Several months ago, I described
Buffalo as the State’s epicenter in the battle against the privatization forces
that plan to “disassemble” our public school system. The privatization movement has broad
political, business and institutional support, as evidenced by: the letter from New York State Regent’s
Chancellor Merryl Tisch punctuating ongoing efforts to identify Buffalo as the
poster child for “failing schools” (http://www.p12.nysed.gov/docs/nysed-malatras-letter-12-31-14.pdf
); Governor Cuomo’s use of the budget hammer to impose receivership in “failing
districts” (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/2015_Opportunity_Agenda_Book.pdf
); and most recently Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes push for mayoral
takeover of Buffalo Public Schools.
It’s been in the works for a long time, but within the last few
weeks the talk of mayoral control has inched toward reality in the form of a
Bill submitted by Assemblywoman Peoples-Stokes.
On Thursday evening (May 21, 2015), the Assemblywoman spoke about her
proposed legislation to a room full of community stakeholders at the Delevan
Grider Community Center. During the
public meeting ostensibly called for the purpose of a presentation to detail
the New York State budget boondoggles secured by the Assemblywoman for her
District and the city, she could not avoid the questions from audience members
who wanted to hear about the Bill she submitted that same day. While the Assemblywoman said she prefers to
refer to her Bill as “mayoral intervention” rather than mayoral control, the
bill; A#07680 is clearly introduced as:
AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to mayoral control of the city school district of the city of Buffalo (A07680) https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/A07680/2015
Here are a few of the points the Assemblywoman made about
the impact of Mayoral control, followed by counterpoints I offer for
consideration and further discussion. In
full disclosure, although I’ve looked up the Bill and printed a copy, I have
not had the time to read it thoroughly, so this synopsis relies on what I heard
from Assemblywoman Peoples-Stokes about why the Bill is important and necessary
as well as what she thinks it will accomplish.
Leadership:
The Assemblywoman: As preface, the Assemblywoman, a native
Buffalonian, reminisced about her experience as a graduate of the Buffalo
Public Schools and recalled the consistent leadership provided by Superintendents
Manch and Reville. She said that she
sees mayoral “intervention” as an opportunity to change the internal construct
of the District’s central structure and give the Mayor the authority to establish
the right kind of leadership at the helm.
The Mayor will also appoint a nine member board, and a number of
community advisory boards that would be issue oriented, e.g. English Language
Learners, Early childhood education, general and mental health, and special
education. Locating this authority with the Mayor would allow the public to
hold him accountable for failure to make progress.
Me: As a Buffalo Schools graduate, I too remember
the halcyon days of Dr. Manch and Mr. Reville.
However, the educational landscape has changed dramatically in the last
few years. Research shows that the
demands and pressures of the job have contributed in reducing the longevity of a
Superintendent’s tenure to an average of 3 to 5 years. So, there is no guarantee that the Mayor’s
appointee will have a longer tenure. In
fact, this legislation, slated to have a two year life span initially, will
coincide with the end of the current Mayor’s tenure. A new Mayor may want to appoint his/her own
handpicked candidate.
Absent any extraordinary accountability measures, the public
has the same option to hold the Mayor responsible that it does to hold current Board
members accountable; that’s the vote.
Board members have either a three year or five year term, while the
Mayor has a four year term. It’s not
clear what the advantage is or how the Mayor will be held more accountable than
elected Board members.
Board Members:
The Assemblywoman: the Mayor will appoint all members of the
Board as well as those of the Advisory Councils.
Me: The Bill does lay out criteria but in my
cursory review there does not appear to be any great distinction in the
personal attributes or professional abilities, compared to current elected Board
members, which these Mayoral appointees would bring to the table.
In addition to being principal policy makers and having
fiduciary responsibility for the District, a major responsibility of Board
members is to hire and supervise the Superintendent. In fact, by Education Law, the Superintendent
is the Board’s only employee. The
relationship between the individual in that office and Board members is of
fundamental importance to the operation of the District. There is a risk of having a Superintendent
who reports to the Mayor and also has reporting responsibilities to a Board;
e.g. the age old problem of the conflict
of having two masters. Working out this
relationship will be critical.
Superintendent Accountability:
The Assemblywoman: The Superintendent will be required to
provide quarterly reports to the Governor, the Legislature, the Mayor, State
Education Department and the public.
Presumably this would enhance the accountability by creating layers of
institutional monitors and allowing for quick changes of course if the
Superintendent is not producing statistics aligned with progress.
Me: Three years ago, former State Ed Commissioner
John King appointed the Distinguished Educator.
This mandated consultant was required to provide quarterly reports as
part of a plan to improve priority schools.
Frankly there is little evidence to demonstrate that any progress has
been made as a result of this mandate.
She produced quarterly reports, which were submitted to State Ed only to
disappear in the “black hole” of that bureaucracy. How will this situation be any different?
Further, the expectation that significant educational
progress is going to occur in one to two years is unrealistic, especially given
the upheaval this change will cause. As
my colleague Dr. Theresa Harris-Tigg observed, what this legislation will
impose is a new “management system” that will do little to improve the
education of the children in the District.
Finally, the Assemblywoman was asked what stakeholders
assisted in the development of this Bill.
Although she refused to provide individual names, she said she consulted
with a number of groups including the District Parent Coordinating Committee,
Educators, New York State United Teachers and the United Federation of Teachers. It would seem that such important legislation
that will have such a dramatic impact on the system required the input of a
broad cross section of community stakeholders and an open period for comment.
This legislation aims to impose a system that will further
disenfranchise voters in favor of power brokers and political bureaucrats. There is a very short window of time to voice
our opposition to this legislation but if you are concerned you must contact
your State Legislators and let them know your opinions. That is the democratic process and we should
reaffirm that it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment