Report of the UFT Task Force on School Governance December 1999

Dec 1, 1999 3:43 PM

Introduction

In the winter of 1999 Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, just as other mayors before him have done, restated his demand for direct mayoral control of the school system and the accountability for its performance that would go along with that control. His was not a lone voice for change in the way our public schools are governed; the history of governance of the New York City Public Schools is rich with an as-sortment of examples, models, recommendations, plans and proposals.

Numerous analyses of New York’s school governance structure in the last dec-ade such as the Marchi Commission Report, (1991), the Board of Regents “Pro-posal for Governance” (1992), the legislative proposal of the borough presidents (1993) and the Costikyan Report (1994) have noted the cumbersome bureauc-racy, the scattered or nonexistent accountability at the highest levels and the fis-cal constraints that hamper the delivery of services at the local level. The UFT conducted studies of New York City’s school governance in 1992 and 1995. In April 1994 the Delegate Assembly passed a resolution opposing direct mayoral control of the central board of education and supporting “proposals to improve education, reduce bureaucracy and make it more responsive to local needs.”

The Current System and its Governance Problems

The current structure of school system governance in New York City grew out of the 1969 decentralization law that called for a five member board, selected by the respective borough presidents. In 1974 the law was amended to allow the mayor to appoint two members, in addition to the five borough president appointees. It was created this way to give the Mayor and borough presidents a role in educa-tion policy-making while at the same time trying to create an independent advo-cacy voice for children. Those who criticize the seven-member board have pointed to its lack of accountability to those who appointed them and to the public in general, as neither the mayor nor the borough presidents have the power to remove their appointees prior to the end of their 4-year terms.

The board is also criticized for its lack of efficiency and micromanagement, in-cluding its preoccupation with issues that should be within the chancellor’s au-thority, and its personal and political animosities that do not escape public notice; unfortunately, all of these impede the board’s ability to develop long range policy. (These weaknesses were noted in the April 1994 UFT Delegate Assembly reso-lution: “The Board of Education should forcefully advocate on the school chil-dren’s behalf but not interfere with the Chancellor’s responsibility to run day to day operations.”) Nor have board members spoken with one voice concerning sufficient budgetary support on behalf of New York City’s students, parents and teachers. The calls for reform and change have been the understandable out-growth of the current system’s flaws.

“The Time is Right…”

Considering: the introduction of standards-based education; the ushering in of high stakes assessments and the concomitant calls for unprecedented account-ability at all levels; the excessive pressure on staff and students that resulted; the 1998 legislation curtailing the powers of community school boards; the imposition of term limits in city government; and, the increasing number of school models based not on educational realities but on market place theories of privatization and vouchers, UFT President Randi Weingarten declared on March 11, 2000 that “…the time is right…” for the UFT to once again research, review and analyze various models of school governance.” She appointed a twelve-member commit-tee, chaired by UFT Vice President David Sherman, to look at various models of governance and make recommendations to the executive board by the end of the 2000-2001 school year. School-based members from all levels, UFT officers and other Executive Board members sat on this committee.

Work of the Committee

It should be self-evident that the guiding principle for any system of overall school governance should be to improve and enhance the quality of education for chil-dren. Many of those who have developed and implemented their vision of school governance would attest to the fact that this was their intention. Nevertheless, the reality is that structures of school system oversight have often come into be-ing as a result of politics, power, self-interest, discontent, and frustration with the existing system’s apparent inability to produce improved and sustained levels of student achievement. Only infrequently have the authors of these efforts looked at school governance with more than a glance to what occurs in the classroom. Improvements in teaching and learning have occurred in spite of, alongside of and exterior to, but rarely because of, the current system of school governance.

This committee approached the question of school system governance as an op-portunity to improve and enhance teaching and learning and to support what oc-curs in classrooms, primarily, and schools, in general. Governance of the New York City public schools must be accompanied by the responsibility, accountabil-ity and advocacy to make them work. The current system does not assure this. Indeed, it allows one of the primary players who should be accountable to shirk that responsibility. A major change is needed.

The committee held three meetings in the spring of 2000 (April 17, May 15 and June 6) and five meetings during the 2000-2001 school year (October 16 and December 4, 2000 and February 26, May 10 and May 30, 2001).
Committee members studied approaches to school governance from around the country. These examples provided models for various forms of interplay be-tween governance and management, ranging from varying degrees of mayoral control (Boston, Chicago, Cleveland) to “hybrids” in which the mayor and the school board share power (Washington, D.C), to newly decentralized systems (Los Angeles). The committee also made extensive use of research reports, newspaper articles, policy statements and the comments of guest speakers. This in-depth look at the advantages and disadvantages, the successes and fail-ures of these diverse models provided the task force members with a compre-hensive foundation for making the recommendations contained in this report. The committee focused its work on developing recommendations for overall school governance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

What emerged from the committee discussions was a consensus that any sys-tem of school governance must have clear lines of accountability, a board consti-tuted differently from the current one, a method of addressing local concerns and a selection process for board members in which qualifications take precedence over politics. The overarching goal of these recommendations is the improve-ment of instruction for every New York City public school student.

Board Selection

• The New York State commissioner of education shall chair a blue ribbon panel for selection of board members. Selection of board members will be based on criteria guaranteeing a high level board that will focus on policy-making to support improvement of New York City’s public schools. The panel shall include among its membership educational and civic leaders such as college presidents, deans of education, business and labor leaders, parent leaders, student leaders, representatives of citywide civic organizations and leaders of professional organizations. The membership of the blue ribbon panel shall represent geographic balance among the boroughs.

• The blue ribbon panel shall solicit open applications for board membership. Any member of the public, including elected officials, can submit names for consideration. The panel shall recommend potential board members based upon their educational qualifications, knowledge of the school system and its over one million students and familiarity with the diversity of the city.

• To ensure accountability, responsibility and advocacy for performance of the New York City public school system, the UFT Task Force on School Govern-ance recommends an eleven-member board of education selected from the names submitted by the blue ribbon panel. The mayor shall select six mem-bers and the respective borough presidents shall each select a member. Mayors have long had de facto control of the board of education through their control of the school system’s budget, their growing influence over collective bargaining, their political influence over those board members who are not their appointees, and their ability to communicate their priorities for education to the public through the authority of their office. As long as the mayor does not have a de jure majority of appointees to the board, accountability at the highest level will remain a nebulous concept. This configuration will give the mayor responsibility and defined accountability for the performance of the city’s schools. It will also encourage the Mayor to become an advocate and supporter for the public schools.

• Term of office shall be four years with no term limits. The respective, appoint-ing elected official shall select interim board members in the event of mid-term vacancies.

• Persons who are employees of the Board of Education or the City of New York will not be permitted to serve as board members.

• The role of the board of education shall be to set policy that the chancellor shall implement. Board members shall have a common administrative and secretarial staff and they shall be reimbursed for appropriate and reasonable expenses necessary for their work. “Twenty-four/seven” access to cars, driv-ers, individual office staff and other costly “perks” shall be eliminated. Board members will function under conditions similar to those of the New York State Board of Regents.

• Board members will be subject to state, city and board policies concerning conflict of interest and public disclosure.

• Board members shall have a responsibility to support a system of public edu-cation in this city that is responsive to the parents of the more than one million students who attend and those who teach them. Board members shall advo-cate on their behalf and, when necessary, investigate and ameliorate condi-tions that hinder the attainment of the highest levels of student achievement. In other words, Board members will function in an ombudsperson capacity for parents, staff and the public.

• Members of the community school boards shall select a representative to serve on a consultative council that shall have monthly meetings with the full board.

• The board will hold a minimum of one public agenda meeting per year in each borough. The public will receive timely notification of all meetings.

• A process for removal of board members should be developed in conformity with existing rules and regulations of the commissioner of education.

Chancellor Selection
• The board of education shall develop criteria for the selection of a chancellor, and make these public prior to any search process.

• The board of education shall continue to appoint the chancellor.
• The Chancellor shall be accountable to the board for his/her performance. There shall be a mid-term public review of the chancellor’s performance based upon performance standards set by the board.

• Should the chancellor fail to carry out the board’s educational policy, the board shall have powers to remove the chancellor. The board would estab-lish a process and specific criteria for removal of the chancellor. Removal should require a two-thirds vote of the entire board.

• Chancellors should have four year terms. Should the chancellor leave before the end of the four-year term, the board shall appoint an interim for the re-mainder of the term.

Conclusion

Although there is a dearth of research into the link between governance and school improvement, the committee members believe that a system of account-ability must be in place not just for educators but also for those who both hold the pursestrings and the electoral authority. In turn, that accountability will affect those who make the systemic policies that affect teaching and learning. These recommendations answer the calls for clear accountability and responsibility in the governance of our schools. At the same time it tries to retain a voice for the parents, children and communities the schools serve. The task force members believe that holding the mayor accountable for sufficient expenditures on public education, negotiation of collective bargaining agreements, high levels of teach-ing and learning, the welfare of students and the involvement of parents and the community will orient the school system towards a governance model in which the focus will become supportive of its real goal - - high level teaching and learn-ing for over one million students.