Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Christine Quinn, Robert Jackson and UFT president Randy Weingarten reached agreement on compromise to the Mayor's third major school reorganization plan.

Under the agreement, schools wont lose money during the next school year. That had been a major danger in the Bloomberg-Klein plan -- that the effect would be actual reductions in money available even as billions more are added the the education budget.

In addition the UFT appears to have won concessions that may mitigate the incentive built into the reorganization which will encourage principals to shed higher paid senior teachers. Other crucial areas: class size, parent engagement, middle school reform etc. appear to be adjourned to later with precatory language. Community leaders who were at the announcement included: Director of the New York Immigration Coalition Chung-Wha Hong, NY ACORN Director Bertha Lewis, and Irania Sanchez representing the Coalition for Economic Justice and Make the Road by Walking. They were the ones clustered around the Working Families Party which, along with the UFT, put considerable resources into the anti-reorganization effort. .

Consistent with the long Bloomberg-Klein hostility to parent groups, it appears that no leader of a Parent Association was present. The press announcment is here while press accounts from the New York Times and Daily News are here and here.

At Queens Borough Hall in Kew Gardens, Thursday night, public school advocates, parents, principals and politicians gathered to support the school spending plan proposed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer. The meeting, sponsored by the Alliance for Quality Education, the NAACP, the UFT and New Yorkers For Smaller Classes, featured AQE director Billy Easton and Campaign for Fiscal Equity dirctor Geri Palast who have been at so many meeting together they finish each others sentences.

The task at hand: focus the crowd to pressure Queens GOP Senators Maltese and Padavan to support the Spitzer scheme (which I'll describe below).

The key issue: class size. I think that the reason that Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Klein don't care about it, and refuse to spend money on it is that they see our children as objects to be processed by the schools not as individuals, each with her or his own needs. Assemby members Nolan and Lancman have introduced a bill to require our Mayor to reduce class size.

The big news: GOP Senator Maltese will support the class size limits. Almost losing his re-election, seems to have woken him up. Senator Padavan is rumored to be supporting the class size intitiative as well.

Parents of public school children, like me, and those concerned with quality education (or the lack of it) should be looking with both significant hope and anxiety at the education budget proposals made by Gov. Spitzer. If enacted, the proposed budget will, over the next few years, increase funds dramatically. If that money is spent wisely, it will overcome the years of underfunding which have afflicted NYC schools (and those of lower income school districts across NYS). Of course the anxiety comes from the fact that we know that government is capable of wasting money on a grand scale. (Consider the still unbuilt 2nd Ave. Subway).

Advocates for adequate school funding, including groups which I like and support respect, have signed on Gov. Spitzer’s proposals hook, line and sinker. One in particular, the Alliance for Quality Education , a coalition of community groups which has, for years, been a steady lobbying force statewide, has been leading the charge to gather support for the Spitzer proposal.

AQE, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, the NAACP and New Yorkers For Smaller Class Size others are holding two forums (fora?) this Thursday, March 8, 2007 (in the Bronx and in Queens.) . The sharp-eyed will notice that the Queens event features Assembly Education Chair Cathy Nolan and Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith both of whom can play keys roles in getting the Spitzer education budget passed and in making sure safeguards are in place to ensure the new money is spent carefully. Directions after the break.I am definitely going, -- even if it means taping by favorite TV programs. You should consider coming, too.

Those of you with children in New York City's public schools may have been watching Mayor Bloomberg's current school-bus-fiasco with a sense that it's deja-vu all over again.

The Mayor hired a no-bid private consultant for $17 million or more to save money. The consultant told him to reorganize school buses so as to save $12 million. (So far a loss of $5 million, even if these pretend savings were real). No people in the public school community were consulted. Instead, they are notified in an incoherent manner. Chaos ensued. Courtly, elegantly dressed Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott was called out to defend a totally irrational program change. The Mayor sneered at protesting parents and, in time-honored fashion, fled to Israel. See, for example, the front-page story from Friday's Daily News and Gail Robinson's good round-up in the Gotham Gazette.

The reason why Mr. Bloomberg's constant and irratic reorganizations are always wrong is that he imposes them from above. Chancellor Klein and some consultants and aides with no experience in public education cook up a scheme. The Mayor okays it and they're off -- playing 52-pick-up again with thousands of schools, hundreds of thousands of employees and more than 1 million children. Check out the NY Times story of a few days ago concerning the departure of one of the last remaining actual educators from the Klein coterie Rose Albanese DePinto.

When Vice-Chancellor Adelaide L. Sanford said it yesterday at the Drum Major Institute, it sounded like a wise crack but it wasn't. She said

"Is the Robin Hood System Ok?" implying that richer districts are being robbed to fund poorer ones. Regent Sanford won't abide by that framing;

"It's not Robin Hood, the truth of the matter is you rob the hood" (As quoted by DMI's Elana Levin.)

What Ms. Stanford was referring to is a difficult debate about how to fairly fund public education in New York State. Should the $5.7 Billion due NYC schools out of the CFE litigation (and perhaps a comparable amount state-wide) be taken from wealthier New Yorkers so as to improve the schools of poorer people? Ms. Sanford and I had both attended a Baruch College debate of the "Robin Hood" solution where educrats, progressive politicians and political scientists seemed to agree that no one was going to take money from the rich. Will everything change from day one? I personally doubt it because, to mangle Fred Douglas, powerful interests will give up nothing without a demand.

Education funding in NYS is boring and opaque for a reason: poor people pay for the schools of the rich. New York State's funding formula for schools rewards wealthy communities with lower tax rates and higher per-pupil expenditures (and, as a result, better schools) than poorer commmunities. This result, odd from a public policy point of view but completely understandable as an expression of raw political power, means that poor people pay much higher taxes for much worse schools.

Steve Harrison, the Democrat running against Vito Fossella, the corrupt buddy of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, is calling for increased funding for building schools. Anyone who has a kid in NYC schools knows that more schools are critical for our children's education.

From the Staten Island Advance:

Harrison calls on U.S. to increase spending on school construction

Dem congressional hopeful says more funds are needed to reduce size of classes

Thursday, October 05, 2006
By GLENN NYBACK
ADVANCE STAFF WRITER

The federal government ought to spend more money on building schools in order to reduce class sizes and implement education initiatives outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act, Democratic congressional candidate Stephen Harrison said yesterday.

Flanked by representatives of the United Federation of Teachers and Democratic elected officials, Harrison said too many schools on Staten Island are overcrowded, creating poor learning environments for children forced to compete for attention from their teachers...

Fossella, Harrison said, "doesn't pass the test" and received a failing grade from the National Education Association based on his performance in enhancing education...

My daughter has started Middle School and, of course, there is the usual beginning of the year paperwork. A friend noticed on the form for school lunch programs a particularly embarrassing typo. The form at the very top of the front page tells us the form is brought to us from the:

“Department of Eduction [sic] of the City of New York”

Well, I could easily make the obvious joke about the state of eduction in our fine city…

Our babysitter was sick today so my wife and I split childcare duties. So, I decided I would go over to the Atlantic Yard's hearing today...the ONLY public hearing on the project the state is deigning to allow.

Well a quick subway trip took us to Metrotech. It was immediately clear to me that one hearing really was not enough. The line to get in went around the corner and was still growing. Well, I was with a nearly 2-year old baby and my chances of getting through that line without risking a large tantrum was pretty low. But I decided to see if it was worth it. I went around to the front only to see that the crowd got so thick that no stroller would make it through. I am pretty certain that was also indicative of how crowded it was likely to be inside. So, the one and only public hearing pretty much excluded families with children. Typical. Now maybe if I had come back later it would have been better, but families have something called a routine. I had to get back home to cook dinner and after that are bedtime rituals. So, it seems like the one and only public hearing was hard for families to navagate.

But I did get a chance to poke around. Yassky, Suozzi and Diamondstone all had signs up. Well, at least Suozzi and Diamondstone have taken stands on the issue. Yassky has been a fence sitter, so not sure who he was playing to. Perhaps everyone. The only person more ambiguous on his stand has been Hakeem Jeffries. Yassky at least has the excuse that he is running for Congress, not a body that will have Atlantic Yards as one of its major issues (so why does he have signs up?). Jeffries does not have that excuse.

Stamping, cheering, chanting parents students, teachers and others poured into St. Bart's on Park & 51st Street last night to demand fair funding for public education. A huge, multi-racial crowd braved the rain, packed the pews and roared their support for "educational justice." Families from Manhattan PTAs, from Acorn in Brooklyn, from organizing projects in the Bronx (NWB and CCB) joined rows of NAACP supporters and UFT members in a fierce outpouring of rage and committment to change our overcrowded, underfunded NYC public schools. For people like me, with memories of civil rights struggles of long ago, it was stepping into a wonderful time warp.

We were welcomed by the Vicar of St. Bart's (a music-haven must-see for built-environment mavens) Rev. Kevin Bean who has helped bring that Church to the center of social-justice struggles. Many of the speakers were the usual suspects -- Councilmember Robert Jackson (lead CFE plaintiff), Randi Weingarten, Sens. Diane Savino and Eric Schneiderman, Assembly Education Chair Cathy Nolan -- practiced hands and polished. Most speakers, however, were neighborhood leaders and activists with their own vision of the struggle. Wendoly Marte of Bronx-based Sistas and Brothas United, just graduated from high school and Leonore Brown of the East Brooklyn Education Collaborative were especially memorable. Brown, for example, reported on a study in her neighborhood contrasting failing and succeeding schools where -- as it happened children in failing schools were getting less math, science, art music and gym that others. On reading my notes, the speech seems dry, but the delivery brought the crowd to its feet again and again.

The punch line is that the coalition has focused on the 2006 election; called upon the crowd to become education voters and put the pressure on elected officials. Which elected officials needed the pressure was never spelled out, but likely candidates are the Republican State Senators from NYC who (in a party-line vote) defeated a bill that would have fairly funded public education in New York City and State. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Via Ben Smith, it appears that, in addition to ACORN, another organization present at the St. Bart's event may have been the recipient of Ratner donations. Norman Oder of Atlantic Yards Report says a group called Downtown Brooklyn Educational Consortium got big bucks from Ratner http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/06/conflict-of-interest-350...

Is this one of the groups? My notes say "East Brooklyn Educational Consortium." I do not know enough about Brooklyn to tell. It would be some what oddly recursive if Ratner development money were going to facilitate lobbying the legislature for CFE money. Does anyone know?

I am quite sympathetic to opponents of the Atlantic Yards project, though I do not consider it the only factor in deciding what candidates to support. I have heard the opponents of the Atlantic Yards uber-development project called a "single issue" group. I have myself referred to them as "single issue," as a matter of fact. Now, there is nothing wrong with focusing on a single issue, but the more I think about it, I realize that issues surrounding NYC development in general, and Atlantic Yards in particular, involve some of the core issues of the progressive movement. Furthermore, in general politicians who understand the problems with Atlantic Yards are the ones who recognize the core values of the progressive movement. Those politicians who don’t get why Atlantic Yards is so wrong don’t get, on a very fundamental level, the core values of the progressive movement. There are exceptions. But in general, it strikes me that Atlantic Yards not only is, but should be one of the dominant issues in local politics. I will add that it should not be the ONLY dominant issue, but it should be one of the dominant issues.

The issues that surround development in NYC in general, and Atlantic Yards in particular, include the culture of corruption that seems to be filtering from the Federal government down to the local level, the neglect or active removal of "undesirable" communities (usually minority and poor), government secrecy, excessive links between business and government, use of tax money to aid big business, and the exclusion of the community from major decisions regarding its own future. The interests of the rich are put above the interests of the city even by the city government, and this is often done in secrecy. It is hard to think of a single issue that encompasses more fundamental concerns of the progressive movement than Atlantic Yards.

One of the key problems with the Atlantic Yards project is the secrecy, dishonesty and probably corruption that surround it. There really have been secret deals made between Rater and the mayor and governors offices promising land and exclusion from full review. The state agency that is supposed to judge if the Atlantic Yards project should be approved, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), not only rents space from Ratner, but wants to hire Ratner’s own lawyer, at Ratner’s expense, to advise them on whether they should approve Ratner’s plan. Yes, I know a court just approved these things, but come on folks! This is stuff worthy of the Federal Republican culture of corruption! It stinks. Add to that blatant lies that have been told to the community by Ratner. Lies, secrecy and what sure looks like corruption even if a court approves it. Even if all of this is legal, THESE are the very practices that the progressive movement was formed to fight. Government honesty, transparency and ethics are at the root of the original progressive reforms.

And I am not alone in thinking so. Recently, investigative attorney, former Senior White House Advisor to President Clinton, and current candidate for Attorney General recently sent out a couple of letters stating his stand on Atlantic Yards. His first such letter does an excellent job of outlining many of the problems with Ratner’s plans that I will quote directly from it:

…I believe that the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards development must be stopped-cold until some tough questions get asked and answered. As it is today, this project is the face of what’s wrong with a corrupt culture that mixes business and politics, profits and tax dollars. My objections to the project stem from the flawed and secretive process by which decisions are made. Decisions that could change the face of the community forever. Decisions that deserve more scrutiny, more tough issues like fairness and transparency and including:

· The Forest City Ratner proposal is a selective bid.

· A profound disregard for community involvement in the decision making process.

· The shameful lack of accountability and transparency by Forest City Ratner by failing to provide a detailed financial report.

· There is little evidence…that the decision making process included concern for the historical character of the neighborhood.

· The Forest City Ratner proposal does not adequately address affordable housing questions posed by concerned members of the community.

· Although the MTA appraised the value of the rail yards at $241 million, the MTA chose the lowest bidder instead of the higher bid from Extell.

This plan, as it is, cannot be allowed to move forward; however, I would support responsible development that earnestly seeks a partnership and synergy with the community rather than an exploitation of our beauty and resources in Brooklyn.

Like all of us, Maloney WANTS development. But he does NOT want secrecy, corruption and lies. And those are what we have been give by Ratner, Bloomberg and Pataki.

Now look. I have been told that this project is nothing more than free market. But it isn’t! It is a selective bid, not to mention a LOW BID. It involves the use of tax money. It has involved the threat, though not yet the use, of eminent domain to force the transfer of property from one private owner to another. None of this is free market! It is a collaboration, formed partly in secret with no input from the community, between government and a private businessman. This is the kind of collaboration between the rich and the powerful that the progressive movement was founded to oppose.

I would not say that there was no input from the community. And groups like ACORN are in favor of the project, though they have been heavily criticized for this. In fact Ratner has made a good show of interacting with certain community leaders and groups, getting them on board, and promising jobs and affordable housing. But there is no enforcement of these promises and the affordable housing is judged such that as property values go up, the affordable housing will rapidly cease to be affordable. It is not geared to the means of the community so much as being a certain amount below he market value…which will go up and out of the range of the community.

What Maloney does not even mention is the issues of the infrastructure. Traffic congestion, insufficient coverage from firehouses, inadequate schools and a grossly (literally) overtaxed sewage system are EXISTING problems in Brooklyn. Add on top of these existing problems an arena and seventeen massive skyscrapers, and you have a pretty disgusting mess. Even if there are upgrades around the Atlantic Yards project, the remainder of Brooklyn would still be affected by the added strains of the project. People talk about jobs. Well, don’t more schools, firehouses, upgrading the sewer system Borough wide and adding more public transit create jobs? And they improve the quality of life in the Borough. And the issue of fires brings up another problem that goes even beyond what Maloney covers. There already is a very surprising spike of fires throughout Brooklyn that may be due to arson and/or the neglect of these neighborhoods by the closing of firehouses. Some have even suggested that developers are burning down buildings that are inconvenient for them. This accusation seems likely in the case of the Greenpoint fire where the developer had several other convenient and suspicious fires happen to his property…probably covered by insurance. In the case of the area surrounding Atlantic Yards, there has been a particularly sharp increase in suspicious fires there and it is convenient for the developer who wants to portray the area as blighted. Beyond that, I cannot judge whether or now the old NY tradition of arson to drive out unwanted communities is at work. But, since I work in the triangle shirtwaist factory building, I quite aware that there is a longstanding link between the progressive movement and fire safety, particularly regarding poorer classes. Three politicians, Eric Adams, Bill Batson and Wellington Sharpe, each independently observed the suspicious nature of these fires and called them arson. Each of them observed that these fires are destroying the heart of historic black neighborhoods, threatening entire communities. Bill Batson went so far as to point out the convenience of these fires to developers and points out that many of these development projects are destroying the black history of Brooklyn. He used the Harriet Tubbman museum as an example and points out that if you destroy someone’s culture, you can do anything you want to them.

This threat to our heritage isn’t just affecting the black community. I would say that the Atlantic Yards Project, coupled with the many other giant development plans, changes the entire face or Brooklyn, taking away its great uniqueness. I come from Los Angeles. I am one of the few people who will admit loving Los Angeles. But it does not have much character. Brooklyn has a great character and the current style of overdevelopment destroys that character in large swaths of Brooklyn. Bill Batson calls it the Disneyfication (I think it should be spelled "Disnification," but most people disagree) of NYC through arson. A fellow local activist has called Atlantic Yards project in particular as placing a giant slice of Manhattan in the heart of Brooklyn. Manhattan is fine. But It ain’t Brooklyn.

The politician who I know who has most eloquently expressed what is happening is Chris Owens. He once described it as nothing less than "Losing Home", in essence losing our community, our uniqueness…our Brooklyn. We want development. Of course we want affordable housing and jobs. But the lies, underhanded and secret deals, the closing of our firehouses, the inadequate concern for our schools and infrastructure all combine to make us afraid that we are losing Brooklyn. The loss is much slower and less dramatic than the loss of large parts of New Orleans through criminal neglect. But there are very real parallels.

Progressives respect home, tradition, history and community. Those politicians who most respect progressive values are those who understand the real danger of Atlantic Yards style development. I honestly think that if our elected representatives (you listening Bloomberg, Markowitz? I thought not!) really laid down strict requirements for these development projects, developers would still be rushing to be in on the action. NYC is one of the world’s busiest and best cities and no developer will want to stay away. But if we neglect our schools and our fire safety, over tax our sewage system and roads, and lose our unique character that attracts so many tourists, we will no longer be one of the world’s busiest and best cities. We need a progressive vision for our city, not a vision that has to be formed in secret and covered by lies. That is why so many use Atlantic Yards as a measure for their support of a candidate. It cannot be the only measure. Tom Suozzi gets it when it comes to Atlantic Yards, yet I do not think he quite understands traditional progressive values. Denise O’Donnell didn't take the kind of stand that Sean Patrick Maloney has on Atlantic Yards, nor is she necessarily progressive. But she, along with Maloney, was still an excellent candidate for Attorney General, and I was having a hard time deciding between them. So this one project cannot be the only thing used to pick politicians to vote for. And I don't always agree with everything said and done by groups like Develop, Don't Destroy Brooklyn. But I really think that those who are perceived as excessively focused on Atlantic Yards may actually understand that what is at risk are many of the things that we, as progressives, value.