gov/parent-day-action

News & Notes from NYC Public Advocate Bill de Blasio...

FDNY CUTS PUT RESPONSE TIMES OVER NATIONAL "RED LINE"

May 21, 2011

Public Advocate De Blasio: 18 of 20 Cut Companies Won’t Meet Basic Standard

A report released today by Public Advocate Bill de Blasio shows the cuts to 20 fire companies in Mayor Bloomberg's Executive Budget will seriously imperil emergency response times. According to the report, 18 of these companies will exceed a national 4-minute standard after cuts are implemented—-some by over a full minute. The National Fire Protection Association urges a 4-minute response to prevent fires from spreading beyond a single room, after which the risk of civilian death triples and property damage increases more than eight-fold.

"The neighborhoods targeted by these cuts will see their safety go up in smoke," said Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. "If the Mayor succeeds in cutting these companies, some communities won't meet the response times needed in places like Fargo, North Dakota, let alone a city where we need to fight fires on the upper floors of big apartment buildings."

Council Member Elizabeth Crowley (D-30, Queens), Chair of the Fire & Criminal Justice Committee stated, "In addition to the findings in this study, the FDNY is not counting the time the 911-caller is spending with the 911 operator which could be up to two minutes. Response times are significantly higher than what the Administration is reporting--and these false response times are being used to justify closing fire companies.  The Administration's policy for reporting response times is misleading, inaccurate and dangerous."

The Public Advocate's report is based on response time increases estimated by the FDNY. The National Fire Protection Association standard is modeled on responding to a fire at a two-story, single-family home where firefighting can commence soon after crews arrive. In a dense city like New York, firefighters require additional minutes to ascend multi-story buildings, making any response times above the national standard even more alarming.

Read the report at:http://advocate.nyc.gov/files/DeBlasio_Fire_Company_Closures_Brief.pdf

Read it on Scribd at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/55945084/Public-Advocate-de-Blasio-Report-on-FDNY-Budget

STATEMENT BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON FIREHOUSE CLOSURES

May 19, 2011

“The list of fire company cutbacks shows what the Mayor’s budget really means for the safety of New Yorkers and their families. In my own neighborhood, Engine Company 220, which is a block from my house, now faces an estimated 30-second jump in response time. As Fire Commissioner Cassano has acknowledged, higher response times mean greater risks for New Yorkers. I will fight to keep every one of these firehouses open so that no family is put in harm’s way.”

STATEMENT BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON EXTENSION OF “TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS” FOR HAITIANS IN U.S
May 17, 2011

“I applaud President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano for extending Temporary Protected Status to Haitian nationals living in the United States through 2013. Thousands of Haitians living in our city will be better able to support their friends and families as Haiti continues to recover. Haiti still remains in desperate need of assistance, and I encourage all New Yorkers to continue showing their tremendous generosity by donating to relief efforts.”

New Yorkers can make donations to Haiti relief efforts through the following organizations:

International Rescue Committee

https://www.rescue.org/donate/donate-now-haiti

Clinton Foundation Relief Fund for Haiti

www.clintonfoundation.org/haitirelief

International Red Cross

Mail a check with “Haiti” in the memo line to:

American Red Cross

P.O. Box 37243

Washington, DC 20013

STATEMENT BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON DOE PLEDGE TO REDO COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL ELECTIONS
MAY 13, 2011

“The Department’s revamped plan for CEC elections is only a partial victory for parents. I remain deeply concerned that a few days are insufficient to fully investigate what went wrong with this year’s elections, and that there may still be parents who were blocked from the ballot without just cause. While it was the right decision to postpone elections and restart voting, we need a lot more consideration from Tweed including a plan that ensures parents their rightful place in school decisions.”

STATEMENT FROM PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN BRANDEIS HIGH SCHOOL COURT CASE

MAY 13, 2011

“As a public school parent, I do not see any sense in spending taxpayer dollars to renovate Brandeis until the outcome of this lawsuit is settled. The Department of Education should take this decision as an opportunity to find a more appropriate home for Success Academy, and to enable the students at Brandeis to continue to thrive.”

STATEMENT FROM PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON ARRESTS OF SUPSECTS PLANNING TO ATTACK MANHATTAN SYNAGOGUE
MAY 12, 2011

“As President Obama has said, we need the vigilance and dedication of City and State government to successfully fight terrorism. Today local law enforcement has once again protected our city by dismantling a hateful and anti-Semitic plot to attack a synagogue. I commend all officers involved as well as Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Ray Kelly and District Attorney Cyrus Vance for their leadership in keeping New Yorkers safe.”

AN OPEN LETTER CHALLENGING BRADLEY A. SMITH OF THE CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS TO A CITIZENS UNITED DEBATE
MAY 11, 2011

The following open letter has been sent to Bradley A. Smith of the Center for Competitive Politics in response to an op-ed in today’s New York Post. Public Advocate Bill de Blasio has invited Mr. Smith to debate the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, and its relevance to New Yorkers.

May 11, 2011

Dear Mr. Smith,

The protection of our democratic process is the responsibility of all citizens. As New York City’s Public Advocate, I take that charge especially seriously.

Your assertion in today’s New York Post that the excessive corporate political spending let loose by the Citizens United ruling doesn’t matter to New Yorkers proves just how little you know about our city. For us, this is both a matter of economic interest and a moral imperative.

As a trustee of a $40 billion pension fund, I know firsthand that the rash political ventures of corporate America can have major consequences for the retirement and security of thousands of working people in New York. Citizens United has opened the way for companies to make political contributions right out of the corporate treasury, and by extension, out of our pension investments. The financial future of hard-working retirees shouldn’t rest on the political whims of corporate executives.

To contend that New Yorkers and Americans don’t care about the corrosive influence of money in our elections is blatantly untrue. Our city has blazed the trail of campaign finance reform by instituting a system of public matching funds that helps serious candidates of any income level to run for office. Just last fall, NYC voters overwhelmingly enacted a ballot measure to require disclosure of independent expenditures in City elections. There can be no question where New Yorkers’ hearts and minds are on this issue.

In short, the avalanche of corporate money into our political system does matter to New Yorkers, and all the more so because it happens in our own back yard. Just yesterday, American Crossroads—Karl Rove’s latest assault on democracy—announced its intention to drop $350,000 on a single special election for an upstate New York House seat.

I would welcome the chance to challenge you on these points so New Yorkers can see and judge for themselves. I invite you to debate in person the impact of Citizens United on our political system in New York and nationally.

I believe you will find New Yorkers both interested, and opinionated, on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Bill de Blasio

Public Advocate for the City of New York

STATEMENT BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON TEACHER LAYOFFS

MAY 6, 2011

“Despite the fiscal challenges we face, the Mayor is making the wrong choices for our children’s future. Even a cursory look at the millions we spend on teacher recruitment and technology consultants shows that the Administration has not made a real effort to strip down other expenses before firing teachers. The Administration also cannot afford to continue making the political fight around Last In/First Out a higher priority than keeping teachers in the classroom. As a public school parent I am outraged by how these choices jeopardize the stability of our schools. I will be organizing parents across New York City to demand that this budget makes our children the number one priority.”

STATEMENT BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON MAYOR BLOOMBERG PICKING NISSAN TO BE TAXI OF TOMORROW
MAY 3, 2011

“The Taxi of Tomorrow should be creating the jobs of today for New York City, New York State and America. Instead, the Administration is giving away a $1 billion contract to a company based overseas without seeking any commitments for investment in our local and national economies. This failure, along with potential conflicts of interest between the TLC’s hired consultant Ricardo Inc. and Nissan, cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the Administration’s final decision and its focus on bringing New York City out of the recession.”

STATEMENT BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DE BLASIO ON INSPECTIONS OF ILLEGALLY SUBDIVIDED APARTMENTS
May 2, 2011

“Illegally converted apartments are a clear hazard to the safety of New Yorkers. It should not take the Department of Buildings weeks to dispatch inspectors, only to have many of them stymied by locked doors. The Department must accelerate its inspection process and increase its attempts to gain access to illegally subdivided units. We need to hold irresponsible landlords accountable and shut."

Merryl Tisch - Chancellor of the NYS Board of Regents on Teacher Layoffs - State of Politics

NYC Comptroller John Liu: High School Progress Reports Don’t Measure Progress

******************************************

Audit Finds that Department of Education’s Revisions to its High School

Grading System Leave Educators, Students Chasing a Moving Target

******************************************

New York City Comptroller John C. Liu announced that an audit of the Department of Education’s (DOE) High School Progress reports raised questions about the usefulness of the reports in comparing the yearly progress of schools.

“It’s troubling that a system that is used to decide school closings leaves teachers and students confused about what they need to do to improve,” Comptroller Liu said. “The Department of Education should not leave parents, educators or students in the dark when it’s deciding their fates.”

High School Progress Reports are a DOE accountability tool that assigns schools an annual grade of A through F. The Report grades play a significant role in the DOE’s decisions to reward high performing schools, perhaps with added funds, and restructure or close low-performing schools.

According to the audit, the DOE has revised the complex formula behind the grades every year. The frequent changes the agency has made to its grading and other formulas — without determining the impact of those changes — makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get a true picture of a school’s progress by comparing its grade from one year to the next. As a result, the High School Progress Reports paint an unreliable and confusing picture of a school’s progress or failure over time. Auditors recorded complaints from schools that the DOE’s lack of consistency made it difficult to set goals for students.

The audit focused on 10 high schools representing the five boroughs. It included three schools (Jamaica, Metropolitan Corporate Academy, and Norman Thomas high schools) that the DOE selected in January 2010 for closing.

CHIEF AMONG THE FINDINGS:

1. Inaccurate Picture of Year-to-Year Progress

The DOE’s changes to the formula behind the Progress Report grades make it difficult for parents and educators to measure a school’s performance from one year to the next.

The DOE says the Progress Report grades are meant as “a one-year snapshot” comparing one school against another in a given year, and not as a measure an individual school’s progress over time. Yet, the agency itself uses the formula to track achievement from one year to the next. For example, a school that receives a “C” three years in a row may be targeted for corrective action.

Example:

One school, Metropolitan Corporate Academy High School, which is set to close in 2014, improved its score every year from 2006 to 2010, but because of the DOE’s changing formula Metropolitan never rose above a “C.” In fact, the school fell to a “D” in the 2008-2009 school year even though its numeric score would have earned it a “B” under the 2006-2007 grading formula. It is impossible to tell to what extent Metropolitan’s scores reflect changes in its own performance or DOE’s changes to the grading formula. (See Table)

“The Comptroller’s audit of the High School Progress Reports demonstrates the difficulty of comparing a school’s letter grade over time when a school’s peer group composition and the cut scores for the grades change from one year to the next,” said Professor Aaron Pallas of Teachers College, Columbia University. “The recommendation that the DOE report high school progress report grades using both the old and new criteria would enable stakeholders both inside and outside of the schools to understand trends in school performance more completely.”

Action:

Since the audit, the DOE has posted an advisory on its website regarding year-to-year comparisons of High School Progress Report grades.

2.Lack of Communication

The audit determined that, while DOE met with school principals and others about changes, auditors found no evidence that it actually integrated feedback from them into the Progress Report. In fact, some educators told auditors that they felt as if they were chasing a moving target as they attempted to understand the changes that the DOE made to the grading formula each school year and to prepare students. The audit also found that the DOE did not do enough to inform schools what effect the changes to the grading system were expected to have on Progress Report grades.

“Taken alone, Progress Reports are an unreliable index for determining school closures or related high-stakes decisions,” said Professor David C. Bloomfield, chairman of the education department at the College of Staten Island. “Greater feedback by stakeholders, as recommended by the audit, might help to improve Progress Reports’ utility in this process.”

Action:

The DOE has since published materials summarizing and responding to feedback from educators and others involved in the 2010-2011 review process.

3. Data Reliability

The audit found that the data — student grades, Regents exam scores, and other information — that the DOE used to calculate each year’s Progress Report grades was representative of student data recorded in the DOE’s computer systems and verifiable. However, while the data in a given year was accurately recorded, it was not useful as a measure of an individual school’s progress over time.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The DOE generally agreed with nine of the audit’s 10 recommendations and has begun to implement a number of them. However, the audit notes that “DOE inappropriately misinterpreted and even exaggerated, many of the audits ‘positive’ conclusions as an endorsement for the progress reports,” while simultaneously discounting its weaknesses.

SCOPE:

The audit was launched in March 2010 using data from the high schools’ 2008-2009 progress reports, the most recent data available at that time. The audit was expanded to include progress reports for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2009-2010 school years. In addition, auditors interviewed staff at the high schools in April and May 2010.

BACKGROUND:

High School Progress Reports are a DOE accountability tool that assigns schools an annual grade (A through F) based on a variety of factors, including student performance, student progress, school environment, and comparisons between schools with similar populations. The letter grades were introduced in the 2006-2007 school year.

Comptroller Liu credited Deputy Comptroller for Audit H. Tina Kim and the Audit Bureau for presenting the findings. The full report is available at http://comptroller.nyc.gov/audits.