(photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
The students in the New York City public schools are doing better -- so much so that the improvements offer Mayor Bill de Blasio a real opportunity for a legacy. The mayor still has two more years to go and two more budgets to invest in kids.
Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza announced in November that a record number of New York City students, nearly 49,000, or 62% of those entering 9th grade in 2014 (the Class of 2018), entered college or postsecondary education. There were nearly 75,000 students in entering 9th grade in the fall of 2014 and a record percentage of them -- 76% (57,000 students) -- graduated on time, meaning by August 2018.
The system also experienced its lowest dropout rate of about 7.5% (5,600 students). At the close of the fourth year, more than 11,000 students, roughly 15% of the initial class, were still in school.
The 2019 graduation results should be released very soon. Graduation outcomes under the mayor’s tenure will continue through three more years, into spring 2022.
When the state English language arts (ELA) and math exam scores were released for the grade 3-8 tests given this spring, it was also announced that New York City students had effectively matched the scores of the students in the rest of the state. City students slightly outperformed their peers in the rest of the state on the ELA tests, and slightly underperformed them on the math tests. The State Education Department changed the content of the tests (again), so the scores are only comparable to 2018, and no further back. The context of the tests has also changed (see below for more on this).
Mayor de Blasio’s signature program, universal full-day prekindergarten, also reached a milestone: the first large group of entering four-year-olds in fall 2014 took their third-grade ELA and math tests in the spring of 2019. The initial results were positive: 53% of third-graders were proficient in English and math, the highest percentages of students in the testing grades of 3-8, and the disparities for black and Hispanic students compared to white students, for those who were in the full-day pre-K, versus those who were not, narrowed significantly.
There’s hope the pre-K results will improve, because there were 53,000 students in pre-K in its first expansion year (entering fall 2014), and nearly 70,000 students in its second year. That means 17,000 more students served by full-day pre-K will be taking the third-grade tests this coming spring, in 2020, compared to 2019.
I don’t offer these numbers to ignore the many issues, problems, and concerns about the school system. Graduation rates for black and Hispanic males are 66% and 65%, respectively, significantly below the 76% system average, meaning more hard work to help them is required. There is also criticism that many high schools and middle schools screen out students with below average grades or test scores, a practice that reinforces racial segregation in the schools and limits opportunities for students of color. The practice extends far beyond the issue of the one test for the specialized high schools like Stuyvesant. The de Blasio administration has allowed diversity pilots for some schools to improve equity. A founder of the small schools movement, Clara Hemphill, along with others, wrote about how to reform these practices.
The issue of test scores in the school system has many ramifications, among them their basic limitation in measuring student ability, or their significance to helping students be successful in school.
The State Education Department’s frequent changes in the content of the tests has made measurement of improvement over time difficult. However, use of the test scores as punitive, to label and close schools, or fire principals and teachers, has faded in the face of a public backlash against aggressive misuse of the test scores for those purposes. The fact that New York City students are matching their peers in the rest of the state in test scores stands for what it is: improvement in the city schools.
The mayor and the chancellor said 51% of the class of 2018 graduated college ready, affirmed as an improvement, but that did mean 49% were not college-ready. College-readiness is a measure of whether or not students might need to take remedial education in college before entry to college-level courses. And there is a problem: not enough city students entering college are finishing. In fact, according to the Center for an Urban Future, only 22% of CUNY’s community college students finish within three years, and only 55% of the students in the four-year colleges finish within six years. The Center, which has been studying this issue for a long time, urged the new CUNY Chancellor to make major efforts to improve student retention and graduation.
Mayor de Blasio also initiated and funded a massive expansion of after-school programs for middle and elementary school students, nearly doubling the number of middle-school youth being served, to 71,000 in 2014. The 2019 city budget reports 100,000 middle-school youth are served by either the Department of Education or the Department of Youth and Community Development.
It would be unfair not to mention Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After all, he was mayor for 12 years, and in his first year the state Legislature transferred control of the school system to the mayor, a policy Mayor de Blasio staunchly supported. Many of Mayor Bloomberg’s school policies were deeply controversial, especially the punitive use of test scores, but there was broad support for the creation of many new small high schools to offer better environments for the more than 300,000 high school students in the city. There are now more than 400 high schools in the city. The drive to originate smaller high schools began far earlier than Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure, but his administration went all out on this policy.
In 2001, the graduation rate was 46.5%, and the dropout rate that year was 22.0%. The graduation rate was 60.7% in 2004, and the dropout rate was 13.5%. The graduation rate was 75.9% in 2018, with a dropout rate of 7.5%.
The improvements were made as the Regents and the State Education Department increased standards for graduating high school, requiring higher passing grades on English and math and other subjects in the Regents Exams. Smaller high schools could only be a part of this successful picture; sustained educational effort from pre-K through grade 12 by teachers, administrators, parents, and students is how the success was achieved.
It should also be noted that universal pre-kindergarten has its own unique history independent of Mayor de Blasio. The massive expansion to near universal full-day is his achievement. But the state government began universal half-day prekindergarten in the 1997-1998 state budget in a deal between then-Governor George Pataki, a Republican, and the Democratic Assembly led by then Speaker Sheldon Silver, who championed the concept (and later helped secure state funding for de Blasio’s expansion).
Why is the program before Mayor de Blasio significant? Because it was already immense when Bill de Blasio became mayor. There were 60,000 children in pre-K before de Blasio’s start, with about 40,000 of them getting a half-day rather than full. In the mayor’s first year he added about 33,000 full-day seats, with a large conversion of half-day programs to full-day programs, and by 2015 there were 70,000 children in full-day.
The substantial size of universal half-day pre-K, however, goes back further in time. Even in 2004 and 2005, there were 46,000 children in pre-kindergarten in New York City, meaning many of those 2018 high school graduates had a seat in a half-day pre-K program. By 2000 there were 34,000 children in pre-K programs in the New York City public schools as universal half-day pre-K was implemented.
The healthy economy has enabled the mayor to invest heavily in the school system. From the 2014-15 budget to the one enacted for 2019-2020, the city committed nearly an extra $6 billion in funding to the schools, while the state added $2.5 billion and the federal government a paltry $470 million. These funds have increased teacher compensation, improved school facilities and built new schools, added 50,000 seats in the charter schools (mandated by the state; the charters are now about 11% of city enrollment), as well as the many programs mentioned above.
Mayor de Blasio and his first schools chancellor, Carmen Fariña, have a right to be proud of improving excellence and equity in education. The mayor and his new chancellor, Mr. Carranza, should keep up the focus on and commitment to serving children. A strong legacy awaits if they keep it up.
***
Jim Brennan was a member of the New York State Assembly for 32 years, where he chaired four committees. On Twitter @JimBrennanNY.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Council Member Rodriguez with a constituent (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)
Shortly before Christmas a judge of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan issued a ruling annulling the rezoning plan for Inwood that had been in the works since 2017 and was approved by the City Council in August 2018. The City has appealed the decision to the Appellate Division; the case may well go all the way to the Court of Appeals before it is finally resolved. But even if the decision is eventually reversed, this legal challenge has upended the long-established legal and political process for achieving rezonings and could have a detrimental impact on all future rezoning efforts in New York City.
Supreme Court Judge Verna Saunders found that a number of potential socio-economic impacts raised by community groups were not considered during the state- and city-required environmental review of the plan and sent it back to the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development to study and address these concerns.
While I am neither a land use nor an environmental attorney, it seems to me common sense that some of the highlighted issues are impossible to fully assess because they are speculative and depend on so many economic, legislative, sociological, and other factors beyond local zoning. For example, ambulance response times or the impact on minority- and women-owned businesses.
Other issues may well have been considered but not explicitly addressed in the environmental reports. For example, the impact of the loss of the neighborhood public library was addressed: the zoning plan adopted by the Council included a brand new, larger, and better-equipped public library in a new building with 175 affordable apartments and a plan for a temporary relocation while the new library building is constructed.
But the specifics of the judge’s decision are not as significant as the fact that it creates uncertainty about the validity of a lengthy public review process in which the Mayor and the locally elected City Council Member were actively engaged and the City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure was carefully followed.
The methodology for conducting environmental reviews of zoning proposals is set forth in a manual (the “CEQR Manual”) written and updated by a panel of experts that contains clear rules and standards for analysis. If litigation can successfully overturn a zoning plan by demanding that specific factors not included in the manual must be considered and addressed then there can be no certainty that any plan is final, no matter how robust the public and political review process and how carefully the standards of the manual have been followed.
The new buildings that were to be authorized by the Inwood rezoning, which would provide 1,300 units of affordable housing, are now on hold. The immediate consequences of derailing the zoning changes are that the demand for more housing in Inwood will force prices higher, not only depriving potential new residents of housing opportunities, but affecting current residents as well.
There may well be a broader impact. If, after three years of development, including 22 public meetings, input from the Community Board, the Borough President, the City Planning Commission, and Council approval, a rezoning plan can no longer be regarded as firm and final, builders will be reluctant to get involved in these efforts at the outset and neighborhoods that need them will miss out on thousands more affordable housing units.
Moreover, the role of the local City Council Member in providing input and negotiating additional community benefits as part of rezonings is called into question. Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez, who represents the Inwood neighborhood, succeeded in including hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits to the community as part of the plan, including the new library, improvements to the local public school complex and park and community spaces, and funding for local anti-displacement and homeless service programs. All of these investments are now in doubt.
If the duly elected representative who knows the needs of the area best cannot be relied upon to definitively sign off on behalf of his constituents, why would other Council Members put themselves out there to influence and endorse a plan?
Change is hard and can be frightening. But it will happen, either haphazardly through as-of-right development under existing zoning, or through a more managed growth process in a thoughtful and coordinated way, through the land use review process with the input of community leaders who help maximize the benefits for the people who live there. The activists who challenged the Inwood rezoning plan, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, may have won a battle but hurt the long-term health of the City by leaving officials with no clear path to follow in their efforts to keep the city’s neighborhoods thriving.
***
Carol Kellermann was president of Citizens Budget Commission from 2008 through 2018.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Governor's Office)
A year ago, almost to the day, Governor Cuomo gave me a second chance at life.
That is not an exaggeration. On October 26, 1988, I along with several co-defendants, was convicted of murder for my role in a robbery that went terribly wrong. The judge, known to be particularly harsh, sentenced me to 80 years to life. That meant that I would not be eligible for parole until I was 98 years old. I was 18 years old and facing the reality that I would die in prison.
I spent the next three decades fighting for my life. I quickly realized that I needed to come to grips with what I had done, and with what led me down that path. The process of introspection began with required programs, and I eventually was able to acknowledge and accept responsibility for my actions and the damage I had caused.
I steered clear of any disciplinary infractions. I participated in and completed all mandated programs; I even enrolled in programs I did not have to take. Thereafter, I decided to help others change their lives in a positive way. I facilitated, developed, and implemented new programs and embraced a role as a mentor to younger men in prison. Most significantly, I found my way through post-secondary higher education, obtaining two master’s degrees and completing a doctorate degree. I was dubbed the first inmate to complete a doctorate degree "during" incarceration. I was also the first prisoner in New York State history to create, manage, teach, and coordinate a college program run by an incarcerated person.
I was no longer the impulsive immature young person who gave little thought to the consequences of his actions, and I carried the victims of my crime in my heart as an inspiration to change the lives of people forever. I also carried the reality of dying behind prison walls.
With the help of my wife and carried along by devotion to my faith, I began to pursue the only path to freedom that was available to me: clemency. I submitted my application for clemency to the Executive Clemency Bureau and with the assistance of CUNY School of Law I was able to supplement the application with additional material, including evidence revealing the trial judge's reputation for biased, harsh sentencing.
On December 31, 2018, I was called to the front of the prison by the First Deputy Superintendent. I was the only person that was called, leading me to believe that I may have been the only one about to receive news about my clemency decision. I felt it in my soul that I was about to be granted a new lease on life. The feeling was so strong!
The deputy superintendent summoned me to an isolated area and read the governor's decision to me. I jumped up and yelled "Yes, yes, yes!" over and over again. Officers passed by observing the spectacle; shocked, they stood still to listen. I practically glided back to my cell.
Upon entry to my cell I immediately went into prayer and gratitude to God. A voice whispered in my ear to turn on the radio. When I turned it on, a scripture was quoted for the day from the Bible: "I am doing a new thing, can you feel it? I am moving like a stream in the desert. All things of old will stay in the past, and now all things are new." I felt a chill run down my back. The message felt specific to me, a modern-day miracle.
My emotions are impossible to put into words. The past year has been a dream. I had my doctorate degree delivered to my home and not to a prison cell, which was how I received mail for over 30 years. I have made over 60 appearances across New York State; speaking to many about the governor's mercy and how to change one's life through faith and love. I have even been a featured speaker about criminal justice reform at Yale University and CUNY School of Law. I have been on podcasts, interviewed at radio stations, met with artists, was mentioned in a rap song, and spoke at numerous churches, community groups, and even events hosted by government officials in- and out-side of New York.
Yet, as grateful as I am to Governor Cuomo for giving me my freedom, my heart remains heavy. I know that there are countless others in New York state prisons who have been redeemed. There are incarcerated men and women who work tirelessly within their wearisome and oppressive environments to transform themselves through introspection and action. I know this to be true. I have lived with many of these people in prison and know firsthand the people they have become. I also know of their genuine contrition and effort to repair the damage they caused.
Incarcerated men like Paul Clark, Delroy Thorpe, Benjamin Smalls, Ulysses Boyd, Lance Sessoms, Craig Jackson, and Richard Chalk mentor young and old men alike. They and so many others in prison have so much to offer society.
To be clear, I am eternally grateful to Governor Cuomo for granting my clemency application. I am well aware how rarely clemency is granted anywhere in this country. The joy of celebrating my first Christmas in 31 years at home still lingers. And yet, I carry profound sadness for men like Paul, Delroy, Benjamin, Ulysses, Lance, Craig, and Richard who remain destined to perish in prison. What, or whose, purpose does that serve?
I know well how people behind the walls die a little with each day closer to the end of December or in early January with no news about clemency. I know, too, the impact on their loved ones. Yet while 2019 has come and gone, and the governor commuted the sentences of two people on Friday, Three Kings Day, also called the Feast of the Epiphany, is yet to come. As free people celebrate a new year, I pray that the governor, in the spirit of forgiveness and mercy that marks the holidays, has his own personal epiphany and finds it in his heart to give to many others the gift of clemency that he gave to me.
***
by Roy Bolus
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.