President's Perspective

Checks and balances

by Randi Weingarten

Feb 19, 2009 3:17 PM

Because of a death in her family, President Weingarten was unable to write a column this week. Instead, here are excerpts from her testimony on Feb. 6 before the New York State Assembly Committee on Education’s hearing on the city’s school governance law.

First and foremost, I think our most important purpose is to help improve outcomes for students. Our collective mission is to help all kids reach their god-given potential. The key word in that is “collective.” Our schools are public institutions and they belong to the public; they are not the exclusive province of any one person and can’t be viewed through that lens. They serve students, their families and the larger community; and ultimately the very future of New York City depends on their success. Our schools are vital both to the promotion of the common good and to individual economic opportunity. It is essential that whatever governance model we have actively promotes engagement and voice from core constituencies — not a veto — and incorporates meaningful checks and balances. ...

Some people believe that the state Legislature should simply allow the law to sunset — to expire in June of this year. Others believe the law should be continued exactly as it is. ... The UFT advocates a third scenario: amending the current law with a series of modifications that would maintain operational mayoral control, but establish institutional checks and balances, particularly on educational policy, and more voice for the people closest to the kids — their parents and their educators.

In some respects, mayoral control has been a great asset for our public schools. It has meant having a mayor who was willing to take responsibility for what goes on in schools and make education a priority in this city. Under mayoral control, we have also witnessed an unprecedented infusion of city budget dollars and private investment targeted to education. Other mayors starved the schools and then said it wasn’t their problem, but in the last seven years, billions more dollars poured into our classrooms. Teacher salaries have also increased, thus improving recruitment and retention efforts.

On the flip side of the coin, we know the changes of the last seven years have been chaotic and at times difficult for our members and for parents. For example, the several reorganizations that took place were not developed openly or collaboratively, nor was the Department of Education required to provide evidence as to what they were basing their decisions on. Some of that money I just mentioned was not spent wisely either, but there was little that any of us outside of the Department of Education could do about it. ...

Armed with the knowledge and experience gained since 2002, it makes sense that we try to keep the best aspects of mayoral control intact while trying to fix its shortcomings.

In April of 2007, the UFT initiated a member-driven task force. Representing diverse opinions, the group set out to evaluate the present school governance system and develop a set of recommendations for a governance structure that would best serve the educational needs of our students. The discussions were spirited and the passion was remarkable. ...

We know from listening to the compelling testimony in every borough of our city and from our experiences in the classroom, that schools that foster collaboration and reflect and value the true voice of the staff and parents are inherently stronger and have better student outcomes. It’s that voice, that engagement and participation at all levels of the school system that have been missing from the current governance model and that need to be institutionalized going forward.

The task force settled on six core principles. An effective governance system should:

• Ensure accountability and transparency with checks and balances at all levels.
• Encourage public involvement in decision making.
• Provide clear lines of communication and responsibility to solve problems.
• Comply fully with state laws.
• Support teamwork and collaboration focused on achievement.
• Ensure the stability and oversight of resources that schools depend on.

From there, the task force developed a set of recommendations that were overwhelmingly approved by both the UFT Executive Board and Delegate Assembly. Most prominent was our call to reconfigure the Panel for Education Policy.

We have taken this controversial and difficult stance because the system needs an independent voice that will champion kids. … Effectively, there is no vehicle in this current governance structure where the voices of educators or parents can be heard, and where proper debate can take place. For the last seven years, the only two methods of getting your views heard were through lawsuits or by taking to the streets in protest.

We propose that the Panel for Education Policy be reconfigured so it is significantly stronger and more independent. In our recommendations, five of the 13 members would be appointed by the mayor, one each would be appointed by the public advocate, the comptroller, the City Council speaker and the remaining five by each of the five borough presidents. The chancellor would be an ex-official member rather than a voting member. We are also recommending fixed terms for appointees, so they can only be removed for cause, and allowing the panel to pick its own chair.

By opening the panel up to broader representation, the governor and Legislature would give voice to the officials who are elected to do the people’s business, and thereby create an institutional voice for parents, students and teachers who rely on and work within the system every day.

Under our plan, the mayor would need to sway two of the eight votes that are not under his control in order to make major changes in public school policy. Why did we propose this? Because we believe in independence and responsibility balanced with accountability — a check and balance that will ensure proper debate, problem-solving and more timely decisions. This week is a perfect case in point. Where is the independent voice championing students’ needs in the wake of this budgetary nightmare? An independent board would have no doubt expressed outrage over how teachers have been used as pawns in the fight for state and federal money. An independent board would speak out against the possibility of 15,000 teacher layoffs, because that scenario would mean a huge direct service cut to kids.

The principle behind adding this institutional voice is not simply about democracy; it grows right from school success. Schools are not private corporations, nor should they be treated in the same manner. After all, the excesses and fiscal collapse this fall has persuaded many that Wall Street, big business and the unregulated private market are not the greatest model of efficiency, fairness or results. ...

In keeping with the six principles developed by our task force, our recommendations also include:

• A renewed commitment to and the strengthening of School Leadership Teams.
• A recasting of the Community Education Councils in each district, with a broader selection process for panel members and additional powers and duties to ensure community access and voice. That includes the authority to hold public hearings and submit recommendations on proposed school openings and closings.
• Enabling community superintendents to perform the significant powers and duties given them under existing state law so that they can help bridge the gap for parents and schools who need more information and assistance.
• Creating nine-member High School District Councils (HSDCs) to represent each of the six high school districts.
• Allowing for input by the newly reconfigured Citywide Education Policy Council if a mayor’s choice for chancellor requires a waiver.
• 360-degree evaluations for principals and the chancellor to compile feedback on their performance from a broad cross-section of people.
• A legal accountability measure that would allow for complaints to be filed with the state education commissioner and subsequent court proceedings if the DOE does not comply with the law.
• Another six-year sunset of the law.

… The UFT School Governance Task Force report is also very clear in what it does not do — it rejects returning to the former school boards and other unneeded bureaucracy. Let’s be clear — there were no good old days to harken back to. Before the governance law was changed in 2002, we had dysfunctional boards and dysfunctional politics. ...

We believe our recommendations are a responsible, thoughtful and reasonable approach to the problems in the current model. Providing students an opportunity for success is always the goal of public school educators and our task force wrestled for a long time with what governance system could help our public schools achieve this goal. There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to transparency, accountability and collaboration. Let’s not simply keep the status quo. Let’s improve what we have.

Thank you.