|
|||||
|
For the Record Who invited that guy? The well-staffed press team at the Department of Education failed to anticipate a zinger that drew attention away from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein's otherwise well-scripted media event Jan. 3 at a Queens school announcing cash bonuses for schools that scored well on the city's recent progress reports. Instead of highlighting the grateful educators and smiling children, newspaper and TV coverage focused on the remarks of Assemblyman Mark Weprin, who criticized the city's emphasis on standardized test scores as the primary way of evaluating schools. "This wasn't a pre-planned happening," the Assemblyman said in a phone interview the day after the event. "I didn't even realize I was going to be asked to speak." But when he stepped to the mike, he stayed for about five minutes and said a mouthful. "Our schools have turned - I know the Chancellor is standing here, but - to Stanley Kaplan courses in a lot of ways," Mr. Weprin said, referring to the large test-preparation company. The $3.4 million worth of school awards was based primarily on students' improvement on state tests. "What the Chancellor said hit a nerve with me," said the father of two public-school children. "It would have felt hypocritical because I've been very critical of this locally. Any parent of a third- through eighth-grader knows what I'm talking about." Apparently, they did, as parents and Teachers assembled for the event at P.S. 46 burst into applause after Mr. Weprin lobbed his timely grenade. He said he wasn't overly concerned that he would be removed from the Gracie Mansion Christmas card list. "I don't like to be critical of the Mayor, because I think he's doing a great job for the most part," the Assemblyman said. But he added that the stress placed upon young children to excel and improve every year on the high-stakes tests was a detriment to learning. "More than anything," he said, "these tests have become a boon for pediatric psychologists." *** Jim Riches, one of the Fire Department family members campaigning against Rudy Giuliani's run for President, found reason to be cheerful in the former Mayor's sixth-place finish in the Iowa Republican Caucuses Jan. 3. Mr. Giuliani, who decided early on to essentially concede the state, lagged behind even Texas U.S. Rep. and party gadfly Ron Paul in a contest won by ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. "It showed what he's got," Mr. Riches contended of Mr. Giuliani's performance. "Everybody sees him for what he is." Mr. Riches, whose son Jimmy died on 9/11, is part of a group of parents whose firefighter children were victims which claims that Mr. Giuliani's inability to give the Fire Department working radios prior to that day and respirators for the recovery work proves he is unfit to be President. He believed even before Mr. Giuliani indicated he would not heavily campaign in New Hampshire that he would fare poorly there Jan. 8 after voters heard his group's message several months ago. "People were flabbergasted," Mr. Riches said. If the group goes to one state this month, it will be Florida, where Mr. Giuliani has pegged his hopes of regaining momentum in the Jan. 29 primary before the make-or-break Super Tuesday primaries the following week. "We feel there are many, many retired firemen down there and transplanted New Yorkers," he said. "His national numbers are dropping. Eventually, he's going to pull out of the whole thing." *** City Labor Relations Commissioner Jim Hanley took exception to the claim in this column last week by Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch that the Bloomberg administration was using extra days to argue its wage arbitration case in order to overcome the PBA's strong presentation. Mr. Hanley, who couldn't be reached for comment for last week's item, pointed out that the hearing dates this week in which the city will present additional arguments had been reserved before the contract arbitration began, to be used if needed.
"There's absolutely no accuracy or validity to what appears to be PBA spin," he said Jan. 3. By the end of the hearings, "We will have had the same number of days to present our case that they have." | |||||