A New Governance Law: Should We Re-Create School Boards? What Should Be Their Powers? Can We Create Communities of Schools Within Neighborhoods?

 

 

MBA students at Stanford and Wharton and doctoral candidates at Columbia and Harvard will be speculating for years to come on the immense failure of the Bloomberg/Klein years?

 

Why was a mayor who is such a superb manager such a failure in managing the DOE?

 

How could a chancellor who was so dependent on consultants ignore the wealth of knowledge on effective schools?

 

Peter Senge, Dee Hock, Norm Fruchter, Larry Cuban, David Tyack have written extensively about complex organizations, schools and school reform: and Klein has ignored their wisdom.

 

The Tweedlings are parsecs away from the 3rd grade teacher in South Ozone Park or the middle school teacher in Bensonhurst.

 

The core of any school system, the tipping point, is the place where teachers encounter kids: the classroom. How can we empower and support schools, not from Tweed, but at the local level?

 

How can we re-create communities of schools, as Andy Wolf in the NY Sun reminds us,  that were supported by their neighborhoods?

 

In 1970 New York State created Community School Boards with wide ranging powers: they hired and fired superintendents, principals and assistant principals, they drove budget decisions, and, a fatal flaw, they could ignore the chancellor.

 

 In the mid nineties the teachers’ union and the Board of Education Inspector General Ed Stancik supported legislation that required that chancellors, after consultation with school boards, selected superintendents and all personnel decisions were to be made by the superintendents, and specifically excluded school boards from making any personnel decisions.

 

The system worked reasonably well in middle income areas, regardless of race: school boards were effective. In the poorest areas community/parent participation was meager and schools showed little progress.

 

The lowest achieving schools were under the direct supervision of the chancellor.

 

The current Community Engagement Councils, a creation of Bloomberg/Klein,  are totally powerless. Councils are made up of parents selected by District Parent Association Presidents with two members appointed by the Borough Presidents. Many of Councils have vacancies as members leave. They are a total failure.

 

Should we recreate Community School Boards, and, if so, should we reserve seats for parents? Should other seats be elected? When should the elections be held?

 

Should training for school board members be required?

 

What should be the powers of School Boards? Should they be involved in the C-30 (Supervisory Selection Process)? recommend candidates to the superintendent? Should they be responsible for zoning, opening of new schools/programs? closing of schools/programs? criteria for gifted programs? should Schools Boards make policy decisions for their schools?

 

Should some of the responsibilities of the Integrated Service Centers (ISC) be derogated to School Boards?

 

Should School Boards serve as ombudsman? 

 

Much of the discussion has center on mayoral control, rather than the impact of that control.

 

Changing governance at the top, without creating strong supports for schools at the local level will only be cosmetic. Schools, parents, city agencies, community organizations, not-for-profits, religious organizations must become a seamless support system for the children they serve.

A New Governance Law: Who Should Assess/Analyze/Evaluate School System Data? Who Can We Trust?

Is the NYC graduation rate 39% or 51% or 66%?

 

Did NAEP scores reflect an increase?

 

What has been the trend in the NYS test scores over the five years of Klein?

 

The thirty or so DOE Public Relations Department has a full time job of putting the “appropriate” spun on numbers. If we are to accurately judge the effectiveness of a school administration we must have an agreed upon set of data and an agreed upon organization to interpret the data.

 

Sol Stern, in the City Journal, cogently points to the manipulation of “the numbers” by the Klein administration.

 

While the Klein spinmeisters laud the recent NAEP 8th grade ELA scores Diane Ravitch, a member of the NAEP Board emphasizes that 3/4 of NYC 8th graders are below “proficiency.”

 

At a New School University panel deputy chancellor Chris Cerf proffered a 66% high school graduation rate, and Meryl Tisch, a member of the Regents, the New York State governing board, accused him of the “A” word – arrogance – as she recounted a meeting at which Klein and Cerf had agreed upon a 51% graduation rate.

 

Members of the New York State legislature, who still have to decide to continue, or change, or eliminate mayoral control are clearly suspicious of the Klein spin machine.

 

In the fall, under the radar, the research partnership announced it’s first set of research papers.

 

The partnership is a beginning, albeit a meager beginning.

 

The concept originated twenty years ago in Chicago, and the Chicago Consortium on School Research  has produced reams of research ad analysis that has driven much of the Chicago school reform efforts.

 

We need the equivalent is an Independent Budget Office, an organization “above the fray” that can look at “the numbers,” produce regular reports, ask researchers to conduct studies, and be the conscience of the school system.

 

At a recent Manhattan Institute forum Joel Klein raved about his performance, patted himself on the back so vigorously we feared for his health. Later in the morning Diane Ravitch reminded us that Klein acolytes keep a secret file on Diane, and, a la Joe McCarthy tried to discredit her. She went to on skewer Klein’s self adulatory numbers.

 

The kids, parents, teachers and taxpayers have a right to know: how are we doing? and have a right to have know that the analysis is a fair representation of the data.

 

The new governance law must contain these guarantees.

Hamiltonians versus Jeffersonians: The Fight for Governance of Our Schools

 

 

The HBO John Adams mini series  is a wonderful portrayal of the beginnings of our nation. The interest in our founding fathers has resulted in the publication of a number of fascinating books.

 

Hamilton  and Jefferson were bitter enemies throughout their lives, one an illegitimate poor child from the island of Nevis in the Caribbean, the other from an aristocratic Virginia family.

 

They only had two things in common: both married well and were involved in sexual escapades.

 

The “rough and tumble” of modern day politics is nothing new … Jefferson hired James Callender, a journalist/hitman to write about a Hamilton affair with Maria Reynolds, who was encouraged by her husband, and tried to blackmail Hamilton, and, after the affair was publicized by Callendar, publicly apologized. Sound familiar?

 

Jefferson, an early critic of slavery, never freed his slaves, and, as we now know fathered children by Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves.

 

Does it sound like the 1790s? or today?

 

The term Hamiltonian has come to mean a suspicion of the “commoner,” a belief that the powers of governing must be vested with the well educated and the wealthy, the aristocracy that Hamilton believed were the only people fit to lead.

 

Jeffersonians placed their faith in the people, the commoners. They abjured the power of the elite, feared a return to monarchy, and believed that a “little revolution was a good thing.”

 

In his six plus years the Mayor has clearly shown himself to be a Hamiltonian. He has co-opted Chris Quinn, the Speaker of the City Council, and simply ignores the groans and cries of the Council. The Borough Presidents are figureheads.

 

The Mayor is a superb manager, whether in managing a budget, or a crisis, in reducing crime, and appears to be “above” the politics of the jungle of urban politics.

 

Interestingly the Jeffersonians are those who are the critics the Bloomberg approach and of the Klein Department of Education regency. The parents, the teachers, the communities see an aristocratic, tone deaf leadership, that placates rather than engages the school community. A school system leadership team that has no trust; no belief that commoners: parents and teachers, should play any role in the decision-making within schools.

 

Two hundred and twenty or so years later morally challenged officials are once again struggling with the same philosophies that engaged our founding fathers.

“Compelled Behavior is the Essence of Tyranny”: Why Klein’s Tenure Fight Is Counter-Intuitive

 

chaord

1.any self-organizing, self-governing, adaptive, nonlinear, complex

organism, organization, community or system, whether physical,

biological or social, the behavior of which harmoniously blends

characteristics of both chaos and order. 2. an entity whose behavior

exhibits observable patterns and probabilities not governed or

explained by the rules that govern or explain constituent parts.

 

 

Dee Hock, the founder of VISA International wrote an extraordinary book, Birth of the Chaordic Age. He explains how he created an organization with tens of thousands of companies, across the world, “whose owners simultaneously engage in the most intense cooperation and fierce competition.”

 

The 1400 plus schools in the New York City School can also be described as a “chaordic system.”

 

Leadership is the ability to create a synergy among the chaoridic elements embedded in diverse organisms that we call schools.

 

Hock has what he calls, “MiniMaxims,

 

Compelled behavior is the essence of tyranny. Induced behavior is the essence of leadership. Both may have the same objective, but one tends to evil, the other to good.

 

Why does the Chancellor want to “compel behavior” of classroom teachers? The very people on the front line who will ultimately determine his success or failure.

 

The current debate over the role of student achievement in granting or not granting of tenure is a fascinating parallel.

 

The NYS Legislature is considering a bill that would forbade the Chancellor from using student test scores as a basis for not granting tenure. Union President Weingarten expressed her opinion in a New York Sun op ed piece and Klein responded in a letter to the editor.

 

A little lesson: principals rate every teacher every year. Teachers serve three years of probation – and they can be rated “S” “D” or “U” in the first year and “S” or “U” in the second and third year. At the end of the school year the principal evaluates the probationary teacher in about twenty areas, with an overall rating. To reach the rating decision the principal observes each probationary teacher six times a year. A pre-observation and a post-observation conference that produces an observation report – a written summary of each observation.

 

If a probationary teacher receives a “U” rating and is “discontinued, ” in effect, fired, s/he can appeal the dismissal to an DOE panel that makes a recommend to the chancellor. Dismissals are rarely overturned.

 

 

For the chancellor this is not enough – he wants the ability to base a rating on pupil achievement data – test scores. Probably guaranteeing that no teacher will ever want to teach a challenging class!

 

Time and time again the chancellor has  chosen a path that antagonizes classroom teachers, the soul of the school system.

 

For the chancellor the “perfect” staffing model would be a system made up of Teacher For America teachers – with a two or three year commitment to the system. There is some research that implies that teacher effectiveness peaks early in one’s career. And, a lot cheaper!!!

 

So, for teachers with more than five years, read Shirley Jackson’s, The Lottery .

Beyond Klein: Nostalgia for the Past Is Not a Strategy; We, the Public School Community, Must Create Schools That Work for All Kids.

 

I hear a nostalgia for the “good old days” of the Board of Education … paeans to Rudy Guiliani and Ed Koch?

 

Rudy and Ed ran the Board of Ed, have no doubts, they hired and fired chancellors, claimed credit for everything that was “good” and blamed chancellors for everything that wasn’t …

 

And yes, those negotiated collective bargaining agreements … I don’t remember any monumental gains … and I do remember that Guiliani five year contract  beginning two years of  “0″,”0.”

 

As time passes that fish gets bigger and bigger, sports exploits more spectacular and former boy/girl friends more gorgeous …

 

The Klein initiatives have swung from tightly controlled top-down to school-by-school decentralization with absolutely no supervision or accountability, except for those School Progress Report grades …

 

In spite of Tweed fabrications test scores are stagnant, the gains of the late nineties/early 2000’s have disappeared … and support for and belief in Joel has eroded.

 

The State legislature appears anxious to take a close look at mayoral control. The law itself, that sunsets on June 30, 2009, is surprisingly simple. Much of what we have seen is the work of the chancellor, not the law.

 

Over the next month or two the Teacher’s Union, the City Council, the Public Advocate and a host of others will be issuing reports/suggestions/recommendations. The education public marketplace will be engaging in a public debate … a healthy exercise.

 

Ultimately it is the up to the legislature and our new Governor either to change the law, or, wait till next year.

 

Changing the leadership at the Tweed, the Department, the Board, or, whatever we choose to call it is not nirvana.  Our schools are in serious jeopardy. 

 

NAEP scores, the “gold standard,” are mediocre … and both the right and the left are questioning public education, as we know it.

 

Supporters of vouchers, non-union charter schools, schemes to create union-free charter districts, education management organizations, both not-for-profit and for profit, are afoot. This is no longer a “right” versus “left” fight … There is a broad spectrum that seriously questions the current unionized public school system.

 

Fending off the attacks is not a strategy … public school teachers, and their unions, must play an active role in creating schools that work for the most vulnerable kids.

 

Schools will be evaluated: either by the NCLB rubric and/or School Progress Reports, or by a method devised by teacher unions … and, unless we begin to see progress, measured by agreed upon methodologies, the opponents of public education will be emboldened.

 

School as learning organizations, cultures that encourage collaboration, where introspection, both individual and group, are core values.

 

The demise of the Klein leadership will be a win in a small skirmish in a much larger battle.

Spinning Graduation Rates: Legerdemain Will Not Create Better Schools

The just released America’s Promise Alliance High School Drop Out Report is both depressing and  sharply questions Tweed spin.  The Report places New York as 43rd out of 50 metropolitan school districts with a graduation rate of 45.2% … twenty points below the Klein figures …

I sat with a principal as he interviewed a young man … who was wandering through the halls. He was almost eighteen, had earned few credits and passed only two Regents exams … he was proud of his red “do-rag,” and verbally jousted with the principal. He had no interest in going to class.

Where will he be in a few months? On the streets? incarcerated?

Transfer schools either have no seats or are wary who they accept. The GED Plus admissions process is cumbersome … for this kid the future is bleak.

Schools are “under the gun,” rather than offering alternative programs to find a path to graduation the Department uses the club … the threat of bad “grades” and school closings. Principals are increasingly looking to some method, any method of improving “data.”

In their last Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) the Supervisor’s Union (CSA) linked the evaluation of principals directly to the School Progress Report grade. Principals/Schools are now measured by the NCLB rubric at the State level and the Report Card grade at the City level.

In the elementary schools the grade is based on the annual State ELA and Math exams, while in the high schools the grade depends on graduation rates that are driven by student credit accumulation and passing Regents examinations.

At a recent Fordham University forum, Sol Stern, a resident scholar at the Manhattan Institute sharply criticized the Department School Report Card, to the applause of an audience made up of principals.

Once upon a time if a kid failed a course s/he went to summer school and repeated the class, although summer school had abysmal passing rates.

Viola! Credit Recovery.

The State Ed (SED) folks set the requirements for graduation: forty-four credits in specific areas and five Regents exams (English, Math, Science, 2 Social Studies). The SED says 54 hours of instruction equals one credit.

Here’s the deal … if a kid fails a course but has “sat” for the class, so the theory goes, s/he has met the 54 hour requirement. So, in lieu of repeating the class, if the kid successfully completes a standards-based project, the principal will reverse the grade to a passing grade.

In the old Board of Education days the high school division issued memoranda … one required schools to establish a Course Accreditation Committee, made of the principal, or designee, UFT Chapter Leader, counselor and relevant assistant principal. All new courses, including credit recovery had to be vetted by the Committee.

Under the current regime no one monitors anything – the old aphorism, “if it doesn’t involve a live boy or a dead girl” – it’s ok.

Credit recovery is not necessarily a bad idea … in some instances it is carefully crafted and an acceptable alternative … in too many it is simply a way to accumulate credits …

Principals and assistant principals who were caught changing/falsifying grades are reprimanded, not fired , the message is clear.

Creating schools that are described by the State Ed Department as “dumping grounds” is grotesque. We need an integrated model, schools that serve the needs of all kids, schools that are both closely monitored and supported by the Department … not set adrift and threatened with closing.

The current market-driven model is a disaster for the neediest … and the faster the legislature acts to bring sanity to education, the faster we can return to supporting and nurturing kids.