Mayoral Control Ain't Done Squat For NYC

On the very day Chris Christie is taking over Camden's schools - a move that historically has had "mixed," at best, results - the Center for American Progress is releasing a report lauding mayoral control of schools. As Diane Ravitch points out:

Those of us who live in cities under mayoral control know that the primary result is not to improve education or to help struggling children, but to stifle the voices of parents, students, teachers, and community members. Under mayoral control, governance is transferred to the mayor and the power elite, few of whom have children in public schools or even attended one. Mayoral control snuffs out democracy.

The timing of this report comes just as the mayor of Chicago unilaterally decided to close more than 50 public schools, decimating communities and stranding thousands of children. Is this “reform” of public schools? It also comes as the third term of Mayor Bloomberg winds down, and the authoritative Quinnipiac poll shows that only 18% want more of the same. [emphasis mine]

Funny thing is that the CAP report makes the case that Bloomberg's reign in NYC has been good for the city's schools.

Mayoral control in New York City appears to have had significant positive effects on both fourth- and eighth-grade student achievement. African American and Latino students benefited academically from mayoral control in New York City. The improvement rate ranged from between 1 percent to 3 percent annually. A 1 percent annual increase in student proficiency rates among New York City’s fourth graders, for example, would increase achievement for nearly 2,000 students.

StudentsFirst and Michelle Rhee, naturally, agree:

In my opinion, New York should keep its school district just like it is, with the mayor in control. NYC schools have seen significant student gains since Mayor Bloomberg took control of the schools in 2002, and while the district still has a long way to go, the current governance model seems to be working for New York.

Perhaps before Rhee and SF and CAP line up to shower praise on Bloomberg and former NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, they ought to take a few minutes and read my (still unfinished) series on Klein's actual legacy. Here's what they'll find:

- NYC's gains in national test scores, when broken down by subgroup, were mediocre at best (this chart via the great Leonie Haimson):

- NYC's overall gains on national tests were kind of lame; for example:

(CAP appears to hide this mediocre performance by averaging out the other cities compared to NYC, rather than looking at each city individually; they're also looking at proficiency rates and not actual test scores. For a report of this size and stature, I find this to be awfully weak tea...)

- Child poverty rates stayed relatively stable in NYC compared to the rest of the state:

- There were demographic changes in NYC that undoubtedly account for many of the changes in test scores. Some examples:

Granted, I analyzed NYC against the other cities in the state, and not the large cities participating in the NAEP. It may well be that demographic changes in other cities favored them and made it more difficult for NYC to keep up...

But that would make my point, wouldn't it?

I can't speak to the rest of CAP's report right now. But the notion that NYC made big progress under the autocratic rule of Bloomberg and Klein is not borne out by the facts.

You're really killing my buzz, Jazzman...