Jan. 24, 2024
Mayoral control of the
school system is currently up for renewal and hearings are being held in each
borough.
Recent reporting on
mayoral control:
• UFT/Unity leadership has been the Major
Obstacle to ending mayoral control
• In 2002 Ed Notes Warned the UFT About Evils
of Mayoral Control...
• The myth of accountability under Mayoral
control: Leonie Haimson comments at the Manhattan hearing
Mayoral Control was
implemented in NYC with the election of Michael Bloomberg as mayor in 2002. The
UFT leadership, more comfortable with dealing with a top down manager of the
schools, enthusiastically supported the idea. Education Notes had been reporting
on the nefarious aspects due to our connection to the reporting of George
Schmidt on the disaster in since 1995. (Chicago is in the progress of
ending mayoral control and going to an electoral system.)
ICE was founded in late
2003 when a group of about 20 UFTers who were followers of Education Notes met
to discuss the implications for the UFT of the election arrangement New Action,
the leading opposition caucus to Unity, had made with Unity. Over a few weeks
of meetings, the group decided to run in the 2004 UFT elections and featured
strong opposition to mayoral control, which had been ignored by New Action and
other opposition groups (Teachers for a Just Contract, Progressive Action
Caucus), none of whom challenged the UFT leadership on this issue.
ICE put mayoral control
on the radar of UFTers and kept raising it right through the time ICE became
part of the Grassroots Education Movement (GEM) and then MORE. The ICE platform
in the 2010 UFT election included:
ICE supports local neighborhood
public schools.
Diverting money to
private schools through vouchers, hiring private companies to run public
schools, and creating charter schools that operate on the DoE budget but free
of union contracts and other restrictions that apply to public schools do great
harm in polarizing our educational system and our society. Charters and schools
infused with private money get preferential treatment, particularly in class
size (smaller), the selection of students, and appurtenances. The DoE’s agenda
to privatize the system is done through unilateral decisions and in secret.
Targets for the influx of private money have been the minority areas of the
city, where many large schools have been broken up into smaller ones and where
public schools are being forced to absorb charters.
ICE was noted for taking deep dives into
issues and just opposing mayoral control did not seem to be enough. We felt we
had to offer some alternative, even if not perfect, as a basis to start a
discussion on what could replace it. Many of us had come into the system in the
late 60s when the old system of k-8 district level community control with
elected school boards was being implemented and spent our careers working under
that system. So we had the benefit of foresight and hindsight and understood
that the school was the place where real power should emanate from as a way to
turn a top-down system into a bottom up one.
Here was an attempt to offer a comprehensive
plan, based on making school leadership teams the basis for governance. The
exact date is unknown, but I assume it may have been circa 2008-9 when mayoral
control was up for renewal. In no sense was this designed to be an end-all and
be-all but a way to engage people with all the possible alternatives.
Norm Scott
A Plan for School Governance
c. 2008-9
Introduction
ICE has spent over two years discussing a
governance plan that would value and enable the democratic participation of al constituents, providing
students, staff and parents with the rights and institutional equity that
represent the highest ideals and potentialities of public education. This is a
golden opportunity to right what was wrong with the system prior to 2002 and
correct what can only be considered a disaster since then, a disaster that
includes attacks on the expertise and rights of teachers, contempt for the
voice of parents and disregard for the developmental, social, academic,
physical and artistic needs of students.
1. The system must be based on democratic
participation of the community with decision-making flowing from the school
level to a central body.
• The creation of true
school leadership committees (to replace the present School Leadership Teams)
shared decision making, as defined by NYS Law, will create a Comprehensive
Education Plan which will set goals and make recommendations about improving the
quality of education in each school, with reference to but not dictated by
citywide policy. The administration, faculty and parents will have an equal
role on the committee. In their augmented role in the school, committees will
be reconstituted, with special attention to making them more inclusive and
accessible to teachers and parents.
• The duly elected and
well trained committees appoint their principals and assistant principals who
will maintain a collaborative relationship with the committee and the entire
staff.
• Principals, assistant principals and other
pedagogical supervisors must be experienced educators, with a minimum of five
years of classroom experience. This also applies to District Superintendents
and the Chancellor. No waivers will be granted. Those who are in a position of guiding
instruction in our schools should have the understanding and expertise which
comes from implementing practice in classroom teaching.
• Management begins at
the school level, with a central organization to standardize some components,
manage overall system responsibilities (licensing, payroll, contract
negotiation, etc.)
• District
Superintendents are selected by school leadership committees in the District in
which they serve. The major function of the District Superintendents will be to
provide friendly criticism and support, and to advocate for the needs of their
respective schools.
2. The DOE must be politically neutral and not tied to any one political
office. A school system should not be subject to the inherently destabilizing
whims, caprice, political aspirations, career, or manipulations of a
politician. It must be run as an independent office with responsibilities to
the people of the City and operate within the regulations and laws of the NYS
Education Department.
• A Central Board
responsible for general and overall policy and oversight of al services that
are centrally located will be made up of five members elected citywide, one
appointee from each of the borough presidents and three mayoral appointees. All
will be elected/appointed for set, rotating terms and removed only for cause.
• The Central Board will
appoint a Chancellor, who has demonstrated success as an educator with a
minimum of five
years classroom experience.
• The Chancellor's role
will be to advocate for policy, law and funding; develop guidelines, benchmarks
and tracking systems for school needs and achievement; report to all elected
officials; monitor the District Superintendents; establish a human resource
department; negotiate contracts, and insure that they are upheld. The
Chancellor shall be legally mandated to follow the guidelines of the NYS
Education Department in regard to all school reorganizations, closings and
significant administrative changes that affect the stakeholders of the school
system.
Should the Chancellor or
his agents be charged with failure to uphold or implement the relevant laws and
regulations of the NYS Education Department, expedited proceedings shall be put
in place to ascertain whether such accusations are true, and if proven true
shall involve prompt redress that if unmet will carry the threat of punitive
sanctions with the force of law.
3. All constituents
should have input into the design of a governance system.
• A Transition Team is
to be established to plan for the proposed new governance structure, to be
composed of teachers, parents, administrators, elected officials and high
school students.
• Public hearings shall
be held to insure democratic input into the broad outlines of a governance
structure. They shall be well-publicized and held at times and places that
insure maximum turnout.
4. Benchmarks are to be
established and evaluations conducted by an independent agency.
• Evaluations of schools
and students should be based on multiple measures and should be used for
gathering information in order to provide support.
• Responsibility for the
analysis and evaluation of the Department of Education's programs will be given to
the Public Advocate. The Advocate's Office will have statutory authority to
review all Department of Education documents and will receive all resources currently
allocated to the Department of Education for the review and analysis of their
programs.
• The Advocate's Office
will be required to produce an annual report evaluating the progress of the
Department of Education in advancing students' academic skills and social
well-being, reducing absenteeism, increasing the high school graduation rate
and any other measure that demonstrates success. The Advocate's Office would
then produce reports based on an established schedule determined by when data
is available.
5. Inherent in the
system's design must be respect and support for all constituents.
• School leadership
committees, representative of their schools' constituents, (staff, parents,
students in the middle and high schools and their community under the
leadership of democratically oriented principals decide the programs and
teaching strategies best suited to their students. Teachers are to be respected
for their experience and expertise in teaching and learning, and are to have an
explicit role in developing, planning and implementing those activities that
involve pedagogy.
• All schools provide a
comprehensive education program including the core curricula areas, performing
and visual arts, health and physical education, career and technical education,
and technology.
6. Funding must be fair,
equitable, transparent, with budget decisions made at the school level.
• A larger portion of the funding received by
the federal, state and city will be managed by the schools. The school
leadership committees will determine how funds are spent, with technical
assistance to be provided by the Districts.
• Equitable funding developed by central staff
and approved by the Central Board, with public oversight and input, will
determine how much money each school receives. Budgets and expenditures at al
levels of the system will be made available for review by the public. The City
Council is to be involved in this process.
• The Office of the Public Advocate, which will have the authority to audit funding and spending, shall publish its findings
and make recommendations.
• All contracts will be put out to open bid and
made public.
7. School and District
lines must be drawn in a way to preserve and strengthen the integrity of
neighborhoods and communities.
• All registered voters and parents shall be
eligible to vote for district councils.
• Non-registered parents can vote on separate voting machines at each poll site dedicated solely for the purpose of electing the councils or with a mail in ballot. While this will necessitate an additional eligible voters list, the input of the public is necessary in a democratic society that must take responsibility for schools.
• District councils will
serve as a public forum for parents and community and serve as a liaison
between the District and the Central Organization.
8. A system of
checks and balances will be put into place to give voice to all constituents.
• Each constituent group
will have an organization to provide training, assistance and to help guarantee
its rights. The parents and students will each have a citywide organization
independent of the DOE and school staff will be represented by their unions.
• The City Council will
have non-voting representation on the Central Board.
