This article reflects my thinking in early 2002, almost a year before ICE was founded and I was trying to think things through. I think I evlolved since then, at least a bit. It appeared in the Feb. 2002 hard copy edition of Ed Notes, some of which I'm reprising over at the ed notes blog.
When you think of all the unmanageable problems that beset our schools, many of them can be boiled down to one word: Governance! What a boring word! It makes you want to yawn. But exactly what forces influence how our schools are run from the top level down to the buildings themselves goes a long way towards illuminating a number of issues. So, here is a short primer on---ugh!---Governance.
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, schools
were run under a centralized system. Basic decision making, hiring, and curriculum flowed from the central authority down to the schools. Principals and other supervisors had to pass exams and based on the results, were hired off a list.
They were required to have taught for a number of years. Teachers were hired under a similar system. This civil service system supposedly reduced political influence.
Some people felt think this system worked fairly well. Others felt it worked mainly for those students who were motivated and didn’t work so well for those who weren’t. Increasingly, the percentage of the latter grew. There was a demand for change in the 60’s.
This led to the system known as decentralization, which began as an experiment in a few local areas. By this time, the UFT had grown into an influential entity and its leader Al Shanker was becoming a major figure in city and state politics. The UFT had just completed a very successful contract after a 1 week strike in the fall of ‘67. In the fall of ‘68 the decentralization experiment blew up when one of the districts insisted it had the right to hire and fire teachers. The UFT went on a cataclysmic strike. Most supervisors supported the strike and schools were closed for almost 3 months. The shake-out from that strike (which to some extent still continues today) led to a reduced concept of decentralization, the form of which was influenced by UFT lobbyists in Albany.
Really, the word decentralization was a misnomer as it just moved a centralized system down to a more local district level for grades k-8. High schools remained under central control.
Basic decisions for schools were now made at a district level through a District Superintendent appointed by an elected school board. These boards were controlled by local political forces and became major patronage machines. Hiring of supervisors was now done at the district level. A major requirement to become a supervisor was to be active politically, either at the district level or connected to some political entity. Politics entered into the equation like it had never done before. It became possible to become a supervisor with little or no teaching background. That is one of the major reasons the quality of supervisors has declined so severely. People have not really learned how to run schools by doing jobs from the ground up.
The UFT in many districts threw itself into these local politics with a vengeance and also played a role in “making” supervisors. Some District Reps became crucial point people. In some cases the district union set up machines of their own and had enormous influence. This process culminated with one Dist. Rep. actually becoming superintendent, completing a merger of the union and administration. Almost every Chapter Leader that was part of that machine became a supervisor.
One of the ironies of our system is just how many people have used the union to rise to a supervisory level. The fact that many of these people were part of Unity Caucus is naturally down played by the union leadership.
It is interesting to note that the centralized high schools were plagued by similar problems faced by the districts. Did schools at the high school level run any better that those in the districts? Most people would say the answer is a resounding NO! Patronage existed, but at a different level and in a different form. Citywide forces such as the UFT had a better opportunity to make their influence felt. The UFT continued to favor the concept of centralization and has opposed all proposals to place high schools at the district level. Dealing with one high school agency divided into 5 boroughs is much more manageable than dealing with the 32 districts.
One of the interesting sidelights of the centralized high schools is that it is the only division where Unity Caucus has continuously lost union elections, indicating the disaffection of high school teachers.
A number of local scandals led to the call for re-centralizing the system, (with one of the largest scandals taking place in the district controlled by the former UFT DR.) This has been accomplished in recent years by giving the Chancellor more power in the appointment of District Superintendents and thus, the power to influence events at the school level. The major impact has been the weakening of local school boards. The UFT, consistent as usual in its support for re-centralizing the system, backed these changes. Again, it is much simpler to try to influence 1 Harold Levy than 32 district superintendents.
Has this change made things better? Most teachers would say the answer still is not only a resounding NO, but conditions have actually deteriorated as Levy’s “corporate” style of management by the numbers has filtered down to the schools in a way that has severely damaged the educational process, a process that began under his predecessor, Rudy Crew.
Giving the Mayor Control
Many people were surprised this past June when Randi Weingarten came up with a plan that would give the Mayor control over the school system. The UFT plan includes maintaining a Board of Ed., whose members would be chosen from a list suggested by a blue ribbon panel appointed by the State Board of Regents (You know! The agency that has forced all these tests down our throats.) If local school board elections are abolished (they have been postponed until next year while the issue is being decided) that would lead to the total re-centralization of the school system. The union feels that giving Mayors control will make them more accountable. It allows the union to maintain influence without responsibility. Checking out the results of Mayoral control in Chicago points to another story. The former union leadership’s support for Mayoral control and its complicity in the management of the system was instrumental in its recent defeat.
Some view the change in the UFT’s position as a bargaining chip for a new contract. But given the general negative experience of a school system influenced by politics, how wise is it to give away the entire school system to any one politician who is clearly governed by a desire to see the system produce “results?” Results that will be interpreted in a political rather than an educational way.
Can re-centralization meet the needs of individual schools?
It has been difficult enough to meet the needs of individual schools, teachers and children with even the quasi-decentralized system. How can we expect the system to be responsive when a one size fits all template will be applied? When the method of dealing with standardized tests is to try to create standardized children by using standardized teaching methods? Instead of calling for educators to have more power over our school system, we are allowing political forces to control what we do in the classroom. People who don’t have a clue about education are making basic educational decisions. Instead of calling for teachers to have more control over the schools, our leaders have capitulated to political forces.
Does anyone think that any politician cares more about the children than they do about getting reelected? Given the choice, will they put enough resources into classrooms to help children really learn? Or will they take the politically expedient way out by calling for more tests and more blame on teachers when children don’t produce?
What kind of system should we have?
Education Notes has continuously been an advocate for a truly decentralized system where each school functions as an independent agent, with teachers playing a major leadership role. Pie in the sky? Maybe. Why not try an experiment? Take a number of failing schools. Reorganize half of them along current guidelines, with new staffs, administrators, etc. with decisions made from the top down as currently happens and would continue to happen under mayoral control. Take the other half and make an open offer to teachers around the city to come and run their own schools as if they were charters. Compare the results after 3 years.
Could such an experiment work? Certainly not without the backing of the UFT. But there is no way the UFT leadership would ever back such an experiment. The UFT is too involved in the infrastructure of the current system.
Should our union defend the system?
We believe our union leaders have become defenders of a rotten system. Oh, they verbally criticize administrators and the way things are done at the Board. But they do nothing about the situation in reality. Thus, our leaders come off as defenders of the status quo. Giuliani’s attacks that we have a system whose prime purpose is job protection weren’t totally off base. Ed. Notes feels the union should scour the budget, publicize abuses and demand positions be shifted to classrooms. Don’t hold your breath!
Where’s the vision?
Education Notes’ sponsored resolutions at the Delegate Assembly to have our union articulate a vision of what our school system should look like have fallen on deaf ears.
Such a vision has not only not been articulated to the public, it hasn’t even been put before our own members. How wasteful to see all of those expensive commercials miss the opportunity to place such a vision before the public! The real problem is that our union leaders do not have such a vision. Their vision is one of politics and legal maneuvering. What we get is shortsighted, short term solutions that will never solve the long-term problems our school system faces. Giving the Mayor control is just another gimmick.
1 comment:
These boards were controlled by local political forces and became major patronage machines. Hiring of supervisors was now done at the district level. A major requirement to become a supervisor was to be active politically, either at the district level or connected to some political entity. Politics entered into the equation like it had never done before. It became possible to become a supervisor with little or no teaching background. That is one of the major reasons the quality of supervisors has declined so severely. People have not really learned how to run schools by doing jobs from the ground up.
Post a Comment