Your questions: “Why is every decision viewed with suspicion and scorn? Why can’t we appreciate that this is terribly difficult work with a school system so large and such a history of failure?” Won’t this new layer only add to an already large system? I know that no one can know everything, but I doubt very much that further layers add to knowledge or efficiency.

While I have to check on this, I understand that up to 95% of a school’s budget is already allocated by the Central office (i.e, Title One funds, salaries, etc) by the time it is dispersed to the schools. That oercentage, or less, doesn’t leave much room to play with for principals and leaders at the schools. Yet, we hear about adding another layer at Central and we are expected to say, “Wow, they are really taking care of the education of our children.”

I said the SYSTEM needs to be more efficient. Fewer administrators means less overhead, more dollars being funneled to schools. And if the Chancellor believes that he has assembled a more qualified/competent cadre of principals and wants to “devolve authority” to the school leaders, then it makes all the more sense to continue to trim and streamline at the top.

My scorn is only for those who would refuse a student these chances.
And, if as the DOE claims, all of the prior re-organizations, re-structuring and re-jiggering of the system has produced improved results, why not repeat these success until they become the norm in a system?

The philosophy of school efficiency is early twentieth century, based on Ford’s assembly line of manufacturing. We know that schools that move students along an assembly line are not working, ergo, are not efficient. The DOE has broken up these assembly line schools into smaller and more flexible units. These schools, some of which are co-located in single buildings, require multiple managers with redundancies in services: secretaries, school support staff, telephone lines, etc. In a business setting that would not be efficient. In a human setting, they are considered necessary for good results.

No one can criticise better management, nor should they unfairly criticise the manager. However, if the manger’s dicta are wrong, there is appropriate criticism. The laws are clear about kids with disabilities: equal access and an appropriate education. If students are denied access to programs, such as the smaller schools, they are denied access to the education these schools supply, to the teachers who might know them better and provide them with supports, to a chance at success.

Since past actions have indicated a lack of understanding by the DOE about the laws which provide these students with access to a free and appropriate public education, I do not see that it is smart on my part to accept at face value any excited announcement about another reorganization.