Friday, June 16, 2017

WHY WOULD ANYONE BE AFRAID TO LET MAYORAL CONTROL EXPIRE?

I read this piece from City and State on the controversy up in Albany where the Republicans are threatening to allow mayoral control of  NYC schools to sunset at the end of the month if they don't get into the mayoral control law expansions of charter schools.

I have said this before and I will say it again:

Go ahead make my day; let mayoral control die!

There is nothing to fear if we go back to community districts. As we have reported, the 1996 law took hiring power away from the school boards. That is the law we would revert to if mayoral control dies in two weeks.

Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan sounds almost hysterical in City and State, criticizing the Republicans in the State Senate for putting pro-charter school legislation in any bill extending mayoral control.

“The consequences of not doing mayoral control for the city children would be very negative, so I don’t understand why Sen. Flanagan and Republicans are asking what they’re asking.” – Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan

Relax Assemblywoman Nolan. It's not the end of the world as we know it and we will be just fine under the 1996 school governance law.

No need to say there will be very negative consequences. There will be very few and they will be mostly positive if the 2009 mayoral control law expires. The mayor would have to work with the borough presidents to enact education policy on an independent Board of Education. The mayor would have two votes on the Board and the borough presidents would have one each so his honor would need the support of representatives of two of the borough presidents to have a working majority. That would be a healthy check on mayoral power. 

UFT President Michael Mulgrew also needs to stop worrying about pro-charter people running in school board elections next May. Please have someone read him the 1996 law. The school boards will have very little power if mayoral control expires.

Here is an excerpt from a Gotham Gazette piece from 2002 explaining how weak the boards would be if they existed again.

CLIPPING THEIR WINGS

In the last election, which was held last year, voters may have stayed away from polls because the community boards have so little power. Under the prodding of then-Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew, the New York State Legislature in 1996 redefined the responsibilities of local school boards, taking away much of their power, including the authority to name a the district superintendent.

Today, school boards no longer manage day-to-day affairs within the district or hire or promote school district employees, including principals. Instead, the local school boards set educational policy, mostly just by helping to select a superintendent for the school district. Even here they don't have the final say; the chancellor does.

The 1996 law removed much of the rationale for the boards' existence, according to Public Advocate Mark Green, who declared in a speech delivered in April that school boards should be eliminated. "The local school boards were a great idea -- in theory -- but rarely worked in practice," Green stated. "Some became patronage mills, doling out jobs and contracts to friends. Most, now stripped of their powers, are today excess weight in a bureaucracy that needs to be simplified and flattened. It's time for them to go."

The Gazette article then goes on to defend the School Boards since they give parents some say in education.

People worried that the mayor would not fund education if he didn't control the Board of Education also need to relax. There is a NYS law called the Stavisky Goodman law that passed over Governor Hugh Carey's veto in 1976 that said the city must fund elementary and secondary education at least with the same proportion of city funds as the last three fiscal years.

This is from Case Text.com:

1
The committee's chairman, Assemblyman Leonard P. Stavisky, introduced a bill which, as adopted by the Assembly on January 21, 1976, amended section 2576 of the Education Law to require that annually there be appropriated for public elementary and secondary education in the City of New York "an amount equal to the average proportion of the total expense budget of such city, as amended, appropriated for the purposes of the city school district of such city in the three fiscal years of such city immediately preceding the [current] year". 


I don't see where this law, which was upheld by the New York State Court of Appeals, has been repealed so I believe it is still on the books. 

Mayor Bill de Blasio, Mayor Michael Bloomberg or no other mayor deserves a dictatorship over the schools. It doesn't work and just leads to numbers faking to make the mayor look good. 

Can someone in authority study a little history?

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

I believe we all know why mulgrew is afraid.

He is in the mayor's back pocket. Endorsing mayoral control has to be at least 5 k in unmarked bill's in an offshore account

Anonymous said...

Mayoral control is all about allowing more and more money being shifted out of the classroom and into corporate bank accounts

Anonymous said...

Mulgrew is the only one who benefits from mayoral control, obviously he wants to keep it. If he loses it, then he will actually have to serve the interests of the union members.

Anonymous said...

Mayoral under Bloomberg and De Blasio has been a disaster for public school children and parents.
The Democratic Party benefits from mayoral control.

Anonymous said...


Mulgrew/Farina is the a vile disgusting alliance made in hell!

Anonymous said...

ATR rating available via your email. Problem is it has an error message and you won't be able to access it.

Anonymous said...

They can't even get our ratings to us. The DOE is second only to the UFT for being the most incompetent organization in the country.

waitingforsupport said...

Lol

Anonymous said...

I thought there was a deadline for the ratings to be given to teachers. Are there any consequences to the DOE for not meeting the deadline (if there is one)?

waitingforsupport said...

Even if there is deadline...ATRs do not matter

Anonymous said...

Nor do teachers who have permanent schools matter.

Anonymous said...

The UFT will not do anything. They do not even reinforce the contract. They are crooks.

Anonymous said...

Let them destroyed themselves.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody know if not voting for the agreement of ATRs with the DOE violates the statutes of the UFT?

Bronx ATR said...

Even if they voted it would have been in unison, even if the new agreement had us being drawn and quartered. I'm more concerned with mayoral control - it needs to be lifted. Things are SO much worse in the schools under deBlasio than they were under Bloomberg. Mulgrew is SO overjoyed with a smile and a pat on the shoulder that he will (and has) given Bill anything he asks for. The tone from the mayor's office is much kinder and gentler in regards to Mulgrew - and that's all that matters to the UFT. There will be no criticism of the DOE because it is controlled by Bill - who has handed it off to Carmen. There are no checks and balances because there is no Board of Education. The UFT is so out of touch it was about to protest a superintendent. This in order to pressure the Board of Ed to reign in a abhorrent principal and to pressure the Board to enact it's checks and balances on the explosion of these horrid principals. (I just read about one who starred in gansta flick and enacted some of her moves on a fifth grade class.) That protest was cancelled because Mulgrew would not allow a protest that would have been a de facto, albeit unintended protest against mayoral control.
That said, I really like deBlasio and support him for mayor. I just don't think one person should be in charge of the schools, especially someone who Mulgrew likes.

Anonymous said...

DiBlahsio is a lazy do-nothing. More dollars for bureaucrats, with their never ending flow of bullshit initiatives, and less for the classroom. Does everyone like SLC 's? For those of you having trouble keeping up with the acronym of the week, that one rolled out over the winter and stands for Student Led Conferences. Bunch of horse shit from the educrats at Tweed, who must justify their existance. Everything is a dog and pony show these days. As they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle".

Anonymous said...

Mayoral control is better for teachers when it comes to pay and resources. If the mayor is not in charge he will divert money to agencies he is in charge of, so he can point to accomplishments in those agencies ex.snow plows. The mayor would not care at all about the schools and could easily blame the Board for all problems.

Anonymous said...

We have something called a contract. The school I'm in gets very little money - it all goes to Carmen's cronies.

James Eterno said...

Clearly it violates policy and practice and Robert's Rules which are a part of the UFT constitution. Not voting on an agreement in itself does not violate Taylor law as far as I know. You need a lawyer to give an opinion on all of this.

James Eterno said...

I agree with everything up until liking de Blasio. He has treated labor like crap, paricularly teachers. However, there is no viable alternative.

Anonymous said...

You think deBlasio cares about the schools? The schools are awful. All he does is manipulate statistics to prove otherwise. I taught all year in a restroom, next to toilet stalls and sinks. I have to buy my own paper and make my own copies because the school has no books, paper or a copy machine. Bring back to Board of Education.

James Eterno said...

Please read the posting. Mayor cannot cut schools portion of budget by lae. We got best contract in 1969 before mayoral control (see Tier1). 2002 contract with time for money swap came before mayoral control too. Facts do not support what 7:17 says.

James Eterno said...

Please read the posting. Mayor cannot cut schools portion of budget by lae. We got best contract in 1969 before mayoral control (see Tier1). 2002 contract with time for money swap came before mayoral control too. Facts do not support what 7:17 says.

Anonymous said...

Is Mulgrew out of his mind?

Anonymous said...

Mulgrew is a deeply insecure person that was completely outwitted by Bloomberg. He wants to be liked by those in charge and there in lies his weakness and our misery. Do away with mayoral control, not because of Bill but because of Mulgrew.