From the Editor: The DC power machine is about to remove the voices of parents, teachers and children from public education in DC. We believe this is a terrible error:

D.C. Schools Takeover Gets Initial Approval
By Nikita Stewart and Theola Labbé
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 4, 2007; A01

LINK

The D.C. Council granted preliminary approval yesterday for a dramatic shift in power for the city's public schools, giving the mayor control over the budget, key administrative functions and the blueprint for modernizing every dilapidated building in the 55,000-student system.

Following the example of other big-city mayors, notably Michael R. Bloomberg (R) of New York, Adrian M. Fenty (D) would assume the reins of the school district, and the school superintendent would report directly to him.

After final approval from the council, which could come as early as April 17, and Congress later this spring, parents could see the first changes in the fall. As part of the new structure, the council would have line-item budget control, and the school board would set academic standards.

In one of the biggest departures from the plan that Fenty announced in January, the council would have the authority to rescind the mayor's control over the schools if he did not show "sufficient progress in education" within five years.

Council members, who approved the takeover in a 9 to 2 vote on the first reading, spoke passionately about the need for a sweeping change in governance to stop the mass exodus of students from public schools. They said they are putting their trust in 36-year-old Fenty, who lobbied ardently for the takeover.

"This man has an ability to be single-minded. He knows this issue . . . has to be in the forefront of his actions," said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1). "It is the combination of frustration and hope that brings me to a yes vote today."

The council and Fenty hammered out significant changes to the school takeover during the past week. One measure altered Fenty's proposal to create an independent construction authority, with a board and chief executive appointed by him. Instead, the new entity would be a city agency under Fenty's control, with a director who could not be fired by the mayor without cause and without approval by the council.

Critics quickly voiced their disappointment. Jeff Smith, the District 1 school board member, announced he would resign April 19. "I think the city council made it clear today that the Board of Education wasn't part of its vision for education reform in the city," said Smith, who is in his third year in the post.

There would still be an elected school board and an appointed superintendent under the takeover. Fenty would not discuss whether he would retain School Superintendent Clifford B. Janey.

Janey said in a statement that the council's vote does not change his vision for improving the low-performing school system. "Our commitment to the children of the District of Columbia has not changed with the council's vote. We will continue to work to improve academic achievement in our schools," he said.

School board President Robert C. Bobb said in a statement that he would stay on the board, although his role would be diminished. "Now that the council has acted, it's time for leaders in the District to sit down, roll up our sleeves, and work together . . . with the interests of the children of the District front and center," he said.

Immediately after the vote in committee, Fenty, who was sitting in the front row of the ornate council chamber, nodded slightly, though his face remained expressionless. Then he got up and shook hands with each of the council members, including the two who had opposed the measure, Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large).

"I wish you well," Schwartz said as she shook the mayor's hand.

Fenty, however, was careful not to declare victory. He noted that the morning vote was the first step to full approval, and he pledged to work with the council until the bill is passed.

A legal challenge is pending by a Ward 4 council candidate, who is arguing in D.C. Superior Court that the council should delay action until after a May 1 special election to fill the unexpired terms of Fenty and council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), who represented wards 4 and 7, respectively, before taking office in January. On Monday, a judge rejected the request for a temporary injunction but scheduled a hearing for Friday for a preliminary injunction.

Veronica Johnson, who lives in Ward 7 and is the PTA president for River Terrace Elementary, said yesterday that she was upset that the council voted without all of its members in place. The council rejected an amendment pushed by Mendelson and Schwartz to hold a public referendum.

But Johnson, who has two grandchildren at River Terrace, said she hopes the new structure means that the broken windows and dirty bathrooms at the Northeast school can be fixed.

"I'm hoping that our mayor will do something. I'm praying, really, that there'll be a change at River Terrace School," Johnson said.

In a separate emergency vote yesterday, the council approved a plan to release $250 million so that Janey and the school board can start on a school modernization plan -- a compromise struck after the council balked at school officials' request for $1 billion with no details on how the money would be spent.

Fenty has spent much of his time aggressively selling his takeover plan at community meetings.

On Monday night, the eve of the council's vote, he promised residents at a community meeting at Rosedale Recreation Center that his administration would fix broken windows and bathrooms, repaint walls and restore order in classrooms within two months of taking control. And he said test scores would improve significantly within two years.

"But the basic things that will create momentum, you'll see us get that done in the first two months," Fenty told the crowd of a few dozen.

Meanwhile, Gray was walking the halls of the Wilson Building to get feedback from council members and stayed in his office until 3 a.m. yesterday to prepare for the council's deliberations, which began with a 9 a.m. breakfast meeting.

"We worked very closely with the mayor and the mayor's staff on something everybody can live with," Gray said. "We know we're together on this draft."

Other changes included adding language that would give the school board more authority. "We beefed it up," Gray said. "They'll have real responsibilities."

Staff writer David Nakamura contributed to this report.

LA Appeal Over Vote on Mayoral Control

Justices scrutinize mayor's school plan
A state appellate panel asks Villaraigosa's legal team tough questions about a takeover of L.A. Unified.
By Howard Blume and Joel Rubin
LA Times Staff Writers, April 3, 2007

LINK

A law that would give Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over L.A.'s schools came under stiff scrutiny Monday from justices who will rule on whether it is constitutional.

The two-hour morning hearing, before a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, was a near replay of arguments before a trial court late last year. In that round, Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs tossed out the statute just days before it was to take effect.

The law would give Villaraigosa direct control of three high schools and the middle and elementary schools that feed into them. It also would give him power, through a council of area mayors, to ratify or veto the hiring and firing of the district superintendent, the school system's top administrator. Currently, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second-largest, is overseen by an elected seven-member board.

The trial court threw out the law, citing the state's Constitution, which Janavs said specifically forbids transferring authority over schools to entities outside the public school system.

As it has throughout the long-running battle, the mayor's legal team argued that the Legislature has broad authority over education, including the right to invest Villaraigosa with the power to run L.A. Unified schools.

At Monday's hearing, the justices asked pointed questions about that reasoning.

"So that is the premise of the your argument?" asked Justice Joan Dempsey Klein. "That because the Legislature says the mayor is part of the public school system, he is part of it?"

Justice Patti S. Kitching took up that point: "Is there any limit? If the mayor is part of the school system, can the Department of Transportation be made part of it?"

Daniel P. Collins, a private attorney who represented the mayor's team in defending Assembly Bill 1381, responded that he expected the Legislature to act reasonably. He also noted that mayors in other states have gained authority over local schools without legal problems.

"I understand that," said Kitching, "but they don't have the constitutional provisions that we do."

Frequently during the hearing, Collins argued strenuously that the law, which would strip significant authority from the school board, is legal because neither the state's Constitution nor the Los Angeles City Charter prohibits the Legislature from redefining duties granted to elected school boards.

Besides, said co-counsel Susan Leach, "The school board will still be elected, and they will still have important and essential duties." Leach defended the law on behalf of state government agencies.

But the justices did not concede the point. "Governing boards control school districts, according to the Constitution," said Justice H. Walter Croskey. "It seems to me that is a limitation I have trouble understanding how you get by."

Justice Klein asked that the issue of voter rights be addressed: "The [city's] charter provides that the people of Los Angeles elect a school board," she said. "Speak to me about the elimination of the right of the people to have a voice in this new structure."

The justices had far fewer questions for attorneys representing L.A. Unified and its legal allies, including the California School Boards Assn. and the League of Women Voters.

At several points, justices cited constitutional provisions that buttressed the school district's arguments before its own attorneys could do so.

Afterward, L.A. Unified general counsel Kevin Reed, who took part in the oral arguments, said he was "cautiously optimistic."

"The judges did their homework," Reed said, "and in that sense I feel good about our chances."

School board member David Tokofsky was more blunt. "They've tried five different dresses," he said referring to the mayor's legal arguments, "but it still looks like a pig underneath."

The mayor's top legal advisor said he had hoped for a different focus.

"There was no discussion about the rights of kids," said Thomas Saenz. "There was no discussion about the rights of parents. There was more focus in the courtroom on the rights of school boards."

Despite the aggressive questioning, the court gave no direct indication about its upcoming decision. It could uphold all, part or none of the law.

A ruling is widely anticipated within a few weeks. The losing side is then expected to appeal to the California Supreme Court. The state's highest court, however, would be under no obligation to hear the case.

Even if the mayor's legal team prevails, Villaraigosa probably wouldn't be able to assert authority over his group of schools until next year because of the lengthy litigation, Saenz said.

For the moment, Villaraigosa has turned his attention to achieving influence through electing allies to the school board. In last month's election, in which four board seats were contested, the mayor and his allies funneled well over $2 million to favored candidates. One won her race, and two others face May runoffs.

"This is all about making changes in a district that needs to change," Saenz said, "both the legislation and efforts to elect a school board that's committed to the mayor's plan."

howard.blume@latimes.com

joel.rubin@latimes.com

In California, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Loses His Bid To Take Over The Public School System

N.Y.C. Mayor Gains Control Over Schools
By Catherine Gewertz, Ed Week

In a high-stakes political victory, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has secured near- total control over New York City's vast public school system. A new state law, signed by the governor last week, represents the most profound governance change for the city's schools in 30 years.

In a historic reversal, the law abolishes the boards that govern the city's 32 community school districts, bodies set up during the civil rights movement to give New Yorkers a say in running their schools.

Months of negotiation between the Republican mayor and state legislative leaders from both parties produced a bill whose passage was all but guaranteed. It sailed through the Assembly on June 10, passed the Senate on June 11, and picked up Republican Gov. George E. Pataki's signature on June 12.

With the new law, the nation's largest school system joins Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit on the growing list of big cities that have put mayors in charge of their schools.

"I commit to you today that I will make the schools better," Mayor Bloomberg said at an elementary school in Spanish Harlem, where the governor and top lawmakers joined him for a bill-signing ceremony.

"I can't promise that it will be easy, and I can't promise it will happen overnight," he said. "But I can promise you [that] you will see, in the very near future, that we are going in the right direction."

The law, most of which takes effect on July 1, shifts power from the appointed and elected boards that currently control the city's 1,200 schools to the financial-media mogul who was elected mayor last November.

Expanded Board
The seven-member city board of education will expand to 13 members. The mayor's appointments will increase from two to eight, including the schools chancellor, who now will chair the board. The chancellor's selection had previously been made by the board. The presidents of New York's five boroughs will continue to appoint one member each, but their appointees must be parents of New York City public school students.

The board of education, which now has expansive powers over the 1.1 million-student system, also will have a narrower role. It will retain approval of the school budget and capital-spending plan and will set citywide education policy. But it will be barred from daily management, in a nod to the widespread frustration over its perceived micromanagement.

Under the new law, New York's 32 elected community school boards, long criticized as being ineffective and rife with corruption, are to be abolished by June 2003. Those boards had chosen the local superintendents who manage the city's 900 elementary and middle schools; instead, the chancellor will make those appointments.

Elimination of the community school boards can occur only with the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice, which must determine that the voting power of minority groups will not be weakened. Experts said the likelihood of that approval would hinge on what mechanisms a new legislative task force will recommend to ensure that community voices are heard.

Mr. Bloomberg's new authority drew support for its potential to foster the conditions necessary for school improvement. Hugh B. Price, the president of the National Urban League, which is based in New York City, said the arrangement could "clear away the underbrush" that has for too long stood in the way of real improvement in the classroom.

But the governance change also prompted some observers to recall the adage that it's wise to be careful what one wishes for. How Mr. Bloomberg uses his power will likely define his legacy as mayor—for better or worse.

Now that the mayor has the power he so ardently sought, observers say, he can no longer argue—as some of his predecessors did—that the city schools' convoluted governance structure made it impossible to improve education.

"He has no excuse anymore that he doesn't control the classroom. He has as many or more levers at his disposal than anyone heading an urban system," said Robert Berne, the senior vice president for academic and health affairs at New York University and an expert on the city's schools.

"Education will become for Mr. Bloomberg what crime was for [former Mayor Rudolph W.] Giuliani: a litmus test of his success," Mr. Berne said.

Governance Cycles
The changes in New York represent yet another turn in the cycle of centralizing and decentralizing that has churned the city's school system for 150 years. In the mid-1800s, the schools were run by 17 elected local boards and a weak central board. But by the 1890s, those bodies were under attack for corruption and inefficiency, so the state legislature centralized school authority under one mayorally appointed board, according to the education historian Diane Ravitch.

The social tumult of the 1960s turned the wheel yet again, Ms. Ravitch said. Black and Hispanic activists pressed for more community control of schools, resulting in a 1969 state law that created the 32 local elected boards and a central board of five members appointed by the borough presidents. In 1973, the mayor was allowed to add two appointees to that board, expanding it to seven.

That hybrid system made it difficult for an education leader to advance an agenda and for residents to establish a clear line of responsibility for educational failure, Ms. Ravitch argued. The disillusionment and frustration mounted, creating a consensus that produced this latest cycle of change, she said.

"There was little opposition to this [mayoral control] because the status quo has no defenders," said Ms. Ravitch, a professor at New York University who has written a history of the city's public schools. "Whether it will lead to real school reform, who knows?"

First Step
Education analysts cautioned last week that even such a profound governance change must be viewed as the vehicle, rather than the substance, of school improvement.

Larry Cuban, a professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, said that a governance change can provide the political stability necessary for reform, but that a sound educational strategy, backed by enough money, is crucial. He offered the contrasting cases of Boston, where the mayor controls the schools and has seen substantial improvement, and Baltimore, where the mayor was responsible for the schools until a state takeover in 1997 and saw little such improvement.

Given such examples, experts say the jury is out on whether mayoral control leads to better schools.

"There is no clear picture to prove the theory that if you have an elected official take over, it will necessarily lead to academic improvement," Mr. Cuban said.

While proponents of the governance change point out that the inclusion of five parent members on the New York City board gives parents a high-visibility role in city schools, many in New York still are concerned about the impact of eliminating the community school boards.

Marilyn Gittell, a political science professor at the City University of New York, was a staunch advocate of decentralizing schools 30 years ago to strengthen residents' input. The boards provided fertile ground for minority leadership development, Ms. Gittell said, noting that some former board members went on to elected city and state posts.

Advocates of greater community control of New York schools believe the city should establish elected school-based panels, such as Chicago's local school councils, made up of parents, teachers, and community members. Some, including Mr. Berne, believe a second tier of elected groups should be formed to manage interschool issues such as transportation.

Giving such groups real decisionmaking power and ensuring that they are elected is critical, said Alexander Betancourt, the deputy executive director of Aspira, a New York-based Hispanic youth- development organization that works to improve schools.

"There has been a sense of disenfranchisement among African-American and Latino parents," Mr. Betancourt said. "Ultimately, the impact has to be a restoration of the faith of parents and the belief the system can work for their children."

Editor: It did not work out that way...
Betsy Combier

A Primer on Mayoral Control of NYC Schools– Where Dictatorship Trumps Democracy

LINK

In NYC it has been a corporate-style takeover. An extreme historical analogy would be that of Pol Pot (the genocide of Cambodia, that tried to wipe the slate clean and start the Zero Year), where there were mass firings in the Board of Ed (new DOE). The belief being; if you were part of the old system, you had nothing to offer. Historical/institutional memory counted for nothing.

Chancellor Joel Klein also used public relations techniques with those he couldn’t outright dismiss. He visited our school, Murry Bergtraum High School, shortly after regime change in 2001 with a “town hall meeting”. It was run Bush-style, no questions taking by the Chancellor; one-way communications. Then they broke up the meeting into focus groups of parents and teachers. In these breakout sessions DOE underlings listened and took notes like they were interested in what we had to say. Nothing ever came of our comments; no analysis or reporting back. It’s like they took our feedback, and with our backs turned, chucked it into the garbage.

Things have been run that way ever since. Principals now look over their shoulders in fear, as managers do in the corporate world, for who is going to get the axe next. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Klein have a mechanistic and reductionist view of education. That is, you can micromanage and script teachers, whose measure of success can totally be assessed by the standardized test scores of their students. With the weakening of worker rights via the worst union contract for teachers in the UFT’s history, there has been mass demoralization of educators, while parental involvement in activities in our school has plummeted.

Such management style comes from the Theory X view of human motivation you will find in the organizational theory literature. In the early 20th century a social scientist named Taylor developed a theory premised on the belief that workers were basically lazy and stupid. They responded only to external motivations- rewards or punishments. Hence we have the mayor’s “merit pay” for teachers and “accountability” for students that makes learning not fun but serious business, supporting the “feel bad” education environment. Why else would Klein recruit the likes of Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, who boasted of creating a climate of fear for his employees, to set the standard of leadership for the DOE’s principals' institute? Mayor Bloomberg demonstrated just how committed he was to an openness to ideas by creating the Panel for Educational Policy, only to fire some of them when they were going to rule against his anti-social promotion scheme. That’s the kind of bureaucracy management we used to see in the old Soviet Union and dovetails with the poisonous pedagogy of the No Child Left Behind Act. At least with the old Board of Education, there were some members you could reach and convince to advocate for your school or a special program you were involved in. They didn't view veteran teachers a pariahs but conveyers of experience and institutional memory. Now there’s an unaccountable corporate bureaucracy in the DOE, wanting to implement the Zero Year.

On the other side of the spectrum Theory Y states that people have an inherent tendency for growth and creativity. This theory came out of the humanist school of psychology. It’s the premise this teacher operates on in his class. Democracy is taught as a value in and of itself; that the exercise of freedom allows one to create meaning and engage in and shape societal change as a natural right. The primary accountability is to oneself, premised on the view of Socrates that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Only an educational system true to the ideals of democracy, where individuals take responsibility for their freedom; to learn what they will and how they will, with the guidance of a teacher who has only the student’s interest in mind, not a salary increase, can serve a free society. Such a system will put the students, teachers, parents and local administrators as equal partners in the driver’s seat with the standards of success to be determined by and for the these stakeholders.

Albert Einstein, a charter member of the American Federation of Teachers, said, “It’s the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge.” Einstein had the audacity to consider that the motivation for learning could be intrinsic and that teachers should become expert at nudging it and creating opportunities for such joy to come alive and grow. Our educational systems must become democratic and not remain bureaucratic to nurture such joy. Corporate dictatorial bureaucracy is to joy of learning as a straight jacket is to dance. Bloomberg's experiement is a failure, it's time for something different.

John Elfrank-Dana
UFT Chapter Leader
Murry Bergtraum High School
http://www.elfrank.com/

NYC Politics