New York lawmakers and the State Board of Regents are rightly nervous about the school reforms recently announced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The third package of reforms to hit the nation’s largest school system in five years, this one radically alters funding formulas and guts the existing management structure — roiling a system already struggling to digest earlier changes.
The Regents and State Legislature have been fretting about the cold shoulder the city has shown to parents and communities since soon after legislators gave Mr. Bloomberg full control of the public schools. That’s when the city did away with the longstanding system of 32 community school districts and combined them into 10 regions.
It may have saved money, but it also put more distance between the school system and families. Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has promised to rectify those problems. But the new reform, which sweeps away the 10 regions altogether, runs the risk of making the situation worse.
This page has long supported turning principals into school managers and holding them accountable for how staffs and students perform. But the young, inexperienced principals who have flooded the New York schools require guidance and support. Sweeping away the remains of the regional system might make it harder for them to get the help they need.
Urban school systems have a long and shameful history of dumping the least-qualified teachers into underfinanced schools that serve the poorest children. Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal would drive more money to the neediest schools, but there are serious questions about whether it will be sufficient.
At the same time, an analysis by a nonpartisan group, the Educational Priorities Panel, takes issue with a related scheme for changing the school personnel budgeting process. Currently, schools are held harmless for teacher salaries. The new system would eventually chalk up teacher salaries against a school’s budget. The panel believes that would penalize schools with the highest-paid, most-experienced teachers, driving principals to hire less-experienced teachers. The new formula would also be subject to tampering by politicians.
The Bloomberg plan expresses some noble ideals. But reforms that affect the lives of more than a million schoolchildren should not be made in haste or on the basis of consultants’ hunches. Given the mayor’s habit of ignoring reasonable criticism, the City Council, the Legislature and the Regents should use what leverage they have to ensure that the reforms are closely scrutinized and modified where necessary to produce the best possible result.
----------------------
Let's go through it point by point:
1) "New York lawmakers and the State Board of Regents are rightly nervous about the school reforms recently announced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg." -- This is GOOD! Given politicians' and bureaucrats' record overseeing the collapse of NYC's public schools over many decades, if they WEREN'T nervous, then we'd know the reforms weren't strong enough.
2) "The third package of reforms to hit the nation’s largest school system in five years" -- The way this sentence is written is so perjorative -- and so wrong -- making it seem like the prior two packages have failed, so it's on to the next plan to "hit" the school system. Why not write: "Building on a foundation of earlier reforms, which have already started to move the nation's largest school system in the right direction, the latest reforms are the boldest and most courageous yet..."
3) "radically alters funding formulas" -- Given how grossly unfair the existing funding formulas are, this is GREAT NEWS! It's HELPING the neediest kids the most(supposedly the kids the NYT editorial board is most concerned about)!
4) "and guts the existing management structure" -- More great news!
5) "roiling a system already struggling to digest earlier changes" -- Are they not aware that this is a horribly broken, dynfunctional, unaccountable system that NEEDS to be shaken up hard and urgently?! Are they seriously saying that we should take our time (and condemn yet another generation of children to miserable lives that nearly inevitably result from failing schools)?!
6) "The Regents and State Legislature have been fretting about the cold shoulder the city has shown to parents and communities since soon after legislators gave Mr. Bloomberg full control of the public schools." -- A "cold shoulder" is causing them to "fret"... Oh, cry me a river! At long last, SOMEBODY was given responsibility for the failing school system and is shaking it up in big way, and we're supposed to give a crap that the Regents' and State Legislature's feelings are hurt because Bloomberg and Klein aren't allowing them to be the obstructionists that they would otherwise be?
7) "But the new reform, which sweeps away the 10 regions altogether, runs the risk of making the situation worse." -- This is the only sensible critique in this entire editorial. Cutting 10 regions down to 4 and giving principals choice about hiring one of these four regions or going elsewhere for services is, based on some conversations I've had, sure to be REALLY tough to pull off smoothly. If the details aren't handled well, there is indeed "the risk of making the situation worse" -- IN THE SHORT RUN. But the idea is sound and the kinks will eventually be worked out.
8) "Sweeping away the remains of the regional system might make it harder for them to get the help they need." -- Underlying this sentence is the presumption that the existing system is providing great support to principals. Where, pray tell, did they get THAT silly idea?! Isn't it sort of obvious that principals are likely to be the best judges of what organization(s) can best support them?
9) "Urban school systems have a long and shameful history of dumping the least-qualified teachers into underfinanced schools that serve the poorest children. Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal would drive more money to the neediest schools, but there are serious questions about whether it will be sufficient." -- HUH?! They make a great point in the first 1 1/2 sentences and then make a completely nonsensical conclusion: "but there are serious questions about whether it will be sufficient." If I'm reading this correctly, they seem to be applauding this new funding plan, which will send a lot more money to the neediest schools, and their only critique is that it's not bold ENOUGH. Well, fair enough, but they should at least be applauding a major step in the right direction.
10) "At the same time, an analysis by a nonpartisan group, the Educational Priorities Panel, takes issue with a related scheme for changing the school personnel budgeting process. Currently, schools are held harmless for teacher salaries. The new system would eventually chalk up teacher salaries against a school’s budget. The panel believes that would penalize schools with the highest-paid, most-experienced teachers, driving principals to hire less-experienced teachers." -- Instead of mindlessly repeating what the Panel says, why don't think apply some independent thinking and ask, "Gee, does it make any sense that every teacher, regardless of actual cost, is budgeted at the exact same cost? And, given then the most experienced (and costly) teachers tend to cluster at the schools serving the LEAST needy children, it this system fair to the MOST needy children?"
This is what I wrote about this in my email last Thursday:
Let's be clear -- THIS is Randi's real beef: "The chancellor’s plan will...give principals a disincentive to hire experienced teachers simply because they cost more." Well, no kidding! I have the same disincentive to, for example, hire an experienced painter to paint my house vs. an inexperienced high school kid. Those are the trade-offs managers have to -- and should -- make in life!
The dirty little secret of NYC public schools (and public schools nationwide) is that the least experienced, unproven teachers -- the last-minute, desperation hires -- are dumped into the high-needs schools. Then, for the teachers who stick around, gain seniority and become more experienced (and experience DOES impact student achievement in the first 2-3 years), they move to "better" schools. The result is that high-needs schools (and low-income, minority kids -- the ones who most need the BEST teachers) are instead endlessly screwed by a system that provides them, every year, with the worst teachers...
11) "The new formula would also be subject to tampering by politicians." -- Where do they get this completely wrong-headed idea? The CURRENT funding system is the one that's subjects to tampering, and it's the NEW system that will be much more transparent and LESS subject to tampering by politicians and others.
12) "But reforms that affect the lives of more than a million schoolchildren should not be made in haste or on the basis of consultants’ hunches." -- Where's the evidence for this? How do they know that the reforms proposed last week were made in haste? Based on what I saw and heard, what was proposed could only have emerged from DEEP, THOUGHTFUL study of best practices drawn from all over the country.
13) "Given the mayor’s habit of ignoring reasonable criticism, the City Council, the Legislature and the Regents should use what leverage they have to ensure that the reforms are closely scrutinized and modified where necessary to produce the best possible result." -- This totally vacuous sentence is a fitting ending to this totally vacuous editorial!
I hope and pray for the children of New York City that the City Council, the Legislature and the Regents have the common sense to embrace these reforms and the courage to resist the forces of the status quo that are pulling out ALL THE STOPS to try to derail this revolutionary reform plan. It's so sad that the NYT editorial page, which should be championing this plan and what it will do for the children -- especially the neediest children -- of New York City, has instead laid a massive goose egg. Shame, shame!
<< Home