Friends and Neighbors,
I hope you enjoyed the winter holidays, and with Easter behind us, that we can look forward to nicer weather (although in Rochester we can never be sure). This is my final informal newsletter report to you. My service on the city school board ended at the end of the year. I am a repeat offender, I served (without salary) on two other Rochester area elected public school boards, going back 26 years. Thank you for the opportunity to do this difficult but important work for the city and children we love. I look forward to working along side you, perhaps following the leadership of others now, as we strive for a more open and honorable civic and political culture.
The current school year is ending. A new budget cycle is upon us, and government at every level facing historic fiscal challenges. It is also a time of great ferment about the efficacy of elected school boards in cities (the so called 'Mayoral Control" debate). Some parting reflections are in order. Citizen school board service is important, but often misunderstood. In an era of lower standards and greater bias in media, from the D&C to Fox News, one has to make more of an effort to communicate. Seldom did I see a report in the D&C, about something I had first hand understanding of, which was accurate!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Thank You and Goodbye For Now
If I could leave just one thought behind, it would be that there are no short cuts. We share frustration and a sense of urgency about urban public schools, across the nation. Rochester is no different. The problems did not develop overnight. Neither will solutions. We know what works, and it is not fads, political power grabs, scapegoating, or personalizing issues. And the solutions are as much a matter of will as wallet, as much a matter of common sense as of drama. There are few votes, and few headlines in this. But mature, sustained, purposeful action does improve things. That was my focus. I came to city school board service with plenty of prior board service, and political credentials. I did not need the line on my resume. I did not feel I had anything to prove. I tried to put first things first.
Schools exist for children, not adults. So I voted against budgets that put bureaucracy ahead of in-the-classroom resources. Kids need to finish school, so I chaired the policy committee that raised the age at which kids could drop out, and I wrote a new athletic eligibility policy that encouraged kids to stay in school, and improve their performance, and enlisted adults in that effort. Input from parents is vital. So I insisted that parental involvement institutions be comprised of people who actually are parents, and who actually live in the city, no matter who that displeased. Kids can't learn if they come to school sick, hungry, or terrorized -- and so I have supported wrap-around services for disadvantaged youth, and consider the failure to better establish such services here, due to adult turf battles, to be a scandal. Audits, and the horror stories of countless parents dealing with district bureaucracy, have underscored long standing failures of proper board policy and fiscal oversight. So I fought for repeal of a ridiculous David Gantt sponsored law (written just for Rochester to protect a crony superintendent in 1997) which cut the bureaucracy loose from such oversight. Notice I say proper board oversight. School boards do great harm when they micromanage, grind personal axes, or jump through hoops for special interests. That is why I supported abolishing "liaison" assignments, and a Rube Goldberg contraption of a board committee system, both of which I think encourage the wrong board focus.
I addressed many of these issues in more detail, in prior newsletters, which are excerpted online at www.tom-brennan.com
One thing I know I got right was making Dr. William Cala school superintendent. No Rochester public official is as highly regarded, or widely trusted on education issues. I was the fourth and deciding vote to bring him here. Had I not been there, he may never have come here. My only regret is that he did not apply for the permanent appointment. I have no doubt he would have received it. Dr. Cala was up front about his temporary availability, of course, and the political/media circus about this, where folks who opposed his appointment acted as if it was now their idea, is a tribute to the quality of his work.
I point this out now, because people should pay close attention to Bill Cala's outspoken opposition to so called "Mayoral Control" of city schools (which is code for substituting public voting rights with a political patronage appointment model of school board selection or governance).
You Can Like Mayor Duffy, and Still Agree With Dr. Cala That the School Board Should Be Elected, Not Politically Appointed
You can like the Mayor personally, wish him well, and still agree with Dr. Bill Cala that "Mayoral Control Does Not Work and is Wrong" (as an essay by Cala in the January 14th online edition of City News is titled).
After all, Mayor Duffy shared Cala's position when he ran for Mayor. He actually signed a pledge against Mayoral Control, and was reelected last year scoffing at evidence he had changed. I well recall, just last summer, how many well intentioned friends were annoyed with me for raising the issue. “ 'Geez, Tom, how many times does the Mayor have to say he is not for this?" I heard it a million times. Naturally, those people feel betrayed now.
The elected school board may be the office most urgently meaningful to city residents struggling to improve their live, and their childrens' prospects. Tell them replacing elections with appointment isn't an attack on their voting rights. With 85% of the city student body of color, and with lost lives a painful living memory of the struggle for voting rights, you can hardly blame people for noting that nobody is suggesting elections be abolished in, say, Greece (not a very well governed suburb last time I checked). Had candidates for office at least been candid with city voters about this, the public outcry might not be so great now. Not only was the Mayor evasive, not one of the 14 city council primary candidates, when asked, stated support for Mayoral Control (one, Carolee Conklin, who had strongly leaned that way in a prior newspaper interview, went almost crazy with rage when it was pointed out).
To this day, no substantive plan has been advanced by the Mayor. Forums that allow meaningful public exchanges between both sides of the issue are avoided. Business, political, and media elites -- now safely past city elections, seek to abolish a democratic process by way of an Albany fix, while shushing critics, rather than cultivating informed public consent. This is hardly the "political courage" Mayoral Control advocates congratulate themselves for having a monopoly on. Assemblyman Gantt boasts that elected school boards will be abolished whether the public likes it or not, and greets a wheelchair bound constituent who seeks to talk about it with obscenities. Assemblyman Morelle tried to pin vandalism at the local Democratic Headquarters on Mayoral Control opponents, even when it was national news that the vandalism was instigated by anti-health care reform extremists, who claimed "credit." This conduct should the concern of every thoughtful citizen of Rochester.
Sadly, expressions of contempt invite the same thing in return, and lead nowhere. We need to get the conversation on a higher road.
For my part, I do wish the Mayor had kept his word, but I understand his frustration. I suspect he has just been taking some very bad advice.Long before Bob ever became Mayor, entrenched corporate City Hall, and Albany based interests have had patronage, private profit, and political designs on school resources -- designs which have nothing to do with helping children. The Mayor is a beloved son of my own Tenth Ward neighborhood, but he will not be Mayor forever. Who would a future Mayor appoint to the school board? Who would City Council appoint? Council members now indicate they want in on this too.
Bill Cala is equally highly regarded, and on education issues, I'd follow Bill's lead. When he says all elected officials come and go, good or bad, and the public should decide who and when, I listen.Beyond that, the science is in on this. Mayoral Control has been tried various places, various ways, and the plain fact is it has NEVER proved to improve student performance, and THAT is what we should be looking at.
After all, Mayor Duffy shared Cala's position when he ran for Mayor. He actually signed a pledge against Mayoral Control, and was reelected last year scoffing at evidence he had changed. I well recall, just last summer, how many well intentioned friends were annoyed with me for raising the issue. “ 'Geez, Tom, how many times does the Mayor have to say he is not for this?" I heard it a million times. Naturally, those people feel betrayed now.
The elected school board may be the office most urgently meaningful to city residents struggling to improve their live, and their childrens' prospects. Tell them replacing elections with appointment isn't an attack on their voting rights. With 85% of the city student body of color, and with lost lives a painful living memory of the struggle for voting rights, you can hardly blame people for noting that nobody is suggesting elections be abolished in, say, Greece (not a very well governed suburb last time I checked). Had candidates for office at least been candid with city voters about this, the public outcry might not be so great now. Not only was the Mayor evasive, not one of the 14 city council primary candidates, when asked, stated support for Mayoral Control (one, Carolee Conklin, who had strongly leaned that way in a prior newspaper interview, went almost crazy with rage when it was pointed out).
To this day, no substantive plan has been advanced by the Mayor. Forums that allow meaningful public exchanges between both sides of the issue are avoided. Business, political, and media elites -- now safely past city elections, seek to abolish a democratic process by way of an Albany fix, while shushing critics, rather than cultivating informed public consent. This is hardly the "political courage" Mayoral Control advocates congratulate themselves for having a monopoly on. Assemblyman Gantt boasts that elected school boards will be abolished whether the public likes it or not, and greets a wheelchair bound constituent who seeks to talk about it with obscenities. Assemblyman Morelle tried to pin vandalism at the local Democratic Headquarters on Mayoral Control opponents, even when it was national news that the vandalism was instigated by anti-health care reform extremists, who claimed "credit." This conduct should the concern of every thoughtful citizen of Rochester.
Sadly, expressions of contempt invite the same thing in return, and lead nowhere. We need to get the conversation on a higher road.
For my part, I do wish the Mayor had kept his word, but I understand his frustration. I suspect he has just been taking some very bad advice.Long before Bob ever became Mayor, entrenched corporate City Hall, and Albany based interests have had patronage, private profit, and political designs on school resources -- designs which have nothing to do with helping children. The Mayor is a beloved son of my own Tenth Ward neighborhood, but he will not be Mayor forever. Who would a future Mayor appoint to the school board? Who would City Council appoint? Council members now indicate they want in on this too.
Bill Cala is equally highly regarded, and on education issues, I'd follow Bill's lead. When he says all elected officials come and go, good or bad, and the public should decide who and when, I listen.Beyond that, the science is in on this. Mayoral Control has been tried various places, various ways, and the plain fact is it has NEVER proved to improve student performance, and THAT is what we should be looking at.
Didn't Mayoral Control "Work" in New York City?
No. Some of its strongest advocates in NYC now oppose it. Others, who support it in NYC, caution against it in mid-sized cities with strong traditions of elected school board, which NYC does not have (prior to Mayoral Control in NYC, Borough Presidents appointed boards -- its a ridiculous comparison). Dr. Cala's essay easily debunks the assertion about NYC, pointing out how special "exit codes" were established to count "disappeared" NYC students off the books, and pad "Graduation Rates." If you can't access a copy of Cala's essay on line, contact me, and I will get you a copy.
The plain fact of the matter is that urban school districts with best graduation rates are NOT Mayoral Control districts. For Rochester's track record with politically appointed boards like proposed, you need look no further than recent Water Authority scandals and the MCC leadership search gong show.
The plain fact of the matter is that urban school districts with best graduation rates are NOT Mayoral Control districts. For Rochester's track record with politically appointed boards like proposed, you need look no further than recent Water Authority scandals and the MCC leadership search gong show.
Nobody is more trusted in this community, about schools, than Dr. Bill Cala. Yet Gannett, in their anti-voting rights bias, hardly reports Cala's strong stand against Mayoral Control. Typical of the lack of fair play. To read the D&C, you would think only teachers were concerned. The truth is, the people are against this.
But Don't More People Actually Vote For the Mayor Than School Board?
Wrong again. Mayoral candidates are far better funded and publicized than school board candidate, true. And state and federal elections draw larger turnouts than local ones. Perhaps state and federal officials should appoint local officials? All that aside, EVERY time a school board primary and Mayoral primary were held the same day in Rochester (1989, 1993, 2005) the leading school board candidate drew more votes than the leading Mayoral candidate. Look it up. So much for yet another lame political argument advanced by people who can't make the case for Mayoral Control on educational grounds, and can't get their facts straight in any case.
But What About All That Money the City "Forks Over" to the Schools?
83% of city school funds do NOT come from the local property tax levy.
That said, the city collects the taxes from you, it is not their money. The schools have no independent taxing authority. The City Council ALREADY has veto power over the city school budget. School budgets dwarf city budgets in most cities because of the nature of the services, Rochester is not unique there. City Hall failures in their areas of responsibility (crime, jobs) burden the schools. City Council members who want to run the schools are free to take the personal cut, and the personal staff cut, and RUN for school board.
That said, the city collects the taxes from you, it is not their money. The schools have no independent taxing authority. The City Council ALREADY has veto power over the city school budget. School budgets dwarf city budgets in most cities because of the nature of the services, Rochester is not unique there. City Hall failures in their areas of responsibility (crime, jobs) burden the schools. City Council members who want to run the schools are free to take the personal cut, and the personal staff cut, and RUN for school board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)