Comments on: Much Ado

By: David Bloomfield

David Bloomfield — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:05:30 +0000

In my previous column, I proposed requiring the DOE to appointment at Advisory Committee on School Utilization, a recommended procedure under Education Law Section 402-a. Decision-making authority still needs to reside in a publicly-accountable official (or officials) who will either make good or bad decisions. For reasons stated at some length in my mayoral control testimony at davidcbloomfield.wordpress.com, I still believe that mayoral control is the best governance structure for NYC.

While I’m responding, the question of “how would you have politicians and policy-makers involve themselves in that work?” has haunted me for decades. I guess “send money” seems flippant but in many respects, that is my answer. Most aid works out that way, anyway, since money is fungible but politicians and policy-makers designate it for particular purposes out of a sense of power, mission, and political necessity. Sometimes that works fairly well — there would be little special education as we know it without the funding and regulations provided under IDEA and without Head Start many pre-K programs would suffer — but often misses the mark, such as billions under Title I, meant to target poor and low performing students but in practice supplementing general district expenses in every congressional district.

By: leonie haimson

leonie haimson — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:45:52 +0000

good piece, David.
I recall, however, that you were one of the few parents who supported the continuation of mayoral control. Last night’s PEP meeting revealed that even with all the new public process required, mayoral control remains an ugly mayoral dictatorship — arrogant, destructive and contemptuous of the views of parents and the community. Where did the legislature go wrong in your opinion? and how should the system have been reformed?

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:20:45 +0000

Me thinks you expect too much of federal policy. Afterall, the feds are many, many layers removed from students. They have to get through state boards of education, state education departments, local school boards and district offices, and schools, before even getting close to classrooms, teachers and students. Moreover, federal policy has little leverage besides money, since education is primarily a state function.

As for “Accountability, merit pay, data systems, higher teacher quality, charter schools” being Bush-era buzz words, these were all well-entrenched in Clinton-era policy as well. It was Clinton who set up the charters school office at the U.S. Education Department, and Goals 2000 lay the groundwork for holding schools accountable for reaching high standards.

Finally, I have to dispute your claim that these policies “all have been widely tried.” There are fewer than 200 charter schools in New York State and fewer than 5000 charter schools in all of the 40 states that even allow them. That’s less than 5% of all schools and a far cry from widely tried. I know of few schools or districts have tried merit pay. As for accountability, while NCLB was supposed to hold schools to high standards, most of what it has done to date is identify schools that are failing their students. Very few have been closed or even transformed in response to being identified as failing.

I agree with you that the teacher-student relationship is where the important work takes place, but how would you have politicians and policy-makers involve themselves in that work?

By: Jason Becker

Jason Becker — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:52:27 +0000

I’m curious– if you’re looking to reform the student-teacher relationship system wide, why wouldn’t you look at systems and structures that don’t even pass a rationality litmus test as a place to start? What reform can be made which is more direct that is not folded into these larger structural reform strategies or is simply being ignored?