9486 in the collection
School Reform: RIP?
Now let's see: Mayor Bloomberg is non-political. Right. Having established that, the editorial writers judge themselves as experts in determining school performance standards. Well, sure. I'm not a fan of Deputy Schools Chancellor Lam's leadership style, but dipped if I'd let The New York Post editorial writers define who the true reformers are. Never mind: anyone who even uses the word reform is suspect. This piece includes enough loaded rhetoric to sink the QE2.
Last year's dramatic overhaul of education governance in New York City, in which Mayor Bloomberg won direct control of the public schools, was touted as the most sweeping change to the system in 30 years.
Correctly so.
The point was to free public education from the corrosive effects of political influence in all its forms.
City schools were to become once again functional - and more. High standards and expectations were to be set - and, eventually, met.
The effort had no stronger supporter than this page. We have backed Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein pretty much across the board - particularly as they struggled with the system's various unions and their bought-and-paid-for allies in Albany.
Then came last Friday, and Deputy Schools Chancellor for Curriculum Diana Lam's speech at New York University - wherein she pronounced programs for the city's academically talented students effectively to be dead letters.
For reasons of racial balance.
Lam's presence in the hierarchy of reform has been problematic from the start. She pushes unabashedly for programs held in contempt by true education reformers - particularly in reading and math.
But, what the heck: Mayoral control is mayoral control - and if Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein want Diana Lam writing curricula for 1.1 million New York kids, it's their call.
Up to a point.
And now that point appears to have been reached.
It's hard for non-professionals to gauge the relative merits of, say, the reading debate: Is "phonics" superior to "whole language?" Who knows?
Classroom performance standards are something else entirely.
If they are watered down - especially in the name of political correctness - then the hard-fought reform achieved to date by Bloomberg and Klein will prove to have been just a cruel joke.
Friday, Lam said the department presently will "expand the definition of what it means to be gifted and talented."
The objective?
To change the complexion of the programs.
You see, there are just too many white kids in the programs, Lam & Co. believe, relative to kids who are not white.
Her proposed "expansion" effectively will do away with standards for the programs - which is tantamount to doing away with the programs themselves.
Department officials yesterday would say only that they're reviewing the definition and criteria for admissions to make sure they're "educationally sound."
But the clear goal is to open this particular track to kids who lack the skills to meet current acceptance criteria - but who come from allegedly underrepresented racial groups.
"We are very much aware of issues of accessibility and expectations in our gifted and talented program," Lam said.
No doubt.
But there are other issues.
If Bloomberg, Klein & Co. don't have the stomach to fight this battle, what happens when the anti-standards agitators express concern with ethnic and racial issues regarding social promotion, graduation rates, dropout reform and simple classroom safety?
More surrender?
If this team can't or won't stand up for standards and resist the political pressures - racial and otherwise - so engrained in Gotham's social culture, what hope is there for any serious change in the schools?
Is Mayor Mike's big school reform going to mean hand-to-hand combat in Albany - but abject capitulation to the practitioners of racial politics?
If so, what's the point?
School Reform: RIP?
New York Post
2003-12-09
http://nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/12927.htm
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
