Sources: Men Arrested Trying To Repaint Bedford Bike Lane
Giuliani Takes Job As Security Consultant For Rio Olympics
Co-ed Dorm Rooms Coming To Columbia
Couple Lives in City's Smallest Quarters
Call to Ban Carriage Horses, Close Stable
The nambly pambly ways of Mayor Bloomberg were momentarily forgotten with his manuvering to ensure that promotion guidlines for third graders are based solely on test scores. He replaced three members of an education policy panel who supported looser social promotion rules with members that would vote to hold back third graders who do not meet requirements. Of course, the Mayor's wish for grade promotion based only on test scores has been met with a lot of opposition and the vote is being called unfair; 15,000 students could potentially be held back. But Gothamist has to hand it to the mayor: This has been the ballsiest move Mayor Bloomberg has done in certainly the past year (this side of the tax increase). It shows he's trying to assert his power, like it or not, in a decisive fashion. His "hands-off" approach has been quietly received, except with the Diana Lam nepotism scandal of last week. This is a move reminiscent of Giuliani's grandstanding. Mr. Mayor, nice work.
The Times' Jennifer Steinhauer analyzes the situation, which can be summed up in this Bloomberg quote: "Mayoral control means mayoral control, thank you very much. They are my representatives, and they are going to vote for things that I believe in." City comptroller William Thompson was "shocked": "His last-minute removal of panel members is more suited to a `Sopranos' episode than to enacting education policy for our public school children." The Daily News calls the vote "stacked."
The issue of social promotion is sticky. Gothamist thinks a lone test is a blunt too at best to determine the fate of a child, and agrees that too much emphasis will be placed on this test during the school year at the expense of a third-grade education. However, many students have been promoted without being prepared for what lies ahead and fail. The Mayor's plan is untested and severe, but previous incarnations of the Board of Education have been ill-equipped to address the situation. Is there a happy medium? We hope so.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I believe it is "namby pamby" not "namby pambly."
Sadly, last night had very little to do with NYC children and everything to do with political social promotion.
The ending of social promotion is a good catch-phrase, but how it actually plays out in schools and with children is generally different and far more complicated. This is not to say that social promotion is any better-- neither SP nor retention plans are effective long-term solutions.
If we really want to fix schools and give students the education that they deserve, the DOE needs to improve instruction, provide quality support and professional development to teachers and school leaders. In short, the system needs to provide the services neccessary to educatate our children well. This is not happening equitably-- and it's the heart of the issue.
Oh-- Jen, you're so right-- last night was quite a WWGD (What Would Giuliani Do?) moment.
It's school, not a social club. Yeah, the DOE has a lot of problems, and ending social promotion isn't a silver bullet, but it's a step.
We should note that the DOE has "ended social promotion" before. Silver bullet, I think not.
If Bloomberg is going to be held responsible for what happens in schools anyway, then he might as well make sure they're following his policies. Why get blamed for other people's choices?
Good for Bloomie - it's about time he stepped up and took action. This is a good step for the system.
Corie, your argument makes sense. Unfortunately, it's not realistic. You're not going to get good teachers and good resources because society places so little value on education. Parents who fight to get their children a good education are fighting an uphill battle. I'm not going to go on a tirade about what celebrity culture has done to America (hell, I read US weekly and the NY Post), but the reality is no child in this city would rather pick up a book than watch MTV.
the problems of the educational system are indeed an uphill battle, but how does bloomberg's move help out this cause? why are we always so impressed when a politician takes an incredibly complex issue and makes a bold yet facile response to it?
James, that's a grave underestimation of our city's children. Yes, parents are fighting an uphill battle, but does that mean that they shouldn't fight? Furthermore, it's easy to say that society devalues education-- it's much harder to stand up and do something about it.
And re: the underestimation of the kids and how they would rather watch TV than pick up a book - that's a problem that's not exclusive to the city.
I don't know if there's a winner in this situation. For every kid who was socially promoted and later dropped out, there's a kid who was held back and later dropped out.
Of course it's hard. It's hard to stand in a room full of screaming politicians and say NO to social promotion. Social promotion IS giving up on our system. Nobody thinks Bloomberg's stand on this one issue will save the system and I certainly did not imply that in my response. But all anyone does is talk and I'm giving him credit for taking action.
And I'm not saying people shouldn't fight, of course they should. They should fight with their lives if they have to b/c we're going in the wrong direction in this city. But Corie - I think you were too quick to attack Bloomberg on this. What is your suggestion? Improve resources? How? Everyone knows you have to improve resources, anyone can point out the problem. Do you have solid actionable steps to fix it?
And Jen, you're def. right, this is a country-wide issue. I was trying to keep this in the bounds of our fine city.
And I would say again - I don't think anyone thinks that this alone will do anything. But this is hopefully the start of a string of ACTION takne by people who can really affect change.
For the projected cost of Bloomberg's retention policy, funds could be used to institute smaller class size, more extended day programs, tutoring, teacher coaching/professional development. While these are not inherent remedies to the sick system (personally, I don't believe the system will ever be "fixed"), they do work toward changing how children are educated, instead of just holding them back in the same ineffective environment where they failed in the first place.
Actions do cause change. The question is what action-- and what is the plan to support the system while it is dealing with that action? The recent DOE reorganization is a prime example of that.
I don't really understand what the problem is with holding someone back if they haven't learned. I think it gives teachers and the administration an idea of where the problems are when a large group of children can't pass a basic skills test for their grade level. (and that could be the material, the child, the program or the teacher)
I would actually like to see the entire school system run in a more Montessori type method. You can only go to the next level if you can pass the test for every subject. I know that my scores on those tests were uneven and it was obvious where I needed more work. (For some reason I was 4 grades ahead in reading and one behind in math)
But until the dream school system happens (never) I think that children should be tested every year. Why wait until 3rd grade to take care of the problem? Also the younger a student is when they are held back, the less social backlash they get from peers and the less far they have fallen behind in basic skills.
I seem to recall grades - you know, F, B+, etc. - having significant impact on whether students were allowed to progress to the next grade or not. Call me old fashioned.
Shouldn't a standardized test be one of many tools used to evaluate students' progress?
This is not just about the school system. This is about the ethics of a mayor who fires people SOLELY to get what he wants. Read this quote (from NY1 News):
"I got as much input as I could
from everybody," Bloomberg said
Monday evening after altering the
board. "A few of the members
didn't agree or were afraid that
they would be pressured by
outsiders, and so I replaced them
with people who agree with my views."
Regardless of whether Bloomberg was right or wrong about how to handle social promotion, his method of getting his way was WRONG, period.
This mayor uses backhanded methods to get his way. Want to know how he got so much support for his smoking ban, property tax increases, etc? He threatened to fund the campaigns of the opposition of anyone who voted against his proposals. Nice.