Home » Posts tagged 'Foundation For Newark’s Future'
Tag Archives: Foundation For Newark’s Future
Re: A Gifted Newark Teacher Asks Why Are We Not Good Enough To Educate Our Children?
The short answer is maybe because we’re not.
Alston, does a superb job writing an essay presenting the facts as we know them. Bob Braun in carrying Mr. Alston’s post on his own ledger, further contextualizes the issues Mr. Alston elaborates on when he asks the question Mr. Alston’s essay begs.
Why in fact are we not good enough to educate our children?
Both Bob and Mr. Alston frame the issue as one of race and racism. And you know what? I’ll bite. I’m a black person, why not? Having effectively concluded that the issue here is obvious racism; one person, who happens to be white, abusing [legislative] power to effect [racist by nature] policies adversely and disproportionately disenfranchising, and disqualifying a group of people who happen to be black and latino, what is our point of departure? What do we do now? Those of us like Bob, Mr. Alston and I, have taken to using the pen, or rather, the keyboard. The Newark Students Union has taken to social media and organizing, and NTU has taken to… to… to… hmmm. For now let’s just say they’re not taking this sitting down. My point is that everyone is doing something, but no one including myself is doing anything new under the sun.
Meanwhile there is a real crisis in education in Newark. There is a crisis more than 40 years old that no one, not Newark’s local leaders, not the state, and again not the local leaders have been able to resolve. At some point, in the course of any behavior, when the change one seeks does not present itself after a time, one has to stop looking at the exterior factors, and one has to start looking inward. That means instead of pointing the finger at The State, at Christie, at Cami, at Bush, at Obama, at Cory, at Zuckerberg, at Common Core, at Teach For America, at NCLB or at Race To The Top, we have to start really looking at ourselves, and we have to start looking at our pattern of behavior. And I assure you, it is a pattern. We have to evaluate what the issue of tenure is really about and what it really means to us; that is to say, are we willingly forfeiting progressive radicalization, meaningful results for ourselves and for the students and families we serve at the cost of institutional privilege? I mean that’s a hard question to ask ourselves because the answer could suggest that maybe we’re not as altruistic as we once imagined.
I am not a Chris Christie supporter. What I am asking you to do next is an exercise; a thought experiment. Consider if you will, Chris Christie not as a racist politician, but just a politician. Consider him as an idealist. From his vantage point, Newark is a THE All American city. His hometown. He’s in a position to return it to it’s former glory. If he can do this, he will have secured a place for himself in the annals of history as a true reformer, and as a front runner for the 2016 Presidential election. The stakes are higher than they’ve ever been for him. But something is standing in the way of his Reaganesque vision of Newark as that “shining city on a hill.” And as a politician and an idealist, it’s not niggers.
Christie is a desperate man. His integrity is weak, but his politics are willing. So in the pursuit of glory, and as not to lose ground on those pursuits, he makes decisions out of fear. So he puts on a show; he peacocks, assumes a posture of bravado and enacts pursues controlling policies out of fear. This is the variety of behavior that Mitt Romney was forced to recognize when he deferred from selecting Christie as a running mate in 2012. But Christie isn’t afraid of niggers.
After all, Christie doesn’t consider himself a nigger. I don’t know what he considers himself, really. If I had to take a guess, I would guess that how he perceives himself and what he sees in the mirror don’t align with each other nor with the position he holds and how everyone else perceives him. But I don’t think he considers himself a nigger. I think Chris Christie recognizes something of himself in [the people of] Newark, and I think that scares him. It’s why he has such a visceral reaction when the topic of Newark comes up. He doesn’t respond well to stimuli reflecting his own nature. It’s a phenomenon, really. Like two similar poles on opposing magnets repelling each other. It is my opinion, however, that among many other influencing factors, his own self loathing is what we are observing when it comes to Newark, Camden, Paterson and Jersey City. This is why it’s taking so long for him to make a decision on whether or not to run for Presidential office. He frames it as though he needs to know in his heart of hearts that he is ready. Are you kidding me? He’s an egomaniac. Of course he knows, or at least he thinks he knows he’s ready. He’s just waiting to see whether or not the pool of republican primary candidates will include anyone that reminds him of himself. So for now, he’ll just avoid it, just like he avoids Newark, and the unpredictability of who would really emerge if Chris Christie had to face himself in Newark.
By now, some of you reading may be offended at the premise that you share any characterizations with Chris Christie. I hope you are offended, and I hope you continue reading. I don’t disagree with Mr. Alston or Bob Braun’s assessment of Chris Christie being racist. Of course he is. But there’s nothing remarkable about that. He’s as racist as he is fat. He’s as racist as he his unethical, and ill-informed, and impolite. These properties of Chris Christie are facts; they part of his nature. They do not shame him. Likewise, they are unremarkable in that they are not extraordinary. Speaking introspectively, would we label Chris Christie and his policies as racist if all his other characteristics, behaviors and policies were the same save for if he were a Black or Latino governor? Would it matter? As those subject to the effects of his abuse of power, by definition, we can not exercise racism towards him, but how different are we or our position when we castigate Christie or Cami and their faults on the basis of their skin color? How different are we from either of them, when we invoke the public good to justify our own inability, failure or resistance to move the needle? Are we any better or any different than them when we propagandize any incremental gains in support of our own agenda justifying our own narratives?
When Chris Christie or Cami Anderson publicly criticizes and defames teachers; blaming them for society’s ills, and the failures of the school system, and then the very same teachers publicly protest against, denounce and criticize Chris Christie and Cami Anderson blaming them for the same thing, but then they all sign the same collective bargaining agreement, what exactly is being agreed upon? Because though the language of the contract may spell out the terms of things like tenure, and pay, the larger abstract statement suggests they are all agreeing to something else– which says a lot. To me, and you’ll excuse me, it starts to read like the close of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” At that point, the racist and the nigger are indistinguishable.
If Christie and Cami are egomaniacs. What does that make us who cry victimization? Is woe still unto us? Furthermore, what better are we qualitatively, and how much more valid is our position when we are complicit with Christie and Anderson in the failures happening in Newark, Camden, Paterson and Jersey City? When Christie accepts a flight to Dallas and a seat in the owner’s box at a Cowboys game in exchange for a no bid contract for concessions at MetLife stadium, how different is that from toning down criticisms of once decried carpet baggers in exchange for Foundation For Newark’s Future Facebook money to fund jobs for students or soon to be unemployed public school employees? You know what, I’m getting tired of asking rhetorical questions. I want to ask the question I started this post with in the first place, and then I want to answer that question again.
Why are we not good enough to educate our children? It seems initially difficult to answer that question because of how blurry the lines of distinction are between Chris Christie, Cami Anderson and the people of Newark. Perhaps the answer lies in the question itself. That the question asks why we are not good enough, posits that someone else must be. From the content of Mr. Alston’s post, we know those someones to be Chris Christie and Cami Anderson. Therefore the answer to the question has to be that the reason why we are not good enough to educate our children is because Chris Christie and Cami Anderson are better. But we know they can’t be better at educating our children because the empirical evidence refutes that, as does the cockamamie hypothesis I’m purporting suggesting that Christie, Cami, and the people of Newark are the same; if we can’t do it, neither can they! So all things considered, we all fail epically at educating our students. No need for us to feel lacking in that sense. But the reason why we’re not good enough– remember the question; “Why are we not good enough at educating our children” is because Chris Christie and Cami Anderson are better at doing what is necessary to actualize their goals than we are. Not because they are racist. Not because they perceive the parents, students, leaders, and teachers of Newark as niggers, but because they are in fact better at getting things done. Simply put.
Educating students is a coordinated effort. So is breaking the law. Between Chris Christie, David Hespe, Cami Anderson and the people of Newark, who do you think is more coordinated in their efforts and accomplishing their tasks? Chris Christie, David Hespe and Cami Anderson or the people of Newark? Yes, what is going on in Newark is a Democracy Movement. It is a poorly coordinated one. It is a democracy movement seeking to relive the glory days of a bygone civil rights era in the same zeitgeist that Christie seeks to return Newark and the nation to 1950’s Americana. It’s amazing how people could be adversaries pursuing the same things from so diametrically opposed spectrums. The only difference is that on Christie’s team, everyone is on the same page and willing to go to the penalty box to score the big win (Bridgegate, Defamation Lawsuit, Todd Christie SEC Fraud) and on our team most people are willing to go along to get along.
My students say it best: “Ya’ll playing. Them niggas for real.”
Newarkonomics
Rise, you magnificent scions of Newark,
Shine brilliantly, with defiance enough to rival stars.
Rage as you do with the tempered control that escapes those not fit enough to serve you.
Come into the fullness of yourselves, the loved children of teachers who adopt you each day,
And parents who recognize your promise.
If you could marvel as we do with awe,
Watching you become both the past and the future in the present,
Threatening to exile the ambition and avarice that seeks to limit the scope of your dimensions
With nothing but the scope of your dimensions.
You are celebrated.
The pride of real teachers; you are each youthful masters of the new gilded age
You have assumed that mantle demonstrating the range of your sage.
What are leaders who follow you, the students?
And who are you if not powerful?
See among you, the electrifying and witted;
the dauntless and rough rode; the spirited and artistic;
The bullish and proud; the historic and inclined;
The brave of Weequahic,
You red raiders, and unapologetic devils and bears.
We behold you; the real Foundation For Newark’s Future,
Forged in a crucible challenging exceptionalism with your excellence
In the manner in which real innovators and disruptors are attuned to.
Tremble the halls of power with the syncopy of your feet
Even until the walls fall down around Jericho and crumble onto Cedar Street;
And those who ignore you finally decide to meet with you and speak.
Newark Public Schools Confidential: Ed Reform Porn
Reading Rick Hess’ opinion on Education Week, it affirmed for me that the situation in Newark’s Public Schools is not political theatre. It is political porn; nasty, gratuitous and excessive. And there are a lot of people getting off on it. It’s disconcerting. Bob Braun wrote recently, asking “What’s Wrong With New Jersey”, raising concern about how unilaterally the media has ignored virtually all of the demonstrations and protests led by students and teachers; especially the one of the more recent demonstrations in which Ras Baraka, Mayor of Newark, New Jersey’s largest city participated in support of the protesters. It’s a point that resonates so remarkably from the lack of coverage, that Bob’s article has received attention from Diane Ravitch, and contributing bloggers on The Huffington Post, both wondering “Seriously. Why is no one watching what’s happening in Newark?” But I think people are watching what’s happening in Newark, and I wonder whether or not what we perceive to be inaction is really voyeurism?
The Newark Public Schools can be compared to Amsterdam’s Red Light District; an open marketplace for all variety of “deviant adult misconduct.” A scandalous marketplace replete with eager buyers (politicians), desperate talent with no options (educators), managers & madames (administrators), and what we call here in America, houses of ill-repute (CMO’s). And as I’ve demonstrated in “Newark Public Schools Confidential,” numerous favors. Now that I think about it, 2 Cedar Street is a lot like a house of ill repute. It’s downtown, almost hidden in a little alley of a street, with lots of people coming and going with no strings attached.
Well, maybe some strings. Cami pulled some strings when she was relocating to Newark in 2011 and didn’t have a place to stay. Records show that she shared the same Kinney Street address as one of Cory Booker’s former aides before she moved to Glen Ridge. He is the same aide who worked for Booker as one of his policy analysts, who was on Cami’s transition team, and who was paid handsomely with Zuckerberg’s Facebook money several time over, in several different roles at several different organizations, and who recently returned to Newark as what else, but a consultant. To be clear, there’s nothing salacious about their relationship, other than all the money Cami’s been greasing him up with. OH!
De’Shawn Wright
The whole arrangement stinks of the tumescent afterfunk of conflicts of interests meeting and chaffing one another, again, and again, and again, and… Oh! I do believe I am giving myself the vapours. Oh, my! Mr. Wright and Anderson have a working relationship spanning 17 years. It’s unclear whether or not she knew exactly who he was back in 1998, when she was Executive Director of Teach For America, and he was a Teach For America teacher, but one can not deny how closely and how often they’ve worked among one another over the course of 17 years. He taught under the TFA banner for four years, the last of which, in 2002 was when Wright and Anderson both worked for Cory Booker; she as Booker’s strategy director, and he as Booker’s policy analyst. What a convenient relationship.
After leaving Booker’s administration briefly in 2003 to work in for NYC’s Department of Education, Wright returned in 2006 as Chief Policy Advisor until 2008. In 2008, Wright would leave Booker’s employ to found The Newark Charter School Fund. In his role as founding partner, Mr. Wright was instrumental in managing $20 million dollars in private donations from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Walton Family Foundation, The Fisher Fund, The Robertson Foundation and Howell & Simon LLP, and essentially funneling the money to ed reform groups. He would, according to himself, “manage relationships with national partners including New Leaders For New Schools, The New Teacher Project, and Teach For America.” Coincidentally, by manage, he means to say that he paid New Leaders for New Schools $468,866. The records for the founding year make no mention of The New Teacher Project nor Teach For America, but they do show that even now newly appointed Deputy Superintendent Peter Turnamian’s now defunct Greater Newark Charter school got some money, $35,600 to use on– wait for it. Consultants. Sploosh. Ewww. But Mr. Wright would only stay with The Newark Charter School Fund until embarking on his own consultancy in 2009, where again as a Strategic Management Consultant, according to himself, he “developed a portfolio of investment options to guide $200 million in philanthropic contributions from major donors including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Pershing Square Foundation CEO William Ackman.” Really, it seems, Mr. Wright was just a very impressive double dipper. In 2009 through 2010, he continued to collect his fee as a consultant from Mayor Booker’s office while, while also moonlighting as the paid Vice President and Trustee of The Foundation For Newarks Future. One can grasp, by the frequency with which we see Mr. Wright’s name among the correspondents in the Facebook emails released by former Mayor Cory Booker’s office, just how significant a power broker and how important a cog in the Newark ed reform machine Mr. Wright was. And here is where this sordid fiscal coitus plateaus. Though not a part of Cami’s transitional team per se, Mr. Wright extended himself AND HIS HOME to Cami during her transition to Newark. To reiterate, there are public records for both Mr. Wright and Cami Anderson reflecting the same Kinney Street address. Coincidence? No. Ed Reform Porn.
I just read that as I wrote it, and I realize to avoid libel, I should clarify what I mean by ed reform porn as not to suggest an actual sexual relationship between Mr. Wright and Cami Anderson. I DON’T KNOW THE NATURE OF THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONS! NOR DO I DECLARE TO KNOW! Please excuse the shouting, but I need to make sure it is clear that I am not trying to mischaracterize them as lovers. They are corrupt. That’s all.
I am emphasizing however, their longstanding working relationship of 17 years, Mr. Wright’s direct involvement in preparing a climate in Newark for Cami Anderson, the fact that they shared a residential address, and conclusively, Mr. Wright’s most recent consulting contract with The Newark Public Schools between September 2014 and February(?) 2015. You read that properly, folks. After playing the act of Poppa the rolling stone, Mr. Wright returned to Newark, working in Cami’s Superintendent Suite. It is unclear how much he was paid, and what funds were used to pay him. Efforts to secure district financial documentation did not produce results, which leaves me to wonder whether or not Foundation For Newark’s Future paid him, or if Cami wrote him a personal check. They are thick as thieves after all.
Mr. Wright’s neighborhood. The street address and residence shared by De’Shawn Wright and Cami Anderson before Cami moved to Glen Ridge.
I have censored the street number and their phone numbers to protect their privacy. Mr. Wright still owns the property, though it is not clear whether or not he is still residing there. Public records also showed that Mr. Wright had at one time, and it is unclear whether he still does, a residence at 1180 Raymond Boulevard, across the street from The Newark Public Schools Central Office, and down the street from The Foundation For Newarks Future.
Earlier this year, Senator Ronald Rice took Cami to task. Specifically, he asked her about her associations to Tim Carden, TEAM, KIPP, Pink Hula Hoop and the like. She declined to answer. And now we can really begin to understand why. If the scope of the relationship and inside trading she’s been doing with De’Shawn Wright is any indication, then whatever Cami’s got going on with Tim Carden must be like something out of the unrated version of the film Caligula.
Click the link below to see The Founation For Newarks Future’s 2010 taxes; De’Shawn Wright’s position is on the page 7 of the actual tax document (page 8 of the PDF).
27-3453412_990_2010121.pdf
Click on the link below to compare the dates of his employment with the tax document above.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/de-shawn-wright/74/b62/43b
Newark Public School Confidential: Zuckerberg’s Millions
Let’s start with a question. How do you lose $100 million dollars? You hire your friends. Then your friends hire their friends, and so on and so on. It’s like a reverse pyramid scheme– you know; a drain. The Newark Public Schools have been spending more money per student than any other district in New Jersey on education. Approximately $22,000. This money is said to “follow the student,” but the truth is the spending follows the student. Or at least that’s what’s supposed to happen. But for all the money spent, on all these students over all this time, the district doesn’t really have anything to show for it except pockets that look like rabbit ears, year after year. Strangely, it was at the height of corruption when the district had a surplus of cash– and that was when the district was being MISMANAGED! But now, in the able hands of the state and it’s appointed visionary superintendent, cash is as scarce as the consultants are plentiful on the state controlled district’s vendor roster.
It’s no secret that NPS uses consultants. Many large organizations do. There comes a point in an organization where it’s views become myopic and it requires an outside perspective or two. Like I said, no big secret. The big secret is how many consultants NPS is using, what they are consulting on, how much they are getting paid, and where– yes, where they are consulting from. For example, former State Department of Education Commissioner Chris Cerf was a consultant for The Newark Public Schools. It was his firm at the time, Global Education Advisors who “discovered” his old NYC Department of Education employee, Cami Anderson and recruited and recommended her for her present position as State Appointed Superintendent with The Newark Public Schools. Say– how much was he and his firm paid for that awesome job? $500,000. But you can be assured that this money pre-dated Cami Anderson and did not come from the Facebook money. All of that was Broad Foundation money, solicited by the Facebook money which would be used as a sort of seed money to prime the education reform bubble that was to come.
The Zuckerberg gift, as the $100 million had come to be known, was used to subsidize The Foundation for Newark’s Future, a philanthropy operated conveniently across the street from The Newark Public Schools downtown Newark headquarters, and fund it’s trust. This trust was managed by a venerable (if you could call them that) board of trustees including Paul Bernstein, chair of The Pershing Foundation; Jennifer Holleran, former director of New Leader for New Schools; Enrico Gaglioti, head of Equity Sales in North America for Goldman Sachs, and Cory Booker, yeah the mayor turned senator among others. So, when we look at it again, Zuckerberg’s gift for public education was handed over to a venture capitalist, an ed reform lobbyist turned entrepreneur, a wall street banker, and a politician. That’s not the setup for a dirty joke. That’s the truth. Among the board of trustees first order of business, was to start making it rain on everyone but the students of Newark in the first 100 days. The Foundation For Newark’s Future hired Tusk Strategies, a PR firm at the rate of $1.5 million dollars to develop The Partnership for Education in Newark, or PENewark. It’s purpose? To sell the citizens of Newark on prepackaged edu-ideology. That’s not a real word. I just made it up. It conveys what I mean to say perfectly. I digress. Following PENewark and a brief stint consulting for Newark Public Schools at the helm of Global Education Advisors, Chris Cerf assumed the position as State Commissioner of Education while his [former] business partner Rajeev Bajaj took over and collected another $1.5 million dollars in consulting fees managing the transition between interim superintendent Deborah Terrell and Cami Anderson. Where are we so far in the spending? Are you keeping track? At this point we are $3.5 million dollars into $100 million dollars. How are we going to spend it all at this rate?
No need to worry eager readers, $50 million was earmarked for teacher merit pay. So now, we’re at $53.5 million dollars, with just $46.5 million dollars left to waste– pardon me spend. Well, here’s where it gets interesting. Here’s where the really tough questions come up. Earlier, I made reference to the education reform bubble. In any boom, there will be carpetbaggers, novices looking to prospect and find gold in them ‘thar hills, wheat in those amber waves of grain in the western plains, or just your good old fashioned greedy ‘sum bitches. When Newark turned into boomtown, consultants came running. They’re still coming. How many do you think struck gold? In other words, how many consultants has FNF paid on behalf on Cami Anderson’s Newark Public Schools? What were they paid? WHERE are all of these consultants?
When it was Cerf’s Global Education Advisors, we know that in total, Global Education Advisors $2 million dollars. We know he worked at Newark Public Schools or in proximity and used his Montclair address as his company address. But what about the other consultants?
For 2011 alone, Kornferry, an executive search firm, presumably used to vet and recruit candidates for the superintendent position and other superintendent cabinet positions is based in Washington D.C. and was paid $162,823; Tracy Breslin and Alison Avera of Brooklyn, NY, both of whom live and work together were paid $104,140 and $132,848 respectively; Patsy Glazer of Manhattan’s upper west side was paid $161,918; and Cory Booker’s own aide, Bari Mattes, also of Manhattan was paid $120,000, presumably as interim president of FNF until Greg Taylor was formally appointed. The roster continues:
Clohesy Consulting of Cedar Falls, Iowa – $11,590
Columbia University Law School Center for Public Research and Leadership in New York, NY – $42,500
CCT Group of Scarsdale, NY – $300,000
Civitas Strategies LLC of Melrose, Massachusetts – $36,343
Education Pioneers of Oakland, California – $86,000
Chris Cerf’s Global Education Advisors of New York, NY – $1,662,600 (as previously mentioned above)
New Leaders For New Schools based in New York, NY – $200,000
New York University in New York, NY – $40,000
Newark Public Schools Foundation in Newark, NJ – $250,000 ( I think this has to be one of my favorites just because of what it was named and what is was paid to do. It’s another foundation, but named specifically for The Newark Public Schools. It’s sole purpose is to collect money from donors. Again, I’m not making this up. Who knew it took a quarter of a million dollars to panhandle? The two homeless guys in front of the Cedar Street entrance do it for free. Terrible I know, but I say it for perspective.)
Redwood Circle Consulting from San Rafael, California – $27,160
A quick aside, how many consultants does it take to screw a district? Ok, back to the roster.
SKDKnickerbocker from Washington, D.C. – $66,234
Solomon & Associates from Newark, NJ – $87,800
TCC Group of New York, NY – $27,880
Cami Anderson’s former employer, Teach For America in New York, NY – $500,000
The Bridgespan Group in Boston, Massachusetts – $600,000
The Opportunities Project out of Brooklyn, NY – $100,313
Youth Build Newark based out of Newark, NJ – $376,250
The sum total of dollars given to these consulting groups in 2011 is $4,414,670.00.
What follows next, is a roster of consulting individuals for the same year, all except three of who received “An NPS Operational Excellence Grant.”
ALISON AVERA (as listed earlier)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$132,848
ANGEL JUARBE (was appointed as Executive Assistant/Affirmative Action Officer)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$27,500
BRAD HAGERTY (now working as Assistant Superintendent in charge of High Schools)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$22,400
CHRISTIE CUNNINGHAM (now Chief of Staff at Amplify Education, working with Chris Cerf)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$11,933
CRAIG CHIN (Broad Resident in 2011)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$34,723
DANNETE MILLER (appointed as principal between 2011 and 2013)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$8,500
JARRAD TOUSSANT
$25,000
KEDDA MAY WILLIAMS
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$73,500
KIRSTEN ANDERSON
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$6,570
LINDSAY KRUSE (Broad Resident in 2011)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$12,747
MIGUEL MARTINEZ
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$10,332
MINDY PROPPER (recurring expensive consultant, left in 2013 to join Paymon Rouhanifard’s team in Camden, and returned to Newark in 2015)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$103,396
MONICA S ROSEN
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$49,373
NAOMI P STREET
$12,000
ROSEANN HEYL (Special Assistant)
(TEACHER INNOVATION FUND GRANT)
$4,778
RUBEN E ROBERTS (Appointed as Director of Family and Community Engagement)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$49,000
SARA COBB
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$56,200
THOMAS O’DEA
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT )
$99,000
TRACY BRESLIN (as listed earlier)
(NPS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE GRANT)
$104,140
The sum total paid to individual consultants as shown above in 2011 was $843,940.00.
I didn’t include all consultants and consulting groups. However, altogether, in 2011, FNF used the money from Zuckerberg to pay 36 consultants $5,258,610.00.
Whose job exactly was it to fix Newark’s failing schools? The politicians? The hired administration or the consultants? I’ve only written about 36 in this post. Those which I’ve written about do not account for the consultants directly hired by Cami’s administration. And while it may seem scandalous that so many consultants be paid so much to affect little to nothing, we ought to salute these consultants for truly exploiting a market opportunity. They recognized an opportunity and they pursued it. They are capitalists and they simply demonstrated their nature. If criticism should fall at anyone’s feet, it should fall at the feet of the politicians first, the superintendent next, and then finally at the feet of the teachers who let the opportunity be taken from us. On the eighth floor at Cedar Street there is a wall celebrating distinguished teachers who’ve been recognized as “Teacher of The Year.” Their prize was to have their picture taken with Cami Anderson and Vanessa Rodriguez. What an insult. What hubris! The suggestion, that somehow, the work these teachers do, and the commitment to their vocation is validated by their proximity to common charlatans in marginally bad photography. Individual consultants for whom there was and still is no tool for evaluation, however, each received NPS Operational Grants, and in some cases, promotions, presumably, as financial reward for their “outstanding work” moving the district forward. But meanwhile, teachers struggle to get the stipends they’ve been promised for extended learning time, afterschool and extracurricular activities. Teachers have to endure politically biased evaluations to secure an increment that hasn’t come in several years. And the students, they don’t get the materials, the supports, the educational expertise from real teaching professionals that they need. They get Cami’s poor lip service, Christie’s contempt, and Cory Booker’s indifference. I asked the question before, I’m asking it again. How many consultants does it take to screw a public school district?
To see a full list of consultants and other NPS spending through FNF, download FNFs 2011, 2012, and 2013 taxes from right here.
Foundation For Newarks Future 2011 Taxes Foundation For Newark’s Future 2012 Taxes Foundation For Newark’s Future 2013 Taxes
Here’s the 96 pages of emails between Cory Booker, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Cerf, Cami Anderson, Sheryl Samberg, Bill Gates, and a variety of other 1%’ers directly acknowledging that the money was not meant for the students.
Facebook emails
The ONE Newark Algorithm: How it works
The One Newark algorithm works by matching a student to a school of their choice AND matching a school to a student of their choice. The algorithm is based on a variation of the Gayle-Shapley model originally developed in 1962, but reformulated for The National Resident Matching Program by Dr. Alvin Roth in 1984 and again in 1998. Dr. Roth, who also happens to be a board director with the non-profit, The Institute for Innovation in Public School Choice and Neil Dorosin, it’s executive director and former NYC Department of Education colleague of Cami Anderson “supported” the district by subsidizing the use of the algorithm starting in 2013.
For the algorithm to work, both students and schools must create what is known as a rank order list1, or ROL. The student must rank the schools they would be willing to attend in order of most desirable to least desirable. The schools, in similar fashion, must also rank the students they wish to enroll in order of most desirable to least desirable. The algorithm seeks a “stable marriage2,” or a stable pairing of student to school and school to student; in other words, a match. A pairing of student and school is considered stable when the student and the school are satisfied with each other, and when a student who has not been paired to a school and a school that has not been paired with a student prefer each other. The precursor to this algorithm has been used as made clear earlier, by The National Resident Matching Program, the same clearinghouse responsible for matching medical residency candidates to hospitals, hospital programs and fellowships around the country.
As with The National Resident Matching Program, The One Newark algorithm continues to match students to schools and vice versa over a variety of “rounds” or iterations. The shorter the ROLs, the shorter the iterations will take. The longer the ROLs, the longer the iterations will take. Using The National Resident Matching Program for reference, residency candidates are the equivalent of Newark Public School students, and the hospitals are the equivalent of both conventional and charter public schools. Cami Anderson’s Newark Public Schools, or “The Board” is the equivalent of The National Resident Matching Program which acts as a clearinghouse. The National Resident Matching Programs collects residency candidates applications and rankings on one side and the profiles and ranking from the hospitals and programs on the other. Similarly, NPS collects applications and rankings from students on one side, and presumably profiles and rankings from schools on the other. Although there are one-sided models which use one ROL that may work3, the One Newark algorithm must have two ROLs to work. It cannot produce a match without two ROLs. Once both ROLs have been collected, a rank order list matrix is generated, and the algorithm is run.
The following are two ways of expressing the algorithm. The first is in syntax:
(represented here is the elegant form the original “stable marriage” Gayle-Shapley algorithm)
function stableMatching {
Initialize all m ∈ M and w ∈ W to free while ∃ free man m who still has a woman w to propose to {
w = m’s highest ranked woman to whom he has not yet proposed
if w is free
(m, w) become engaged
else some pair (m’, w) already exists
if w prefers m to m’
(m, w) become engaged
m’ becomes free
else (m’, w) remain engaged
}
}
Source: Wikipedia
The second is as a matrix:
(the visual representation here demonstrates the original Gayle-Shapley algorithm and the modified One Newark Algorithm)
Source: College Admissions and The Stabilitiy of Marriage
The closest model to the One Newark algorithm is the New York Department of Education School Matching Algorithm, also developed by Dr. Roth et. al. NYC Department of Education’s algorithm was an almost direct adaption of The National Resident Matching Program’s algorithm. The paper evaluating that algorithm is called “The New York City High School Match” written by Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Parak A. Pathak, and Dr. Roth; all of whom are board members alongside Neil Dorosin in the Institute for Innovation in Public School Choice, or IIPSC. According to Abdulkadiroglu, the elegant form of the algorithm needed to be modified to satisfy NYC Department of Education’s requirements for student enrollment (Abdulkirodoglu et. al.) Given the distinct requirements of The Newark Public Schools, it is reasonable to assume that the One Newark algorithm is either another direct second-generation derivation of The National Resident Matching Program’s algorithm which is based on the Gayle-Shapley model, or an extended third-generation derivation of the NYC Department of Education’s School Match algorithm, which is again, derived of the Gayle-Shapley model.
Unlike NYC, Newark is a much smaller district, with far fewer students and schools. The use of such a complex method for placing students is an attempt to resolve the issue of congestion in the New York City public schools enrollment process. With over one million students, over thirty districts, and one thousand seven hundred schools, NYC Department of Education was facing an issue where, plainly put, for as many students as were receiving multiple offers for admission, there were many more not receiving offers at all . Further complicating the matter was the fact that NYC school principals were gaming the system and circumventing the central office to ensure their schools enrolled the best and brightest (Abdulkirodoglu et. al.). That was the nature for the need of a more balanced and transparent method of enrollment.
The rationale in Newark; at least the rationale provided by Cami Anderson suggested something differently. The Newark District Superintendent didn’t assert that the enrollment process was congested, as was the issue in NYC. She posited that the issue in Newark was a tale of two cities– of a Newark where children in wards with better schools had better access to better education, and another Newark where children in wards with troubled schools lacked access to an excellent education. She admitted that charter schools disproportionately, but consistently attract, enroll and retain Newark’s better and best performing students, indirectly burdening conventional public schools with the more challenging, least performing students and fewer resources. Her solution was to employ the matching process from NYC Department of Education from which she came. Her logic was simple. By using a school match process, she could equally distribute top performing students across both conventional public schools and charters, and theoretically, equally distribute the least performing students across conventional public and charter schools as well. But you will recall that the nature for employing the algorithm in NYC was to resolve the issue of congestion. The issue in Newark wasn’t congestion. It was charter monopolization. If Joel has a stuffy nose in NYC, he may go to Duane Reade’s and take Sudafed. But Joel’s Sudafed won’t alleviate Cami’s rash in Newark.
Employing the algorithm is not nefarious. By virtue, the algorithm has successfully been placing residents in medical programs for over thirty years. The algorithm has been recognized for it’s innovation and it’s developers have won The Nobel Prize for Economics. It is held in such regard that universities around the country including Harvard, Columbia, Duke and MIT study it. Dr. Roth, Mr. Abdulkirodoglu, and Mr. Pathak have all published numerous papers on the algorithm and it’s applications in a variety of industries including education. These men work in academia, and in the interest of academia, they’ve made no attempts to make their work, nor the algorithm hidden. Even the NYC Department of Education in a recent NYT article shared insights into how school matching and the algorithm works; Robert Sanft, the CEO of the Office of Student Enrollment participated an a candid Q&A detailing the process, how it works, the progress they’ve made, as well as the algorithms flaws and the issues they still face.
How the algorithm works is pretty straightforward. The amount of information available about the algorithm, it’s derivations, usages, and particularly it’s usage in education is overwhelming.
So why has Cami Anderson been so quiet about it? Why has she, and her Office of Innovation & Strategy been so secretive about who funded it, and how it works? And why has she misrepresented her rationale behind using the school matching process over the conventional open district approach?
Neil Dorosin, executive director of IIPSC, the firm who “supported Newark Public Schools in the design and implementation of a new centralized school choice system”4 worked as CEO in the NYC Department of Education’s Office of Student Enrollment at the same time Cami Anderson was Superintendent of NYC Department of Education’s District 75. It was Mr. Dorosin who in 2003 employed Dr. Roth with whom he now works at IIPSC to modify and design the NYC Department of Education’s school match algorithm. The algorithm as it was developed for NYC Department of Education only matches applying students with conventional public schools to resolve the issue of congestion. It’s design and use in The Newark Public Schools matches applying students with both conventional public schools and charters to more equally distribute samples of high and low performing students across the district’s portfolio of conventional public and charter schools.
In trying to apply a solution designed for one issue in NYC to a completely different issue in Newark, Cami did not resolve how to successfully justify giving schools choice over which students they admit and which students they reject. She knew that she could not justify it to the residents of Newark, to NJ politicians, or even to the media. So instead of being honest, she decided to spin it. She positioned it as “true school choice.” The reality is that it is a variety of school choice that benefits the schools, particularly charter schools more than it benefits the students. She concealed the fact that schools would be ranking students in order of most preferred to least preferred by emphasizing to the public that students and their families could now choose and rank schools of their choice in order of most desirable to least desirable. She and her staff further misrepresented One Newark’s effectiveness and the algorithm’s capability by emphatically suggesting that One Newark Enrolls participants would be matched to a school of their choice; leading many to believe placement at their top choice was guaranteed. Cami’s real goal was not to achieve school choice for students and parents in Newark because as a Title I district, many of the students, parents and families in Newark already qualify for school choice options under the provisions of The Bush Administration’s NCLB education law. Having explored why The Newark Public Schools superintendent kept the details of an otherwise highly publicized and successful algorithm a secret even amid the failure of her administration to successfully use it; and given the alternatives for school choice at her disposal, one could begin to wonder whether or not her and her administration’s failure inform the public of public knowledge is simply epic incompetence or semblance of hidden agendas.
1. About Rank Order Lists. The National Resident Matching Program. http://www.nrmp.org/match-process/about-rol/
2. College Admissions and The Stability of Marriage; D. Gale; L. S. Shapley; 1962
3. The New York City High School Match; Abdulkadiroglu; Pathak; Roth
The Teacher's Desk 