Gotham Gazette Sun, 23 Sep 2018 00:46:51 +0000 Joomla! - Open Source Content Management en-gb (Webmaster) Death of Bloomberg-Era School Roils East Harlem estrella photo gabor

Protesting school closure (photo: Andrea Gabor)

Earlier this month, Kevin Medina, a high-school sophomore, stepped up to the microphone at a crowded public hearing to defend the East Harlem middle school that, he says, changed his life.

“I’m a Hispanic kid,” said Medina, who now attends Urban Assembly Gateway School for Technology. “I live with my grandmother, who is disabled and who is on welfare. We have nothing. But because of this school I may go to M.I.T. for free. Because of these teachers, who made sure we have everything we need.”

Medina was talking about Global Technology Preparatory, a public middle school that had introduced him to Google’s Code Next program, which is designed to recruit gifted black and Latino students into the tech industry. “Because of Global Tech, I know as much computer science as a college freshman or sophomore,” he added.

Medina was among dozens of alumni, parents, former teachers, and community members who came out, over the last two weeks, to offer testimonials for the small school that, they say, did big things for the poor kids of color in its charge. However, last week, at a contentious hearing of the Panel for Education Policy, which makes the final determination on proposed school closings and mergers across the city, the education department won approval for its plan to “merge” Global Tech with P.S. 7, a K-8 school. The two schools share a building on East 120th Street in East Harlem.

Global Tech, which was founded under Mayor Bloomberg, is one of the rare schools effectively being closed even though it is not failing; the reason given by the education department is that the two merged schools are both under-enrolled.

A one-to-one laptop school, Global Tech has consistently scored above its peers on standardized tests. It also has offered supports that have enabled a population of poor students of color, over one-third of whom had Individualized Education Plans (I.E.P.s), to attend some of the city’s best public schools. Most of its alums also have gone on to college.

“Consolidations are intended to improve under-enrolled schools and to address the budgetary and programmatic and performance challenges that arise as a result of low enrollment,” explained Josh Wallack, deputy chancellor at the Department of Education, at a joint public hearing held earlier this month in the P.S. 7 auditorium. “Students attending the consolidated P.S.7 will have access to a wider variety of academic and enrichment opportunities, interventions and other supports that would not be financially feasible for either of the individual schools to offer in the absence of a consolidation.”

That’s an argument current Global Tech parents and former teachers dispute. They say the merger was engineered at the end of the last school year, before required consultation with the community, and to the detriment of both schools. Last spring, Alexandra Estrella, the District 4 superintendent, forced out Global Tech’s principal, David Baiz. She also rejected every teacher-tenure application Baiz had approved. In the wake of Baiz’s departure, all but two of Global Tech’s 16 full-time faculty took jobs at other schools—though most returned for the hearings, sporting t-shirts inscribed “Greatness that Perseveres” and “GTP Forever.”

By the start of this school year, middle-school classes at the two schools were already co-mingled. The MacBooks once assigned to each Global Tech student are scattered throughout the building. Students with I.E.P.s are not receiving mandated services, according to several parents and former teachers who maintain contact with Global Tech families. While Global Tech’s after-school program is still offered by Citizen Schools, a nonprofit contracted by the city, it is no longer mandatory and few students attend. There have also been reports of “raging fights” and “chaos and disarray,” according to a broadly distributed email from Chrystina Russell, the school’s founding principal.

Estrella also replaced P.S. 7’s principal, Jackie Pryce-Harvey, who had helped found Global Tech. After Pryce-Harvey’s departure, some special programs there also disappeared. Indeed, at one point, Baiz and Pryce-Harvey had suggested merging P.S. 7’s middle school with Global Tech, under Baiz’s leadership; but the idea was rejected by Estrella.

“Respectfully, GTP never had a problem with resources,” said Ramona Gross at the joint public hearing on Global Tech. Gross credits the school and its programming for the fact that her son, William, who had an I.E.P., is now a freshman at Utica College.

“He came to Global Tech a small, quiet, scared, stuttering kid,” said Gross. “Global Tech taught him leadership” and self-confidence.

Current parents and students also say they are unhappy with the merger. Ysabel Martinez’s youngest son, Joseph, picked Global Tech because his brother Josniel had a wonderful experience at the school. Josniel, who had an I.E.P., represented Global Tech at a White House conference in 2011; he now attends York College, a four-year CUNY school, and aspires one day to become president.

The boys’ mother says, in Spanish: “I didn’t know about the changes. I didn’t know the principal had left, that it’s a different school.”

Joseph is not happy at the merged school, she adds, and they are now looking for a new school.

During her turn at the microphone, Shannon Meminger, a former Global Tech dean, reeled off well over a dozen partnership-based programs the school had offered, many of them anchored by a mandatory after-school program, itself a partnership with Boston-based Citizen Schools: the Apollo theater, Google, Little Kids Rock, as well as other arts- and science-oriented programs.

Yet, the one thing Global Tech has struggled with since its inception is enrollment. The school has never had more than about 175 students and enrollment has plunged during the recent year of turmoil to fewer than 130 students.

Neighborhood charter schools, which now educate one out of every four children in Harlem and cream students who do well on standardized tests—one reason public schools like Global Tech fill up with kids with I.E.P.s.—may contribute to the enrollment challenges. Private donations also allow charters to spend on advertising and recruiting families.

Others at the hearings blamed Bloomberg who built his new small-school strategy on closing failing schools. The problem with this theory is that Global Tech’s entrepreneurial approach to raising funds and forging partnerships, its dedicated educators—not a single teacher left during Baiz’s last year as principal—and relatively strong student performance, made it just the sort of small school the Bloomberg administration was inclined to protect.

Not so Carmen Fariña, the schools chancellor who will soon retire, and who has expressed her distrust of small schools and overseen 21 consolidations. “We don’t run schools as charities,” Fariña said during last week’s panel hearing. Nor did she respond to demands for an investigation of superintendent Estrella, whose actions at Global Tech, as well as other District 4 schools, including Central Park East 1 and Esperanza, have earned her censure and scorn.

“The school was shot, decimated by the superintendent,” says Isaac Carmignani, one of the members of the Panel for Education Policy appointed by Mayor de Blasio. “I spoke from the stage about my concern about what we heard. You don’t get 150 people speaking with one voice from all stakeholders.” Carmignani added that he voted for the merger because there is no going back for Global Tech. (The panel’s vote included six for merger, four abstentions and one recusal.)

Not everyone was moved by the testimony in favor of Global Tech. Servia Silva, the District 4 union representative, never spoke on behalf of the school. Neither Silva nor Estrella responded to interview requests.

Several participants expected a representative of the Manhattan Borough President to defend the school; the borough president, Gale Brewer, came to the meeting herself, but did not speak. Michael Kraft, a panel member appointed by Brewer, says she doesn’t try to influence his vote. Kraft, who said he knew nothing about Global Tech until a week or two ago, voted to abstain because he, too, agrees, “The school that gave those great supports is just not there anymore.”  

There are two lessons from the unraveling of Global Tech: First, the process for getting meaningful community input before schools are closed or merged is broken. Second, the education bureaucracy that Mayor Bloomberg tried to dismantle is, under Mayor de Blasio, as strong as ever.

Andrea Gabor is the author of “After the Education Wars,” to be published by The New Press in June 2018, and Bloomberg Chair of Business Journalism at Baruch College/CUNY. On Twitter @aagabor.

Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email

Death of Bloomberg-Era School Roils East Harlem Mon, 29 Jan 2018 05:00:00 +0000
Mayoral Control Debate Ignores Need for Community Control mayor bdb

Mayor de Blasio (photo via The Mayor's Office)

Since Mayor de Blasio’s cries about the dire consequences of the State Legislature not granting him an extension of mayoral control over the city’s public schools didn't seem to work, this perhaps provides us with a little space to have a more open and less hysterical discussion about possible alternatives. What I find striking about the mayoral control debate is the false assumption that there exists a wide consensus on the need for it.

A May 2017 Quinnipiac Poll, consistent with other polls on the subject, found that “Only 21 percent of New York City voters say Mayor Bill de Blasio ‘should retain complete control of the public schools,’ while 68 percent say he should ‘share control of the public schools with other elected leaders.’” However, this has not been acknowledged by the mayor or taken seriously by the media. This probably goes to show the power of the corporate-educational alliance so brilliantly forged by former Mayor Bloomberg in his takeover of the schools back in 2002.

When I listen to Mayor de Blasio decry the corruption and chaos of the old local elected school boards, I see it as an attack on the ability of communities of color to run their own affairs.

The idea that decentralization of a bloated school bureaucracy and local community control of neighborhood schools is presented as a given unfairly cuts off any serious discussion of what really happened with the community control movement and how it was made dysfunctional. It cuts off any serious discussion of the role of parents and communities of color in determining educational policy in a city and school system in which people of color are in the majority.

Because of the lack of serious inclusion of people of color in educational policy, the charter school movement as a form of community control has arisen. Under Bloomberg and de Blasio the role of parents in school governance has basically disappeared. The Panel for Educational Policy is basically a rubber stamp for the Mayor and the Chancellor, and the parent coordinators in the schools are there largely to manage the parents, not increase their participation.

By decrying the corruption and chaos of the past, the mayor is essentially saying that this was inherent in bringing communities of color into the school governance process. If one extended this argument to, say, the state government, then we should be giving gubernatorial control of the entire state government because of the many ethics violations committed by state legislators.

The problems plaguing the decentralized school system before mayoral control were avoidable if there had been will to do so. For example, some thoughtful, careful restrictions on who could participate on local boards could be one remedy. There could also be rules limiting the role of the teachers unions in school board membership and elections that did so much to corrupt the system.

Throughout the state local school boards are elected, while in New York City, in which neighborhoods are the size of small cities in and of themselves, New Yorkers do not have the same right. This right to full and substantive participation in school governance adds to the civic health of the city, and in the past has included the right of non-citizen parents to be part of the process.

How is it that any of these points have not entered the current discourse on the need or not for mayoral control of the city schools? As an increasing majority of the city’s population has become people of color, this type of top-down governance is part of what I call trickle-down progressivism, which must be challenged.

Angelo Falcón is President of the National Institute for Latino Policy (NiLP), based in New York City. He is a co-editor of the book 'Latinos in New York: Communities in Transition,' 2nd Edition from the University of Notre Dame Press.

Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email

Mayoral Control Debate Ignores Need for Community Control Sun, 25 Jun 2017 04:00:00 +0000
Calls for More Transparency, Oversight in Department of Education Contracting de blasio school visit

The Mayor & education leaders (Demetrius Freeman/Mayoral Photography Office)

As mayoral control of city schools comes up for Albany renewal again this year, one concern being raised by a variety of analysts is how and where the New York City Department of Education spends its money. Namely, the opacity of DOE procurement and contracting continues to be of concern to those worried about waste and a lack of oversight for the department with an annual expense budget of more than $20 billion.

The DOE is technically a state agency and operates under different rules and procedures than other city agencies run by the Mayor. Although Mayor Bill de Blasio does have control over it, deciding its budget in consultation with the City Council, DOE procurement and contracting don’t go through the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services. The DOE’s contract budget for Fiscal 2016 was about $5.4 billion of the nearly $22 billion total operating budget (The Mayor’s preliminary budget proposes $22.8 billion for DOE in Fiscal 2017, with $5.6 billion for contracts). Therein lies the cause for concern from the city comptroller, state legislators, and nonprofit watchdogs.

Last year, the DOE was embroiled in a contracting scandal stemming from its procurement policies. A vendor, Custom Computer Specialists, received a $1.1 billion contract to provide hardware and software to the DOE for five years. The contract was to be approved in February by the Panel for Educational Policy, which votes on all DOE contracts costing more than $1 million (an especially high threshold some say). But, before the contract could be voted on, a parent advocate publicly raised concerns about its lack of public scrutiny and the fact that CCS had been involved in a kickback scheme that defrauded the DOE in the past.

Pressure on the DOE from multiple quarters, including Public Advocate Letitia James and City Council Member Helen Rosenthal, who chairs the contracts committee, led to the contract initially being renegotiated down to $635 million and approved by the PEP. But it was subsequently pulled altogether by City Hall -- the first time that has happened in the history of the DOE, both Haimson and Rosenthal said. The DOE broke the contract into parts and put out fresh bids which were eventually met in December at a total price of $472 million.

“There are bad contracts nearly every month that get PEP approval,” said Leonie Haimson, the advocate who blew the lid on the CCS scandal. Haimson runs the nonprofit Class Size Matters. “Even though the Department of Education has promised to make it more transparent, there are still problems with the process,” she said, pointing out that many contracts are retroactively approved after funds have already been disbursed.

The PEP is a 13-member body, which includes DOE Chancellor Carmen Farina as a non-voting member. Five appointees are chosen by the borough presidents and the rest are appointed by the Mayor.

Haimson only noticed the issue in the CCS contract when she saw it on the PEP website about a week before it was to be voted on. Following the kerfuffle, the DOE announced that it would start posting contracts 30 days before their scheduled vote. Haimson has partnered with Patrick Sullivan, a former PEP member, to create a Citizens Contracts Oversight Committee to analyze these proposed contracts when they are put up online. They are crowdsourcing assistance in looking through hundreds of pages of legalese to ensure that the city isn't being ripped off.

“Members of the Panel are supposed to provide independent oversight and checks and balances over contracting at the DOE and so far they’ve completely failed in that mission,” Haimson said. She proposed that the city Comptroller be allowed to nominate a non-voting member to the PEP to bring attention to these issues. In the past there have been calls for the Mayor to give up holding a majority of appointments to the PEP, but, as expected, there has been no movement on this reform.

Patrick Sullivan, who served on the PEP for seven years, says he has seen a change for the worse in the culture of accountability of the PEP. Under Mayor de Blasio, he claims, PEP members are less willing to question the DOE and that the DOE is less willing to share information.

“The problem was and what remains is that the DOE presents only a brief outline rather than the entire contract to the PEP,” Sullivan said. That, he insists, made it difficult for the PEP “to do what is pretty plain in the law, which is approving contracts.”

Sullivan does believe the current system could work, but only if the PEP puts its foot down and asks to see the contracts in full.

(Gotham Gazette made initial contact with PEP chair Vanessa Leung via email but subsequent emails went unanswered. She did say, “There has been some changes, a simple one being that we are given an overview of areas for future meetings in advance so we know what areas will be up for new contracts.”)

The CCS case was one that slipped through the cracks, despite the DOE process of vetting vendors and proposals. According to DOE officials, the process includes pre-proposal conferences to discuss the proposals with potential vendors and applicants. Proposals are examined by expert committees and vendors are evaluated using the Mayor’s of Contract Services’ Vendex system, which tracks vendor history, quality of services, and level of expertise. The DOE consults the Special Commissioner of Investigation and even looks at vendor tax filings. A history of less-than-satisfactory service does not automatically disqualify a vendor but is explained in the final Request for Authorization sent to the PEP. In the CCS case, these details were available to the DOE and PEP.

The problem was the initial decision by the department to issue a Request for Bid (RFB) rather than a Request for Proposal (RFP). RFBs are generally more to the point, with specific contract requirements, while RFPs lay out general services that are needed. (Taking all the evaluation criteria into consideration, the least costly proposal is not always the one that wins the contract.)

After the contract was pulled, it was re-issued in March 2015 as an RFP and DOE chief financial officer Ray Orlando said in a statement, “The DOE heard from members of the PEP, as well as elected officials, about their concerns regarding the procurement process and decided that issuing a new restructured procurement through an RFP will allow us to reach the best possible outcome for the school system and the City. The DOE will be issuing a new solicitation.”

The DOE then decided to make some the requests for authorization of contracts available for public review at least a month in advance. They also provide PEP members with the Requests for Authorization four weeks before their next meeting. At the meetings, members receive basic information about expected future procurements that are likely to eventually vote on.

“We’ve worked closely with community leaders and stakeholders to improve our contracts process and look forward to this continued collaboration,” said Ray Orlando, DOE CFO, in an email to Gotham Gazette (the same message sent to the Daily News in December).

City Council Member Helen Rosenthal is not satisfied with how DOE procurement functions although she gives credit for changes made after the CCS case.

“The root of the problem there (in the CCS matter) was that they were bidding out something without specificity,” she said. “After that they made the contract more specific. Bids came in tighter and lower.”

Rosenthal met with Ray Orlando last month to discuss these issues and he explained the new transparency measures. But Rosenthal left the meeting disappointed and less than assured that DOE had made any significant reforms in how procurement happens.

“They’re making the final product more transparent,” she said, “but I don’t know if they’re changing internal procedures.” While she doesn’t discount that there might be some changes, Rosenthal has been internally calling for a hearing where she hopes the DOE can answer to the public.

However, the City Council does not have the same level of oversight of DOE as it otherwise does over a mayoral or city agency. The Council can pass laws requiring reporting by the DOE (as it’s done in the past) but cannot legislate policy or even hold oversight hearings on specific policies. The Council could pass a resolution calling for the DOE to go through the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services, but cannot legally mandate it.

“There’s no legal requirement to tell us the answers to these questions, not the same way a mayoral agency is required,” Rosenthal said. “But the questions I’m asking are the ones the taxpayers have a right to know the answers to.”

Rosenthal hopes that the administration will oblige her request for a hearing.

Transparency in procurement and spending has also become a key issue in the debate over mayoral control. Carl Marcellino, chair of the state Senate education committee, recently said he would want more oversight over the DOE’s spending for mayoral control to be extended, echoing comments that were made last year when Mayor de Blasio was seeking an extension of control of city schools (he received a one-year extension).

“I have supported extensions in the past and I do believe ultimately it will be extended,” Marcellino said of mayoral control in a statement, as reported by City & State. “At this point, for how long is yet to be determined. I also think we have an opportunity to increase accountability and transparency on where school funds are being spent in the City. We need a clearer picture on where these funds are going and how they are being used."

Marcellino’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.

Another important voice on the issue of DOE contracting has been city Comptroller Scott Stringer. Testifying before the state legislature in Albany last year, Stringer expressed his support for mayoral control as well, with caveats. He said, “Part of that needs to be reforming the Department of Education’s procurement rules to provide more oversight and transparency. For too long, the DOE has answered to no one when it comes to procurement. With billions of dollars at stake, cutting corners on procurement is bad for taxpayers and bad for our children. DOE must abide by the same oversight rules as every other city agency.”

Under the New York City Charter, DOE’s Procurement Policy and Procedures, and New York State Education Law, the Comptroller’s office has the authority to register and audit DOE contracts.

“However, ensuring MOCS’ participation in DOE’s procurement process would elevate oversight and transparency of the Department to the same level as that of all Mayoral agencies,” Stringer told Gotham Gazette in a statement.

This year in his budget testimony in Albany, Stringer did not mention DOE procurement but did support a three-year extension of mayoral control. (Mayoral control was far less a focus for everyone this year when de Blasio and Stringer appeared in Albany as Senate Republicans largely focused on property tax reform.)

“I have long supported mayoral control of schools,” Stringer told Gotham Gazette. “It is the best way we can ensure accountability and make sure that our schools are equipped with the management and resources to meet the immediate needs of our schoolchildren.”

Class Size Matters’ Haimson believes mayoral control is at the center of the problem. She says it puts too much power over the DOE in one office and precludes the usual checks and balances over spending. “It’s a bad idea. Period. It’s a bad idea in principle. It’s a bad idea in practice,” she said, blaming mayoral control for what happened in the CCS case. Patrick Sullivan feels likewise.

For supporters of mayoral control, that is a spurious argument. “You need to have the mayor in charge of the money going to the Department of Education if you want well-funded schools,” said Clara Hemphill, of the New School and its education publication, Inside Schools. “Anything else is just posturing.” Hemphill said the battle over mayoral control at the state level was more a “power play” between Mayor de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo than an argument of substance.

City Council Member Daniel Dromm, chair of the education committee, did not respond to requests for comment. Dromm’s education committee will hold preliminary budget hearings on DOE spending on March 8 (capital) and March 16 (expense).

It is unclear at this point if state legislators will hold a hearing on mayoral control of city schools with de Blasio called to Albany to discuss his leadership of the city’s schools, his school-based policies and spending practices.

Council Member Rosenthal also believes mayoral control is a good system, but it needs tweaks to make it better. Like Senator Marcellino, she wants the mayor to ensure more transparent spending.

“I definitely prefer mayoral control than the old system,” Rosenthal said, “but I’d want more mayoral control in terms of contracts going through MOCS therefore allowing City Council oversight.”

by Samar Khurshid, City government reporter, Gotham Gazette

Read more by this writer.

Calls for More Transparency, Oversight in Department of Education Contracting Tue, 01 Mar 2016 01:20:49 +0000