ELIOT SPITZ FIRE
By FREDRIC U. DICKER, NY POST

LINK

January 31, 2007 -- ALBANY - Gov. Spitzer viciously berated a state lawmaker, saying, "I am a f - - - ing steamroller" who will crush the assemblyman and anyone else who stands in his way, The Post has learned.
Sources told The Post yesterday that an enraged Spitzer bitterly denounced Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco last week after the Schenectady-based Republican called to complain that he had been cut out of negotiations on a just-announced proposed new state ethics law.

"Listen, I'm a f - - - ing steamroller, and I'll roll over you and anybody else," Democrat Spitzer angrily yelled at Tedisco - who was driving in his car and speaking on a cellphone, sources familiar with the conversation said.

Spitzer then boasted about his political strength, saying, "I've done more in three weeks than any governor has done in the history of the state," the sources said.

Tedisco later said, "He (Spitzer) has a different side to him than a lot of people realize.

"I think at some point he is going to lose it," Tedisco added.

The sources said Tedisco almost responded with angry words of his own - then decided that caution in dealing with the popular governor was the better part of valor.

Spitzer spokesman Darren Dopp didn't deny that a blowup had occurred, saying only that he would have "no comment" on what he called a "private discussion" between the governor and Tedisco.

But Dopp did insist that the description of the events provided by the sources had been "embellished."

It's not the first time Spitzer has been accused of going too far.

Allegations that he engaged in threatening and heavy-handed verbal conduct surfaced during his second term as attorney general, with most of the attention focused on the claim that he sought to intimidate John Whitehead, then chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

Whitehead, in a Wall Street Journal article published in 2005, said Spitzer ripped him in an angry telephone call after he criticized the then-attorney general's investigation of American International Group CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg.

Whitehead, who said he took notes during the conversation, said Spitzer had said, "Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us, and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price."

An aide to Spitzer insisted at the time that no threats were made against Whitehead, although Spitzer himself conceded, "I disagree with people passionately."

A producer for the Sean Hannity radio talk show also contended that Spitzer had threatened the show in 2000 after he had hung up in anger during a guest appearance.

fredric.dicker@nypost.com

Private School Students Could Get Tax Break
LINK

Kyle Clark (Greece, N.Y.) -- Governor Spitzer wants a tax break for New York's half-million private and parochial school students.

While some argue the plan is necessary help for cash-crunched parents, others think it could be a costly drain on public education.

Petrina Hayes cherishes the family atmosphere at Catherine McAuley Catholic School in Greece. All of her kids attend the parochial school.

"Three of them, one right after the other. It gets expensive," she said.

She pays taxes in the city, then tuition on top of that.

"We're trying. It's getting difficult," she said.

This past week, the governor delivered some good news.

"We should support parents who choose to send their children to private and parochial schools," he said.

That support would be a $1,000 tax credit, which private schools hope can help lagging enrollment.

Patricia Jones, assistant superintent for the Diocese of Rochester, said, "We have many, many people come talk to us and come to visit our schools who would like to come, but just cannot afford it. That's the bottom line."

Public school proponents say any tax money that ends up in the pockets of private school parents should have been used in the public schools.

Monroe County School Boards Association President Jody Siegle said, "There is a limited pot and until the government fulfills its responsibility to fund the public schools, they really shouldn't be looking for other ways to spend money."

Adam Urbanski, who heads the Rochester Teachers Association, agrees.

"You cannot simultaneously claim that you want to improve public schools and at the same time take money from them and give it to private schools," he said.

But Petrina Hayes wants the governor to go even further - from tax credits to vouchers - essentially allowing her to take her daughters' share of school aid and give it to her private school.

"That would be excellent. I think a lot of people would move to private and Catholic schools if that were the case," she said.

Which is perhaps exactly what those in public education are worried about.

Like all of Governor Spitzer's budget proposals, the private school tax break must be approved by the state legislature.

The powerful lobbying arm of the state's teachers union has said it will strongly oppose passage.

First Spitzer Budget Includes Property Tax Cut
Last Update: Jan 31, 2007 7:38 AM
LINK

(Albany, N.Y.) AP -- A highlight of Governor Spitzer's budget plan is a $6 billion property tax cut aimed at the middle class. It would be phased in over three years by expanding the state's STAR school tax subsidy program.

Spitzer says an average middle class taxpayer would receive a typical savings of $558 in Onondaga County, $421 in Erie County, and $497 in Albany County.

The tax breaks would decrease for upstate households making $60,000 a year or above and for downstate households making more than $80,000.

New Yorkers pay the highest combined taxes in the nation. Spitzer said that in the past five years, property taxes have increased 32 percent, three and a half times faster than wages have increased.

Spitzer would also relieve local governments and schools of state mandates that have driven up local costs of operation and construction, forcing higher local taxes.

. . . AND SPITZER'S SCHOOLS DILEMMA

LINK

31, 2007 -- Gov. Spitzer's plan for New York's schools holds much promise - but it won't get to Square One unless the governor can neutralize the Legislature's leaders: Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and, in particular, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
That's because, in New York, governors don't directly control education policy.

The state Board of Regents does - and the regents are appointed by the Legislature under the same constitutional strictures that gives Silver nominal control over the appointment of a new state comptroller.

Now, there is much to be admired in the Spitzer plan - though not, unhappily, fiscal restraint: The governor hopes to shower schools with as much as $7 billion in added spending within four years. And he wants City Hall to kick in an extra $2.2 billion for its schools.

But Spitzer is also demanding progress. He's got a long list of requirements - using the new funds to pay only for things like lengthening school days, for example, and insisting on higher test scores, graduation rates and college-acceptance levels.

He proposes stiff penalties for failure, too, like closing schools, booting officials (even entire school boards) and limiting tenure. And also more ways for kids to escape bad schools - by boosting the number of privately run, publicly funded charter schools.

Good steps.

But let's be honest: The amount of money Spitzer plans to spend is overly ambitious.

In the city, funding would rise from more than $15 billion a year (about $14,000 per student) to nearly $21 billion (about $19,000) - almost as much as what fancy private schools, with their overflowing resources, charge.

"The debate will no longer be about money, but about performance," Spitzer says. Well, maybe. Trouble is, the school cartel can be counted on to take the money he's offering - and run.

If the governor insists on a cash-bath-he'll offer budget details today - then the onus will be on him to get schools to deliver. Or to close them.

But again, his plan stands little chance unless he can get the Assembly and Senate to go along. The plan relies on the Legislature to pass new laws, and on the Regents - who are appointed by, to repeat, the Legislature - to OK new policies.

Yet lawmakers, pawns of the school unions, are not predisposed to such a plan. Which is why Spitzer must evict their leaders, Silver and Bruno. Or otherwise make it clear that he's now the boss in Albany.

OK, Spitzer's alleged rant at Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco, as The Post's Fred Dicker reports today, may have been over the top. But surely he must win his fight with Silver over who'll be the next state comptroller.

If he does, it won't be just schools that could change - but everything.

Just as he promised.

SPITZER IS ONE TOUGH CLASS ACT
January 30, 2007 --

ALBANY - Gov. Spitzer yesterday unveiled an aggressive education agenda that would close hundreds of failing schools and push for tougher tenure requirements for teachers.

"We are poised to begin implementing what may be the greatest reform agenda directly tied to the largest infusion of resources in our state's history," Spitzer said.

"We can settle for more of the same, but at a higher price, or we can set out to change the course of our history."

Spitzer borrowed a page from the Bloomberg administration when it comes to tenure, saying that it should be awarded based on real data about how a teacher's students perform.

"We must ensure that tenure comes to be recognized as something we as a society honor and respect, and that means it should be granted the way other professional decisions are made," he said in a speech at state Education Department headquarters.

The governor also wants to make it easier for districts to fire underachieving superintendents and principals, subjecting them to annual report cards.

Spitzer further warned there will be less tolerance for failing schools that don't improve.

"We should be ready to close more schools that fail - perhaps as many as 5 percent of all the schools in the state if we have to - through a tougher and more comprehensive program for schools under registration review," he said.

There are 4,448 schools statewide, and closing 5 percent would mean more than 200 schools.

The key word throughout Spitzer's education speech was accountability - for the schools, administrators, and teachers.

"If you don't perform, there will be consequences," he told reporters after the speech. "That will permeate everything we do."

Spitzer said his budget proposal tomorrow would give schools record amounts of aid in exchange for agreeing to unprecedented accountability measures.

He is expected to call for $9 billion more in funding for schools over four years, including $3.2 billion from the state for city schools, and another $2.2 billion that he expects the city to kick in.

"We need performance accountability, because unless we have meaningful consequences for good and bad performance, we will never be able to change the status quo that is failing too many of our children," he said.

In delivering the speech, Spitzer left out praise for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver that was included in the printed version of the remarks given to reporters. The two are at odds over the selection of the next comptroller.

kenneth.lovett@nypost.com

Shape up or ship out: Gov
BY ERIN EINHORN in New York
and JOE MAHONEY in Albany
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007
LINK

Gov. Spitzer promised an unprecedented amount of state aid for city schools yesterday but warned that it comes with a challenge: Put up or be shut down.
"We should be ready to close more schools that fail, perhaps as many as 5%," Spitzer said at a preview of his education blueprint on the eve of his first budget unveiling.

At the same time, he's pushing to raise the statewide cap on charter schools to 250 from 100, with the "bulk" of new ones earmarked for New York City.

Spitzer said city schools are in line for "a lot of money." As the Daily News reported last week, tomorrow's budget will have at least $723 million extra for city schools.

He called for an expansion of prekindergarten, a reduction in class sizes, a longer school day and school year, and streamlining education funding formulas.

But the cash infusion is tied to tough standards.

"If you don't perform, there will be consequences," Spitzer said. "That concept will permeate everything we do."

For instance, Spitzer - who was endorsed by the teachers union - said teachers should get tenure only after a review of how well their students performed "over multiple years."

He will offer "contracts for excellence" to schools - giving them at least 10% more funding if they successfully adopt education reforms.

There was a little political intrigue in the speech: The printed text gave credit to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver for leading the charge to widen pre-K programs. But Spitzer never mentioned Silver when he spoke.

Aides to Spitzer insisted there was no deliberate attempt to slight Silver - even though the two have locked horns recently over how best to fill the state controller vacancy.

The education plans drew praise from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and from United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who said they will "lift all schools rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul."

But another one of Spitzer's goals - keeping kids in classrooms longer by either extending the school year or the school day - was questioned by Leonie Haimson of the advocacy group Class Size Matters.

"There is no research showing that (an) extended day or a longer school year will provide our children with the attention they need to succeed - just more hours spent in overcrowded classrooms," Haimson said, adding that there is no court mandate for the state to lengthen the school year or open more charter schools, only to pony up more city classroom aid.

Tax Reductions for Individual Property Owners

News Forum: Randi Weingarten Talks Education

This is a transcript of News Forum, a show that airs each Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m.

Jay DeDAPPER: And good morning, everybody. I'm Jay DeDapper and we are talking about the budget. I know it's bright and early in the morning and the numbers may glaze over, but stick with us because there's a lot of numbers here to talk about, but we've some people to help talk about them
and explain them in sensible ways. Diana Fortuna from the Citizens Budget Commission, thanks for coming in.

Ms. DIANA FORTUNA: Thanks, Jay.

DeDAPPER: And E.J. McMahon joins us live from Albany. He is from the Manhattan Institute. He's been looking at the budgets of New York for a very long time. E.J., thanks for joining us.

Mr. E.J. McMAHON: You're quite welcome.

DeDAPPER: Let's start with you, Diana, ladies first, and you're in the studio. We have replaced the normal books that we use on the set here at NEWS FORUM with a more interesting set of books, the telephone-thick state budget. I have a feeling you probably haven't had a chance to read all of
this.

Ms. FORTUNA: Well, I'm making my way through. It takes a little bit of time but.

DeDAPPER: It's a $120 billion budget, much bigger than last year's. Factor in the rate of inflation, is this--does this represent a big change on day one, as Eliot Spitzer said?

Ms. FORTUNA: I think it does. He's making big changes in education and health, and certainly, the state budget and Albany in general need big changes. So I thought--I think he's off to a roaring start in terms of some bold proposals.

DeDAPPER: E.J., $120 billion, big budget, growth faster than inflation, is this a change from what we saw during the Pataki years?

Mr. McMAHON: It's a change in some ways and in other ways, it's not a change. Certainly, the growth rate is faster than we've seen proposed by Pataki in eight years, so that's something of a change in itself.

DeDAPPER: Now, there are two budgets, though--not two budgets, but two parts of this budget. There's the overall all-funds budget, which includes a lot of federal money, and then there's the budget, the state budget or the general budget, the money that comes out of our pockets. Diana, is it your sense he says he's keeping that close to the rate of inflation, is that fair to look at that number as opposed to this 120 billion?

Ms. FORTUNA: I think the best measure is that the budget's growing by about 8 percent, which is high, and it would be good if it were less. But there are a lot of other things in this budget. And also, I mean, so much of the question this year is are things going to be different in Albany. So
everyone is saying, `Oh, well, usually the governor comes in low and pretends the budget's going to be smaller than it is because he knows the legislature's going to want to add some--a lot of spending on top of that.'

DeDAPPER: Which always happens.

Ms. FORTUNA: It always happens. A lot of things always happen in Albany that shouldn't happen. And so we'll see how--if he can hold the line. But what he's saying is this is the right size. If they want to add certain things, they should cut other things. And that sounds right to me.

DeDAPPER: E.J., do you think that's going to happen? You've seen this budget dance happen year in, year out. Is Eliot Spitzer the guy who can actually make this dance change?

Mr. McMAHON: Well, the answer is we'll see. It will be an historic event if it does because with rare exceptions, I don't know of any governor who's ever succeeded in putting through a budget that the legislature did not add any money to, usually a significant amount of money.

DeDAPPER: You have talked repeatedly over the years about Medicaid, because this is the biggest part of the budget by far. It's about a quarter of the budget. He has proposed really dramatic changes in health care, cutting the rate of growth down below inflation. Is this not something both historic and good, from your standpoint, in terms of wanting to keep the growth of the state budget down?

Mr. McMAHON: What he's proposing in most respects is very good. The thing about his health care proposals, and Medicaid in particular, it's not so much that it's new, because of it was also proposed by Governor Pataki, indeed, some of it was even proposed by Governor Cuomo. The difference is in
the name of the guy who's proposing it and in the way he is proposing these cuts and framing them. He made a very strong statement to the effect in a speech last week before the budget that he wanted health care in New York state to be focused on patients and not institutions. It's important to create that premise, that paradigm, and I think it's very important that he started out in that way.

Beyond the rhetoric, which is important, I don't think rhetoric's unimportant, but beyond that rhetoric, the actual proposals he's making, the key ones, the ones that will be politically the scene of the biggest
battles, which is to freeze hospital and nursing home reimbursement rates and to change some other reimbursement systems that affect them, and the unions representing people who work in them, those are proposals very similar to things that Governor Pataki proposed unsuccessfully. Why might he
get them? There's two reasons. One is Governor Pataki, particularly in his last five or six years in office, helped create the problem that Governor Spitzer is trying to fix. That is, we had a big Medicaid program in New York. Governor Pataki made it, in some respects, some bigger. And then the governor lacked credibility, the former governor, when he tried to then kind of reverse course and slow down the rate of growth. Governor Spitzer is a new governor and from a different political party, and I think the idea is
that he can be successful where Governor Pataki was unsuccessful because he's putting the focus on a different philosophy, which is patients first.
And that's a good thing. And in general, I wish him luck in pursuing that philosophy, even though I don't necessarily think that everything he's proposing is actually a cut, either.

DeDAPPER: Diana, what are the chances--E.J. brings this up. I mean, the legislature, they're good friends with Dennis Rivera from the Health Care Workers' Union, and from the Hospitals Association. I mean, these are some of the biggest backers of the Republican-controlled Senate and the
Democratic-led Assembly.

Ms. FORTUNA: The politics are formidable, there's no doubt about it. But New York's Medicaid program is weirdly out of whack with what other states do. We spend way more and we don't seem to get better results for it. So he's right to take this on. It's been growing at a very high rate. So these are
the right questions to put out.

Whether he can accomplish this or not, clearly, Governor Pataki would put similar cuts on the table in the past and they would go nowhere, the budget would be dead on arrival. So the question is, how much of a template is this for what's really going to happen and how well will the governor navigate the political shoals? You know, governors have been eaten alive by Albany and its culture for a long time, and I think it's fair to say that Governor Pataki came in with a clear point of view, ideologically driven in a lot of
ways by his emphasis on lower spending and tax cuts, came in strong, started to see that actually happen, but over the course of a 12-year term, I think drifted, to some extent, and we began to see spending growing and things like deals with union leaders that you would never expect a Republican to
have done. So where does this new governor, how does he handle the kinds of pressures that are so strong in Albany.

DeDAPPER: Let me--let me share with you both something that the governor said about his philosophy and where he's starting this sense of cuts. Listen, this is what he said during his budget address.

Gov. SPITZER: We are taking out 5 percent in nonpersonnel services across the agencies. We are saying to ourselves as every company, every smart, nimble company has said to itself over the last number of years, do more with less. Technology makes it possible, figure out how to provide the services faster, smarter, cheaper. We will do it. Five percent is where we start. We expect to do more and better as the years go by.

DeDAPPER: E.J., that sounds great. Any chance that he's going to be able to expand that 5 percent? And is this really meaningful government reform?

Mr. McMAHON: Well, you know, again, that's something we haven't see the details on yet. He's basically acknowledging that he has not really done that much yet to reduce the rate of spending growth. But he's saying wait and see, just watch me, I've got plans to make government more efficient,
and that's a good thing. Some of the initial things he's doing in this budget, I'm not sure are necessarily going to make government more efficient. For instance, Governor Pataki came in with a commitment to
contracting out services, trying to find less expensive ways to do things, and that meant, in many ways--in many cases, privatizing some services.
Governor Spitzer's actually deprivatizing. He's hiring more workers, for instance, in the Department of Transportation to do work that contractors have been doing. Now, the argument will be that the new workers are less expensive than the private sector workers. The problem is, the state doesn't have an accounting system that lets you prove that one way or the other. That's one of the big shortcomings of the state under Governor Pataki and his predecessors. So in a sense, we don't know yet whether, you know, whether he's going to do this in the same way or a different way.

Can he accomplish what he just described? Absolutely. That can be accomplished. He should be able to do that. I don't know yet whether his plans actually will match his rhetoric in that area.

DeDAPPER: We've got about a minute left. I want to ask you each, I want to start with Diana, 'cause I don't want to miss this. There's a $6 billion property tax cut plan in this, starts out with 1 1/2 billion, aimed at middle class. The very wealthy aren't going to get any of this. Is this really a significant amount of money that's really going to affect New Yorkers and keep people in the state that are moving out or that find it too expensive to live here?

Ms. FORTUNA: It's a lot of money. It's a strange kind of a program where it's actually sort of an educational aid program that ends up benefiting a lot of property tax payers, less so in New York City. It actually does not do that well for New York City. He's doing it, I think, politically, so he can pair it with a very large education aid increase, which is targeted at New York City. So I think he's making a kind of a political roll of the dice that he can add a lot of money downstate into the New York City public schools and pair it with something that is more beneficial upstate, outside the city, and that that'll be a trade that the legislature will be prepared to make.

DeDAPPER: Kind of a political necessity.
E.J., what's your take on this?

Mr. McMAHON: I agree with Diana's take on it, but it's--let me make a couple of points. First of all, it's not a $6 billion property tax cut. It's a $2 1/2 billion a year when fully implemented expansion of an existing state homestead exemption called STAR, which was started by Pataki 10 years ago, that now costs $3 1/2 billion. That's basically going to double the STAR break for some people, probably for most homeowners statewide, not for most homeowners in the suburbs, though, necessarily. And it's added a new element, basically, to Pataki's old program. That is the new break will be means tested, so that if you are quote/unquote "middle class," you will get an increase of up to 80 percent this year and up to 100 percent in two more years of what you now get in terms of savings from the state STAR program.

Is this going to make people happy? Are people going to see a tremendous drop in their school tax bills? No. What it is is tax stabilization, not tax reduction. People will experience a slowdown, and in some cases, a halt in the growth of their school taxes for a few years, and then taxes will go up again. And during that period, school districts are likely to actually decelerate their spending and rapidly increase their taxes on people who aren't home owners, apartment dwellers, businesses, utilities and the like.
This program, I think, has been largely oversold and is not well understood and I think you're going to see a lot of debate on it in Albany there are forces in the legislature that want to simply take a different approach and give everybody an increase and then sort of a flat rebate, which is another version of STAR. And all of these programs have one big flaw, and the flaw is none of them include any cap on the school districts' ability to keep raising their property tax levies.

So just one point. In New Jersey, where they're wrestling with the same sort of big, complex, convoluted and inefficient state-subsidized property tax break program, they're doing one other thing that's very different from New York. They're enacting a cap on the growth in property taxes, in their case, a 4 percent cap. It's got loopholes in it but it is a cap, it's a start. In New York, and this started during the campaign, Governor Spitzer rejected the idea of a cap. If you don't cap taxes, STAR is a leaky bucket and this
will provide only temporary relief. It's like Novocaine. And we'll be back here in five years talking about the property tax revolt and how somebody's got to do something about it.

DeDAPPER: OK. E.J. McMahon, Manhattan Institute, live from Albany for us today, and Diana Fortuna. I'll give you the last word. Ten seconds. How much of a percentage of this proposal do you think is going to end up getting passed?

Ms. FORTUNA: This is such a wild year, I think he'll do well. I think most of it.

DeDAPPER: OK,great. Diana Fortuna from Citizens Budget Commission, thanks for coming in.

When we come back, Randi Weingarten. We're going to talk about the schools. This is a huge part of this that we kind of left on the table here. The school aid part of this is not just a big change in money, it's a big change in the way the money is distributed. Randi Weingarten next.

DeDAPPER: And we're back. Randi Weingarten from the Teachers Union is with
us. Have you had a chance to read this very small set of books in the budget?

Ms. RANDI WEINGARTEN: Right, every single page.

DeDAPPER: Yeah. I actually...

Ms. WEINGARTEN: I've gotten a briefing on the briefing.

DeDAPPER: Because the governor even admitted that nobody in his office has probably read every page of that, so.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: I'm sure that's true.

DeDAPPER: This change in school aid formula and in the amount of money is undeniably historic, right?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: It is. Look, although there are some things in the governor's budget that I would quarrel with, you have to give the guy his due in terms of education because he came in, he says that he's going to make good on finalizing the campaign for fiscal equity case.

DeDAPPER: Which has been going on for more than decade.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: About 13 years to be exact.

DeDAPPER: Right.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: And he has, in terms of the budget documents. What he's basically said is that even though the courts may have said 1.9 billion, that he would advance over 3, 3 1/2 billion of state funds, wants some kind of match from the city. So that essentially would mean about $5 billion...

DeDAPPER: A year.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Ultimately, when you phase it in...

DeDAPPER: Yeah.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: ...a year to New York City school kids. And what he also did in his statement on Monday was to try to simultaneously tie the money to a top-to-bottom accountability structure as opposed to just a bottom down accountability structure that the chancellor has done.

DeDAPPER: So what does that mean? I mean, what--for you and your members, for parents and their kids, if this were to all get instituted, five years from now, what's different in New York City schools?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: If you just got the big ifs, it has to get instituted in a way that really drives the money down to classrooms. This nonsense of rhetoric--you know, we've had a lot of rhetoric and a lot of policy by press release in the last several years, where things don't actually happen the way they ought to happen. So one of the things we're trying to do, the union's trying to do and parents are trying to do is say, `Great, let's really drive it down to programs that we know work.' So we've said, simply, for one issue, we know the rest of the state made the decision to lower class size, to raise graduation rates. That decision has to be made in New York City. The best example I give is math, Math A, basic algebra. The class size in the rest of the state in basic algebra, about 20 kids per class. New York City, 33, 34. That's a huge difference. That's why we say drive the money into classrooms and do it in a phased-in way so we do it the right way, not like California did, which was the wrong way.

DeDAPPER: So this amount of money, billions and billions, 5 billion a year once it gets fully phased in, lower class size, pre-K, full pre-K?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Pre-K. I would--and I'm glad you raised full pre-K, because one of the things that Shelly Silver had done years ago is he had pushed to have pre-K. Now, half-day pre-K may work in communities where moms still stay home.

DeDAPPER: But that's not the case, yeah.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: We need--in New York City, and Chris Quinn raised this, and she was right, we need full-day pre-K so that you have both an academic basis and also a custodial basis and also kids, three-year-olds, three, four, five-year-olds, can't focus on math and English. You can do some--you
can do some work. Their minds are incredibly nimble. This is why pre-K is so important. Our minds are more nimble at three, four and five than probably anywhere else--any other time in our lives.

DeDAPPER: Certainly than now, right?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Right. Certainly than right this moment on a Sunday morning.

DeDAPPER: Yeah.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: But--so that's why there's so much research. And on this issue, there's universality that we need pre-K. But that's why we need all day. But what we also need to do right now, given the global economy, things like that, we have help our high school kids because we need to make sure that that graduation rate upticks from where it is right now, which is, by state standards, it's about 42 percent, by city, it's 50.

DeDAPPER: OK. You're talking about results. Let me let you listen to something that the governor said with regard to results when he released the budget on Wednesday.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: OK.

Gov. SPITZER: It's no longer a question of resources, it's a question of performance. There will be no excuses for failure. We will have to produce when this much money is being poured into a system.

DeDAPPER: He's saying results. Now, he's talking about the ability to take out teachers that don't necessarily perform well, schools that don't perform well. He's talking about charter schools. We'll talk about that in the next segment. I know that's a big can of worms. But are you open--are you ready
to deal with this results-oriented thing he's talking about, which holds teachers accountable as well?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Look. We've been--you know, and we have a new governor. Sometimes they don't know what you've done before. But frankly, when Rick Nils and Rudy Crew were here, we did more to turn around low-performing schools than we've done during the Bloomberg-Klein era. And so my members are now afraid of being held accountable. What they want is the wherewithal to do their job. And what they've seen is that accountability these days is only bottom up--bottom down, meaning that everything gets placed on the principal and their shoulders instead of being given the wherewithal to do
their jobs. So that's not--we're not afraid of that. And in fact, we welcome the ability to do our jobs. The issue becomes giving us the wherewithal to do it. So--I mean, one other example, which is, look, the governor did this. He said he's going to hold the school system accountable. Nobody's ever said that before. You see superintendents who always come in saying, `I'm tough, I'm tough,' and then they just try to blame downward as opposed to try to work to make sure that schools work.

DeDAPPER: Yeah. You're saying everybody gets held accountable.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: And look, when we've done this...

DeDAPPER: We've got to take a break.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Not a problem.

DeDAPPER: We've got to take a break to space this out right, and we'll be right back, and I'll ask you about the charter schools as well.

DeDAPPER: And we're back discussing the state budget. Stay awake. This one is important because there's this big change in school aid, the school aid formula, how everybody gets the money, but it's also this huge, $5 billion infusion into schools. Randi Weingarten, our guest. You know that he has proposed an increase in charter schools, too. This is something that a lot of Republicans in the state Senate want, for instance. What's wrong with charter schools? Don't they do a good job?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Some charter schools do a great...

DeDAPPER: You run some, right?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: We run two and they are--and they're doing a great job with kids and they were oversubscribed and we run them in a way that the teachers are respected, parents are engaged. We've lowered class size, we focus on safety and we focus on curriculum. But this is the point. There are some charter schools that do a very good job, there are some charter schools that do a lousy job. And what we've said is that in consideration of lifting the cap, there's a lot of other things that have to be done to reform the charter school law. And that's what many of us have said. You have to make sure that the schools that are still in the school district are held harmless, so that kids who want to go to public schools in the school district don't lose because a school district or somebody wants to set up a charter school.

DeDAPPER: But he said he's going to do that.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: So we think that he's going to do that.

DeDAPPER: Yeah.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Secondly, we've seen a huge number of charter schools that just retaliate out and out against teachers. There's huge attrition problems and things like that. And we've said people--because many teachers have come to us and said, we want a union in the charter schools, and they've gotten fired on the spot for wanting a union. So that's why we've said we want some labor rights. Third, parents--we've seen this in New York City--take the NEF situation. Parents don't want schools that work--NEF, we had a situation in Harlem with PS 154--they don't want schools that work being taken over by
charter schools or being, you know, a charter school placed in that school. So parents need to have some notice about it. So--and the last thing is this: Ultimately, there are two chartering entities in the state. There doesn't need to be anybody else. And so we have said, you know, let Joel Klein run the New York City school system, don't have him be a charter school operator as well. And so we've opposed him having the right to have some charter school systems.

DeDAPPER: Let's talk about that quickly. How much of this is dependant on Bloomberg and Klein taking this money, this infusion, and spending it the way that you see? How much control do they have?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Well, this is--if you look at what the governor has done, what he's constructed is a contract that each school system has to do with the state Education Department, because he doesn't want people to take the money and waste it. And we don't want that. The worst thing to happen is for us to get a $5 billion infusion and it gets wasted on things that don't work for kids. And so frankly, what we're saying is we want the money to go for its intended purposes, and for there to be accountability on that, not just a rhetorical, oh, trust us, we'll do it. Look what just happened with the
buses? It's time to stop trusting. We have to actually do the work that parents and teachers have said.

DeDAPPER: Let me ask you about the buses. Was this situation in which these kids, the buses got taken away, they have to take city buses, subways. Was this avoidable?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Absolutely.

DeDAPPER: And who ultimately is to blame?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Look. In September, when this issue was raised, there were many of us that said don't do this. Remember, last year, we just went through a mid-year change of buses, and there was far more care taken last year to do it. And we even then said, don't do mid-year changes like this.

DeDAPPER: So who messed up? We have 30 seconds here. Who messed up here?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: The Board of Education, which is still its real name, messed up totally. They don't listen to parents and they don't listen to teachers. And when somebody says to them, we want to save you from yourselves, you're doing the wrong thing, what they say is that you're part of the status quo.

DeDAPPER: All right. Well, any solution on that?

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Yeah, of course there's a...

DeDAPPER: You've got 15 seconds here, sorry.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Of course there's a solution on it.

DeDAPPER: Go back to the...

Ms. WEINGARTEN: We have to go back to some of the other buses, some of the other bus schedules. You can't give five-year-olds a metro card. It's horrible.

DeDAPPER: Certainly, there's been a lot of bad press written on that, and probably justifiably so, with the kids having to go through that.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Look...

DeDAPPER: We're done. Sorry about that.

Ms. WEINGARTEN: Take care.

DeDAPPER: Thank you for coming on, Randi.

That's NEWS FORUM for Sunday. Have a good weekend, everybody.