What would happen if, on the first day of a congressional hearing, the person who was to testify did not show up? What if, in fact, this person informed the investigators that he/she would not show up, period? Most of us would believe that some hidden agenda or damaging information would be presented if this person had appeared, right?

On June 22, 2004 the New York City Council held a hearing on the retention of 3rd graders, and no one - not one person - from the Department of Education showed up to discuss their own policy and/or it's implementation, which by all accounts was a mess.

Perhaps it's time to start the "Things to consider when voting for mayor" list:

MIKE AIDES SNUB CITY ED. PANEL
Carl Campanile, NY POST, June 23, 2004

June 23, 2004 -- Mayor Bloomberg's office boycotted a City Council Education Committee hearing yesterday - and then flunked the council for passing a symbolic resolution opposing his stricter promotional policy for third-graders.
Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott derided the resolution: "It's a reinforcement of the status quo."

He defended the snub by saying city education officials had already testified about the promotion policy and there was no need to attend a hearing with a slanted agenda.

Schools Chancellor Joel Klein condemned the resolution as well.

But a livid committee Chairwoman Eva Moskowitz (D-Manhattan) blasted City Hall for refusing to testify - and said it won't happen again because she'll slap educrats with subpoenas to show up.

"The mayor has staked his mayoralty on ending social promotion. This was a hearing on the implementation of the policy," said Moskowitz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Dem dissenter on school plan

BY KATHLEEN LUCADAMO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, June 23, 2004

A maverick Democrat bucked City Council Speaker Gifford Miller yesterday and gave a thumbs-down to a resolution opposing Mayor Bloomberg's third-grade promotion policy.
"I cannot support the status quo," said Councilman David Yassky of Park Slope at a hearing on the policy.

Council members scrambled to sway Yassky to support the symbolic resolution, which was passed by the Education Committee in a 7-to-1 vote.

Yassky was the only opposition.

"I don't think any of us support social promotion," said Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing), referring to the policy of promoting kids because of their age and not their academics. "We are not going to fix things by potentially breaking things even more."

The mayor's plan calls for holding back as many as 11,000 third-graders who flunked city tests. Teachers said that students who score Level 1 - considered failing - don't have the basic skills necessary to survive in the fourth grade, Yassky said.

Miller, a possible contender for mayor, has blasted Bloomberg for basing third-grade promotion on reading and math exams, and a lengthy appeals policy.

"This is backward, and it doesn't address fundamental problems," said Miller.

The full Council is expected to pass the resolution next month - a political punch that can't overturn City Hall's plan to end social promotion.

A disgusted Education Department boycotted the hearing.

"Social promotion has condemned generations of New York City students to educational failure. How sad that the Council, even after we have explained the problem and the policy to them on at least five occasions, has done nothing constructive to address the issue," said an aide to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

Meanwhile, Robert Tobias, the former head of testing for the Education Department, signed a letter protesting the mayor's policy.

"Tests are not lasers. They are not designed for making high-stakes decisions about individual students," said Tobias. "If you are going to make high-stakes decisions about students, you should use appropriate data and multiple criteria."