School Governance: Watching a Law Evolve Before Our Very Eyes, A Lesson in Transparency.

 

The long awaited closed Democratic conference, aka caucus, took place Tuesday night and Speaker Silver and Education Chair Nolan rolled out their “plan,” retaining mayoral control with cosmetic changes. The mayor continues to appoint a majority of the Panel for Education Policy (PEP) without any fixed terms, the PEP appointees would continue to serve as “at will” members, totally beholden to the appointing agent. The Daily News, via Gotham Schools reports,

  

Silver’s plan, presented along with Assembly Education Committee Chairwoman Catherine Nolan (D-Queens), would not mandate set terms for panel members, although a number of Democrats want such a requirement to ensure the body is more than just a rubber stamp.

The schools chancellor would no longer be chairman of the body and would be required to visit each school district every two years. The chairman would be voted on by panel members.

The panel, which would be required to meet once a month and in each borough at least once a year, would vote on all policy decisions, capital spending plans and budgets, the sources said.

A procurement policy for no-bid contracts would need to be developed, and the public would be required to receive 45 days notice of any school closures.

Silver would also seek to return “real power” to the district superintendents.

Silver is seeking to extend the law for six years.

Per the article Assembly members were “skeptical.

 

The Silver/Nolan plan parallels the Senate Majority Leader Smith plan.

 

In ordinary circumstances if the Speaker, the relevant committee chair, and the Senate Majority leader agree its a “done deal.”

 

By Wednesday, and after four hours of discussion in the “conference” Silver was much more conciliatory.

 

Liz Benjamin, in the Daily News, quotes Silver,

 

“There is no bill, just general concepts, our proposals to address parental involvement, to address transparency and keep mayoral control of the Board of Education (sic) itself,” Silver told reporters today.
“This is an evolving process. It will not be resolved, either conference-wise or legislatively, for a few weeks.”

 

Asked if he thinks mayoral control will be reauthorized before the end of the legislative session, despite the fact that a number of his Democratic members aren’t thrilled with the idea, Silver said:

“Yes, yes, absolutely. But I believe it needs the parental involvement piece, very much so, and transparency. My conference is on board with a lot of the issues. How on board is the issue that evolves.” 

 

On the Senate side there is no question that a few/some/many of the 32 Democrats will not support the Smith plan.

 

Will Silver listen to his “skeptical” members?  Especially when much of the opposition to Klein/Bloomberg come from members of color.

 

How much influence will the UFT have? Is the union Mayoral Control 2.0 in play?

 

What are the repercussions?

 

Will members who support only cosmetic changes face angry parents? Will a stronger plan draw the wraith of the mayor?

 

According to the NY Post,

  

But Assemblyman Micah Kellner (D-Manhattan), a critic of mayoral control, said, “It’s a toothless proposal. It’s all aesthetic changes.”

 

The opposition to the Klein/Bloomberg iteration of mayoral control is certainly grassroots, parents and advocates in every neighborhood in the city.

 

Are the Silver/Nolan ”general concepts” only floated to measure the depth of the opposition to the Bloomberg suzerainty among their colleagues and the citizenry?

 

And, if the legislators cannot agree upon and pass a law by June 30 the current law sunsets, and we return, probably, to the previous law. I say “probably” because there are a number of complex legal issues.

 

Three men a room? Not this time … 150 Assembly members and 62 Senators in the glare of the spotlight. Isn’t it fun, actually watching a law evolve before our very eyes!

 

Mayoral Control 2.0: A Hand Across the Aisle, Grasped, Stroked, Slapped, Bitten or Ignored? Will the “Players” or the “Public” Prevail?

 

 

The Brennan Center at NYU, in a 2006 Report  found,

 

 that rank and file members of the state legislature, as well as the public, are left out of the legislative process leaving all New Yorkers underserved.

  

The debate, and it is a debate, over New York City school governance, aka mayoral control, has redeemed the legislative process.

 

Parent groups, advocacy organizations, the unions, both supervisors and teachers, and a host of legislators have issued reports or introduced legislation. While both legislative leaders have publicly supported retaining mayoral control, with some “tweaks,” members have been much more aggressive, calling for far more dramatic changes.

 

The Post and the Daily News have been strongly supportive of keeping mayoral control in its current form. In the Post lines between “reporting” and “editorial” are blurred as the newspaper carries article after article flaying  Bloomberg opponents.

 

The UFT, the teacher union, spent eighteen months drafting a position. They held hearings in all boroughs and over 1200 teachers, parents and advocates attended and/or testified at the meetings. After month upon month (I know, I served on the Task Force) of discussions the seventy five or so Task Force members completed their work. The Task Force contained members from the range of caucuses within the union, and, while the Report was not unanimous on all points, much of the Report was fully agreed upon. The major bone of contention was the role and formation of the Public Education Panel (PEP), fka, the Central Board. The UFT Report  called for a policy rather than an advisory board, with a majority of the board not appointed by the mayor.

 

It was surprising when Randi Weingarten, the UFT President backed off from the union plan and suggested a board with a majority appointed by the mayor. 

 

As many New Yorkers know, we think the model can be improved, based upon what we have learned in the last seven years, by creating more checks and balances. Think of it as Mayoral Control 2.0.

We have thought that a good way to do this would be to reduce the number of mayoral appointees on the 13-member Panel for Education Policy, which must approve policy changes, from eight to five. The mayor would no longer control a majority of members, but others with a stake in the system would be empowered. We have backed such a change in the law.

But because Mayor Bloomberg, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and others (including The Post) have disagreed, why not consider other possibilities that maintain the mayoral majority on the PEP but similarly provide for greater public input, broader discussion and more checks and balances on the mayor’s prerogatives?

* Require the panel to hold hearings on the school system’s expense and capital budgets …..

* Have policy proposals made in public in advance of panel meetings, complete with a list of pros and cons about the issues being voted on ….

* Structure meetings to allow for more public discussion and have them broadcast and archived online ….

* The Legislature could bolster the law to strengthen school-leadership teams, district-leadership teams and community-education councils ….

Superintendents, who for a long time served as an important link between their communities and the central Department of Education, should also be re-empowered….

To improve confidence in student-achievement data and increase transparency over spending, the Legislature could require broader access to the numbers — and perhaps even an independent analysis …..

Finally, lawmakers should strengthen oversight and enforcement mechanisms. One shouldn’t have to go to court or hold a protest to get the school system to do the right thing.

The Post applauds Randi, but has not backed off their position: hizzoner should have total and complete control.

It may be too late for the Mayor and Randi to carve out a plan.

The legislature, especially the legislators of color, support substantial changes. On Tuesday, as reported by Gotham Schools mayoral control will be a topic of discussion at “the conference,” the Democratic caucus. Before the Assembly goes into session the dems meet in a closed, party caucus. Members can speak their minds in a session at which no notes are taken and, traditionally, members are quite outspoken.

Last year the Mayor and Speaker Silver supported congestion pricing, but, the members from the “outer” boroughs, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester strongly opposed in conference, and Silver never brought congestion pricing up for a vote.

On the Senate side leader Malcolm Smith says he may need Republican votes to pass a bill retaining the status quo, Smith’s members are livid.

Will the Assembly members prevail on Tuesday? Will Silver, the sage leader of the Assembly support his members?

Both Joel Klein and Mike Bloomberg have denigrated legislators in their tenures at Tweed and City Hall … they may have forgotten wise words of the Buddy Cianci, the former Mayor of Providence,

Remember, the hand you bite today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow.

 

 

The Use, Misuse and Abuse of Data to Drive Educational Policy: Charter Schools, Miracle or “Honey Pot”?

 

In the last few weeks  the blogosphere has glittered with comment upon comment. It began with David Brooks May 7th op ed, “Harlem Miracle,” in which Brooks claims,

 

In math, Promise Academy (Harlem Children’s’ Zone) eliminated the achievement gap between its black students and the city average for white students.

 

Brooks bases his claims on a study by Roland Fryer and Will Dobbie,

 

Let me repeat that. It eliminated the black-white achievement gap. “The results changed my life as a researcher because I am no longer interested in marginal changes,” Fryer wrote in a subsequent e-mail. What Geoffrey Canada, Harlem Children’s Zone’s founder and president, has done is “the equivalent of curing cancer for these kids. It’s amazing. It should be celebrated. But it almost doesn’t matter if we stop there. We don’t have a way to replicate his cure, and we need one since so many of our kids are dying — literally and figuratively.”

 

The Promise Academy uses an approach called “No Excuses,” and, Brooks avers that this approach may change the face of education for inner city children.

 

Basically, the no excuses schools pay meticulous attention to behavior and attitudes. They teach students how to look at the person who is talking, how to shake hands. These schools are academically rigorous and college-focused. Promise Academy students who are performing below grade level spent twice as much time in school as other students in New York City. Students who are performing at grade level spend 50 percent more time in school.

 

But, (that key word), are Brooks claims based on “valid and reliable,” evidence, or, is Fryer, the researcher employed by Klein to pursue a student reward system, simply fitting the research to fit the philosphy.

 

Aaron Pallas, in Gotham Schools, has serious problems with the research claims, and, in a response, “How Gullible is David Brooks,” picks at Brook’s claims.

 

Pallas asks,

 

But here’s the kicker.  In the HCZ Annual Report for the 2007-08 school year submitted to the State Education Department, data are presented on not just the state ELA and math assessments, but also the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.  Those eighth-graders who kicked ass on the state math test?  They didn’t do so well on the low-stakes Iowa Tests. 

 

After musing about possible reasons why there is such a disparity between the State tests and the Iowa tests Pallas concludes,

 

 I’m going to hold off labeling the HCZ schools as the “Harlem Miracle” until there’s some additional evidence supporting the claim that these schools have placed their students on a level academic playing field with white students in New York City.

 

Pallas’ response kicked off an amazing dialogue, as of today 46 comments delving into the depths of statistical analysis and speculating over the sharp increases in HCZ test scores. For some of us it required scrambling to the back of closets to pull out these dusty ed statistics texts …

 

Aaron, your task: create a “final examination,” … you have been educating us for three weeks, did we “get it?”

 

For those of us not as skilled in statistical analysis we see simpler reasons for the dramatic results. Take a look at the numbers of Special Education and ELL children in charter schools. In spite of the current law,

 

that the charter school
  shall demonstrate good faith efforts to attract and retain a  comparable
  or  greater enrollment of students with disabilities and limited English
  proficient students when compared to the  enrollment  figures  for  such
  students  in the school district in which the charter school is located.

 

Charter schools have dramatically lower numbers of Special Education and ELL students, and, of the disabled students in charter schools they fall in the “higher achieving” spectrum. Clearly charter schools are discouraging categories of student that may bring down test scores. A Gotham Schools post underlines the lack of “At risk” children in charter schools and an Inside Schools post here goes into detail.

 

It is commonplace that after the public phase of the random lottery charter schools “interview” parents, and, gently, or not so gently discourage parents of children they determine “not appropriate” for the type of school that they run.

 

If we are to compare charter and public schools we require an even playing field.

 

An Albany bill, introduced by Assemblymember Maisel with numerous co-sponsors amends the current charter school law,

 

“a charter school
must enroll the same or a greater percentage of students with  disabili-
ties  and  limited  English  proficient  students  when  compared to the
enrollment figures for such students in the school district in which the
charter school is located. Failure to comply for two  consecutive  years
shall be deemed grounds for revocation of the charter”.

 

Let’s not forget that the loosely regulated world of charter schools offers many dollars for the charter school operators, salaries in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars and lucrative consultant contracts for knowing the right people.

 

Frank Lugovina has been around forever. He used to be tied to District Seven through school board politics. Title 1 regs at one time required an outside evaluator, and, yes, it was Frank’s firm that had the evaluation contract. The evaluations praised the work of the superintendent hired by a school board who hired a superintendent in a less than stellar district, everyone benefited, except the kids.

 

Now that Mike has removed the school board/local politics patronage path Frank and friends have found the charter school path. You gotta give these guys credit … one man invents, the other circumvents.

 

Of course, as the State Comptroller Report shows patronage has moved from the streets of the city to the halls of Tweed.

 

Is the David Brooks “Miracle” pupil achievement, or the ability to suck bucks out of the system?

Are Teachers Union Contracts Anachronisms? Do Contracts Impede Pupil Progress? or, Do Contracts Protect Teachers From Abusive Principals and Chancellors?

 

Critics of unions continue the urban myth that teacher union contracts prevent principals from creating effective schools because of restrictive seniority provisions. It is not so much the wording of the contract but the idea of what the contract represents, according to a small school principal,

 

“I don’t object to any clause in the contract, I object to the mythic impact of the contract. The staff agrees that something will be good for kids, but, the chapter leader asks, ‘does it violate the contract: the letter or the spirit of the contract?’  Most teachers agree with me, if it’s good for kids we should do it, some teachers, good and bad teachers, are only concerned with what happens inside the walls of their classroom, and the chapter leader and the union acolytes, with the advise of the regional union, are the defenders of the union grail … everything becomes a battle.”

 

Lengthy industrial style contracts are an outgrowth of unionism in America. On the other side of the pond, in Europe, local teacher contracts don’t exist, most decisions are made by the school leader and the staffs at each school site.

 

You can review over 100 contracts from fifty states here, and you will find a “sameness,” salaries, benefits, work days, work years, excessing/layoff rules, transfer and work assignment rules, dismissal and other discipline rules and dispute resolution procedures, etc.

 

Within the teacher union movement flexibility in negotiations is actively debated.

 

In Los Angeles and Boston the school district and the teacher union have carved out a cluster of schools that operate under a “thin” contract and easing of district rules. See the UTLA “thin contract” here and a discussion of the Boston Pilot School contract here here and here.

 

GothamSchools reports that the New York-based Green Dot Charter School is approaching the conclusion of their contract negotiations. In LA the Green Dot contract can be viewed here, 21 pages of the 53 page contract deals with the Teacher Evaluation System, ultimately dismissal can be appealed under the grievance procedure in the contract, culminating in binding arbitration.(“just cause” versus tenure)

 

So, will the upcoming set of contract negotiations result in some sort of “thin” contract, or LA Green Dot style contract in NYC? Absolutely not.

 

There is no reason to have hundreds of teachers sitting in euphemistically called Teacher Reassignment Center, aka, rubber rooms. The contract provides specific timelines to move forward to resolve teacher discipline issues, timelines that are totally ignored by the Department for political reasons. It is easier to attack the union and the union contract if  there are hundreds of teachers twiddling their thumbs. Overcrowded rubber rooms serve a political purpose, damn the kids.

 

The ATR pool is another example, either gross incompetence, wasting of tens of millions of dollars, or, yet again, creating a disaster for political purposes.

 

If the legislature recycles mayoral control we face more years of union versus the Department (Randi v. Joel) jousts, battle after battle. If the legislature “tinkers,” keeps mayoral control but with checks and balances we may be able to move beyond the conflict stage.

 

True collaboration requires an environment of trust, an environment that is currently totally lacking.

 

 

Peer Review: Is True Collaboration Teachers Participating in the Hiring and Evaluation of Colleagues? Should School Reform Be “Owned” By School Staffs?

 

Are you aware that New York State Law requires teacher input in tenure decisions?

 

A new Section 3012-b of the Education Law (as added by Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007) resulted in new standards and procedures for making tenure determinations for teachers in the instructional services employed in school districts and BOCES. The tenure determination process must now include:

• peer review by other teachers, as far as practicable;

The battle over teacher tenure has been on a back burner, now, it is rapidly moving to the fore. In Washington DC Michelle Rhee and the Washington Teacher Union are fully engaged in acrimonious negotiations: the issue: an option whereby teachers would give up tenure for substantial raises.

 

Tenure laws are established by States and range around the nation and vary greatly.

 

From President Obama to Arnie Duncan to Mayor Bloomberg and Joel Klein, the question of the dismissal of tenured teachers is alive and well.

 

The national teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers has resurrected a three decades old program: peer review.

 

This is a ticklish issue for teachers, however, it is more commonplace than most teachers realize, even in New York City.

 

In the Spring, 2007, the Department “reorganized” District 79, ended Off Site Education Services and the High School for Pregnant Girls and created GED Plus. The Union and the DOE entered into “impact bargaining” and created a process whereby staff in closing programs reapplied for positions.

 

 …. Contract will apply to one-hundred percent of the bargaining unit positions …

 

A Personnel Committee shall be established, consisting of two Union representatives designated by the UFT President, two representatives designated by the community superintendent for community school district schools or by the Chancellor for schools/programs under his/her jurisdiction, a Principal/or Project Director.

 

 Grievances challenging whether the personnel committee’s decision regarding the qualifications of individual applicants will be granted if the arbitrator finds that there was no “reasonable basis” for the determination.

 

 The GED Plus/Restart/ACCESS personnel committee may require applicants to submit a cover letter or resume explaining how they meet the posted qualifications….. The subcommittees will work according to a single hiring rubric created by the GED Plus/Restart/ACCESS personnel committee. The UFT and BOE will jointly conduct training sessions for members of the five subcommittees on the rubric.

 

Teachers assigned by the union evaluated applicants and made “qualified” and “not qualified” decisions. Applicants found “not qualified” were assigned to the Absent Teacher Reserve.

 

Teachers have participated in the hiring process for new schools on phase out campuses for more than a decade.

 

Have teachers actually evaluated colleagues in lieu of the standard model?

 

Actually, a young, rebellious principal, his UFT Chapter and a creative staff created a ”Peer Selection, Support and Evaluation’ plan. The plan, approved by the UFT grew into the SBO Staffing Plan, by 2002 more than half of schools had opted into the plan.

 

A part of the plan that did not emerge was the peer review section of the plan.

 

The Personnel Committee felt that a meaningful evaluation procedure must include two components that are omitted from traditional procedures. The first is a strong component of self-evaluation. Individuals have a greater commitment when they identify their own needs, and their standards are higher when they set their own goals. The other component involves a professional sharing and a peer evaluation that does not exist in the average school due to professional isolation.

 

If we view ourselves as true educators, we must also view ourselves as learners. We are role models for our students. If we model authority, our students will learn to be authoritarian,. If we model self-improvement in an atmosphere of sharing, that’s what our students will learn.

 

That rebellious principal? Eric Nadelstern.

 

In 1990 Peter Senge wrote The Fifth Discipline, a seminal study: think of a workplace as a “learning organization” at which all the participants are part of the process. Senge went on to adopt his theories to the schools,

 

Schools may be the starkest example in modern society of an entire institution modeled after the assembly line. This has dramatically increased educational capability in our time, but it has also created many of the most intractable problems with which students, teachers, and parents struggle to this day. If we want to change schools, it is unlikely to happen until we understand more deeply the core assumptions on which the industrial-age school is based.

 

 

School and District Leadership Teams are embedded in State Education Law and are outgrowths of Senge. Unfortunately the Klein administration abandoned the concept of the school as  learning organization. Klein found the views of William Ouchi  more hospitable to his beliefs.

 

Ouchi, author of Theory Z, about Japanese management wrote Making School Work, envisioning a strongly decentralized system in which the principal has wide ranging authority to make decisions impacting their own schools.

 

Peer review is a heavy lift, for teachers wedded to an long established top down management/evaluation system and a school hierarchy wedded to a principal as CEO model.

 

In their early years teachers accept responsibility for their behavior in the classroom, but, many never evolve beyond. Some accept ownership: they see beyond their own behavior and see the children and their families as part of the classroom community. It is the rare school that evolves into a community. An organism in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. A school in which all staff members participate in the hiring and evaluation of colleagues, a community in which all are dependent on each other.

 

The process of achieving peer review is the same process that produces great schools.

 

Citizens Union/Baruch College Mayoral Control Panel: It’s Klein by a Nose …

 

As I walked into Baruch College I was greeted by a host of placards, well dressed white people carry pre-printed signs supporting the Mayor and people of color carrying handmade signs challenging “one man rule.”

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Three security stations and long, long lines to get into the auditorium, a standing room only crowd.

 

Doug Muzzio, a Baruch Professor of Public Affairs chairs a rambling discussion more than a debate.

 

The procedure: the chair asked five questions and the panel answered, or wandered off in other directions … it was choppy and lacked focus.

 

Joel Klein expressed the position of the administration clearly: the Department of Education should be treated as any other Department of the City of New York, the “Commissioner,” that the law refers to as the Chancellor should be chosen by the Mayor, and, the Panel for Educational Policy should have a solely advisory role. Anything less would presage a return to the “bad old days.”

 

Joe Viteritti, a Professor at Hunter College, author of a recent book on mayoral control and Chair of the Gotbaum Commission on School Governance: Viteritti gave a quick summary of the eleven major cities with what is called mayoral control, in no other city does the mayor so totally control the schools. Joe differentiated between education and other city agencies, education impacts the lives of over a million children and parents must be engaged. Central Board: Policy or Advisory? Fixed terms or at the whim of the Mayor? He sees no problem with fixed terms with a majority appointed by Mayor … a Board that can engage in a public conversation. If the Board questions a policy perhaps the policy should be questioned. “The power of civic engagement.”

 

Reverend David K. Brawley, Co-Chair of East Brooklyn Congregations supports the current iteration with the addition of an independent Parent Resource Advisory Center.

 

Monica Major, Chair of CEC 11 supports a 15 member board with fixed terms, three appointed by the Mayor.

 

Ana Maria Archila, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road NY, and a ELL advocate sees a board on which the Chancellor is an ex-officio member … with checks and balances.

 

Mike Mulgrew, the UFT Chief Operating Officer explained the union plan, the Mayor appoints the Chancellor but only appoints five on a 13 member board.

 

While Joel spun out a litany of data and rest of the panel expressed their misgivings with the achievements of the current administration.

 

As Viteritti pointed out no one could show that their plan would be any more effective than the current plan. And, Joel kept warning that a weakened Mayor and a weakened Chancellor would have less focus and less accountability.

 

After countless debates no one seems to have moved any closer … innumerable plans with a legislative ticking clock. Joel did agree to “take look” at the Scott Stringer plan for CECs that mirrors the community planning board model.

 

High points:

 

Joel as he reached for the mike, “Trouble hearing me? May not be the microphone.”

 

Again Joel, quoting Yogi Berra, “Predictions can be perilous when they’re about the future.”

 

Viteritti: “To have positive outcomes parents and the public must feel that they are part of the debate, part of the process.”

 

And, of course the Yogi line that was omitted, “It’s not over till the fat lady sings.”

See Shelly Silver and Malcolm Smith comments here.

“All Teachers Are Not Created Equal,” Should Teacher Unions Explore the Impact of “Value-Added Modeling” Alternatives to Traditional Salary Schedules?

 

Do teachers improve every year as measured by student achievement, and, if not, should it impact compensation? 

 

Can we measure teacher performance?

 

Bill Sanders, currently a professor at University of North Carolina, has been developing a highly sophisticated statistical system called “value-added modeling.”  While there has been criticism of Sander’s methodology we are clearly on the path to be able to extract the amount of “value” teachers add to students.

 

The DOE is using the Sanders modeling methods in the Teacher Data Initiative (TDI), an early experiment in informing teachers of their “effectiveness” compared with other teachers teaching similar students.

 

Salary schedules, for eons, have been seniority based, called “steps.” In recent years the “steps” have been steeper at the lower end of the scale. In NYC teachers receive two step increases a year for the first eight years, then, raises after 10, 13, 15, 18, 20 and reach maximum at 22 years. The theory is simple, create a salary structure that encourages teachers to remain in the system.

 

If it is possible to measure teacher performance, how should it impact salary compensation schedules? Should we continue with a seniority based system or factor “value-added” into compensation plans?

 

The evolution of supercomputing has enabled researchers to analyze limitless bits of data, and apply statistical tools,

 

A regression is a statistical procedure that takes raw historical data and estimates how various causal factors influence a single variable of interest.

 

a mathematical ‘neural network’ is a series of interconnected switches, like neurons, receive, evaluate and transmit information…. At the end of the network is a final switch that collects information from previous neural switches and produces from its output the neural network’s prediction …

 

At the end of the process the researcher looks at the data and decides whether the results are “significant.” Aaron Pallas, at Gotham Schools is instructing us, a sort of Statistics 101.

 

As the evidence mounts we can conclude, not surprisingly, that “all teachers are not created equal.”

 

 Is using student/teacher achievement data to impact compensation schedules the correct route? Will it result in more effective schools, or simply reward some teachers, and antagonize others?

 

Should we reward individual teachers, schools (i. e., the current NYC Bonus Plan), or, teams of teachers, such as grade teams or small learning communities in secondary schools?

 

Do senior teachers become too “comfortable,” and fail to continue to upgrade their skills?

 

Should “rewards” solely be in increased compensation, or should the increased dollars be totally flexible and be used to buy equipment, fund school trips, etc.

 

Or, should this datum become the core of a peer review teacher evaluation system?

 

The American Federation of Teachers has just announced an Innovation Fund, hopefully the fund will encourage a wide range of school-based plans that inform future policy determinations.

 

 

 

A Roadmap to School Governance, with Potholes, Bumps, Curves and Spins to “Victory for All Children and Families,” Whatever That Is …

  Have you been keeping track of the school governance plans? The plans authored by Betsy Gotbaum. Scott Stringer, Jim Brennan, Marty Dilan, ICOPE, UFT, Independent Parents Commission, CSA, the Campaign for Better Schools  the “sun setters, and the “make governance permanent”  crowd. Did I leave any out?

 

Someone asked why all the groups don’t get together and agree on a single plan … same chances as the Sunni, Shiaa and Kurds getting together in the Iraqi parliament, holding hand and singing kumbaya …

 

The overriding question in the re-authorized law: will the Mayor continue to appoint a majority of the Central Board (currently called the Public Education Panel)? If the answer is “no” the headline  will be: Mayoral Control Dead!! 

 

There are a range of other keys questions around the Central Board:

 

* who picks the Chancellor? the Mayor or the Board?

* a screening panel similar to local Bar Associations approving judicial candidates, approves candidates for the Board.

* fixed terms, can only be removed for malfeasance.

* Chancellor would be an ex officio member, non-voting.

* explicit duties of the new Board in the law: i.e., approves contracts of a certain size.

 

Will the law explicitly layout the duties and responsibilites of the Chancellor? Former Assembly Ed chair Steve Sanders feels that the law was not explicit enough and gave the Chancellor too much leeway.

 

Sol Stern, Manhattan Institute, has been called for an independent entity to control and report on school/school system data … underline independent. The current administration is opaque, and has closely held data, and believes they are the sole “interpretator” of all datum. The recently created Alliance for NYC Schools has not gotten off the ground, rumors, the Department still wants to select what data is released to whom.

 

The UFT plan contains a mechanism to appeal decisions of the Chancellor to the State Commissioner, the ability to continue on to the courts in an expedited process.

 

The Community Engagement Councils (CEC), formerly known as Community School Boards are powerless, and, not surprisingly, the Councils are filled with vacancies.

 

How CECs are selected is not important, the question is what are their powers? Will they have a role in recommending superintendents,? principals? will the law require a District Leadership Team?

 

The Assembly calendar lists June 22 as the final day of the session. I suspect that sections of ”plans” will vie as the days tick down, with rumor after rumor and a “last minute” law will emerge.

 

Probably not a “win-lose” law, more likely it will contain elements that enable a wide range of power bokers to “spin” … with Mike and Randi and Shelly and Malcolm and Basil standing together all claiming the new law as a “victory for all children and families.”

 

R*E*S*P*E*C*T: Will Legislators of Color Lead the Governance Law Redesign?

 

 

In communities of color one of the most important cultural mores is respect. Aretha Franklin’s classic, Respect  is an anthem for generations of Afro-Americans.

 

The female employer calls the cleaning lady, twenty years her senior, by her first name, the boss shouts to an employee and calls him, “eh you,” or “boy.” Do you cringe when you watch the Butterfly McQueen character in “Gone With the Wind”?

 

If you are a male of color how many times have you been stopped by police officers? In spite of your job title, the number of college degrees, you are treated as a felon.

 

How many times has a security guard trailed you in an upscale department store? Regardless of your income or the dollars you have spent in previous visits.

 

Mayor Bloomberg may take credit for the precipitous drop in crime, however, of the half million police “stop and frisks,” over 90% are people of color and only a few percent resulted in arrests.

 

A school system made up of children of color is led by Joel Klein, and, again, for people of color the lack of minority leadership is obvious. In the Charter School community, with the exception of Geoffrey Canada, the leadership is, once again, dominated by wealthy whites.

 

Klein has a new “partner,” Al Sharpton, he co-leads the Education Equality Project, Klein’s national movement. Clearly, the half millions in funds that Klein funneled to Sharpton had no impact upon his conversion .

 

The six years of the Bloomberg/Klein “Children’s First” program have been characterized by a total consolidation of power in the Tweed court house.

 

School closings, school creation, shared school space, principal selection, the bus route catastrophe, the reduction in gifted classes, and, above all, the total banishment of elected officials from schools.

 

The absence of respect.

 

As the reauthorization of mayoral control controversy heated up elected minority leadership appeared to be on the side lines; however, in the last few weeks an increasing number of minority leadership have moved to the fore.

 

At the March 20th Brooklyn Assembly School Governance Task Force meeting, attended by fourteen Assembly members, it was the Afro-American contingent that grilled the DOE representatives.  The issues: the lack of responsiveness, the frustration of parents, the powerlessness of CECs: issues of respect.

 

At an April 26th Mayoral Control panel former Congressman Major Owens scorned the Al Sharpton/Joel Klein partnership, to applause from the audience, (“No one elected Al Sharpton, he doesn’t speak for our community, let him stick with police brutality.”) Inez Barron, an Assembly member representing East New York, and a retired principal from District 16 called for the legislature to allow mayoral control to sunset, and start over again.

 

The NY Post savaged Senate Leader Malcolm Smith  over his Report on Mayoral Control. Elizabeth Benjamin, on her Daily News blog linked the Report, and, after the Mayor spanked Malcolm, he back pedaled rapidly …

 

Will the dis-respecting of the minority community result in a mayoral governance law that reflects the views of minority legislators and their constituents?

 

For the many New Yorkers who still find themselves confronted with the remnants of racism, Bloomberg and Klein stick in their craw and remind them of generations of marginalization.