. . . .“There is certainly going to be a lot more back and forth, because this just is not going to fly,” Meryl Tisch, a member of the State Board of Regents, said of the city’s plan. “The point of this money is to drive it to those kids who need it the most.”
But Chancellor Klein has adamantly defended the plan, saying that nearly every school in New York City has a number of students in poverty or at risk of failure.
“You’ve got to look at this in the real world and in the big picture,” the chancellor said. “There are students with needs everywhere, and we have to give money to all students, not just some students.” He said that the money has been directed to schools with high poverty rates and that the “overwhelming majority” of the money would be spent there.
The plan is unlikely to quiet those who say that the city is not focusing the new funds on the city’s lowest-performing schools. Critics yesterday pointed out that District 2 on the Upper East Side, one of the highest performing districts in the city, is getting more than $6 million.
“We believe that the money was intended to serve the lowest-performing students in the neediest schools,” said Geri Palast, the executive director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, a group that sued the state for more money for New York City schools. “This just isn’t that, as far as we can tell.” . . . .
"A child's learning is the function more of the characteristics of his classmates than those of the teacher." James Coleman, 1972
. . .a pupil attitude factor, which appears to have a stronger relationship to achievement than do all the “school” factors together, is the extent to which an individual feels that he has some control over his own destiny. James Coleman, 1966
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Class Size Reduction $ for Upper East Side
A clip from the NY Times:
at 5:00 PM