President's Perspective
A voice for parents and teachers
Apr 26, 2007 11:36 AM
The mayor put it this way when he announced at City Hall that he had reached agreement with parents, teachers and community groups on some aspects of the new reorganization plan: “In spite of [italics added] all the yelling and screaming over the past few months,” he would consult more closely with the UFT and parent representatives.
I would put it this way: Because teachers and parents yelled and screamed, and because he knew there’d be a lot more yelling and screaming at our planned rally on May 9, the mayor agreed to consult more closely with us.
When people are not paying attention, sometimes the only way to be heard is to raise your voice. It may not be considered good pedagogy, but it is an integral part of collective action, and the truth is, it often works.
So I want to thank you for raising your voices and for being willing to demonstrate — be it in the past, on May 9 or in the future. That’s why the mayor knew that the planned rally was no empty threat. ACORN, the UFT and several of the other groups in the coalition have a solid track record for big demonstrations. And 10,000 irate educators, parents and students on the street would deflate the myth that only a few outsiders had their doubts about this third reorganization in five years.
So, even as he was comparing the union to the National Rifle Association, there were people at City Hall and in the coalition back-channeling to see if there was room for movement.
The agreement contains many wins that will directly benefit schools and our kids. You can read more about them and the entire agreement in the news reports in this issue, but here they are in brief:
- Schools that are working (and that have a culture that keeps good teachers) will not be de-stabilized by budget cuts and teacher turnover. And we will have a role in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the funding formula.
- There will be a serious middle school improvement initiative, beginning with at least 50 schools next school year.
- There will be no changes in tenure requirements for the next school year. If there are to be any changes after that, the DOE cannot make them unilaterally and they must be in accordance with new state law (which does not include using student test scores).
- Now that the state has released new regs governing class size (which we worked to influence), the DOE must consult us and the New Yorkers for Smaller Classes Coalition, of which we are a part, to develop the city’s plan.
- Students who are low-income, English language learners, or have special needs will receive more funding.
- The DOE will work with student groups to prevent dropping out, improve graduation rates and enhance college and career preparedness.
- The DOE will work with parent and community groups to ensure that every school has a “well-functioning and well-trained” School Leadership Team and that “systems and processes for parent engagement” are improved.
Of course, we didn’t get everything we wanted. We are still concerned that the chancellor is abdicating his own responsibility by shifting it onto principals’ shoulders and we are very concerned about the negative impact of the over-testing and over-assessing. We will still continue to oppose those aspects, as we made clear to the administration.
As for the changes in the governing structure of the system, many members (mostly depending on what region they are in) do not like the current regional structure and most would agree that a return to community districts also isn’t wise. Our task force on mayoral control will be a good opportunity to study some structural alternatives and take on the larger issue of school governance well in advance of its sunset in June 2009.
But by and large, we accomplished a great deal. And the best wins are much broader than those listed above. At least for the remainder of this administration, we have won the battle over “voice” — that is, to put the public back in public education. And since there isn’t much trust in this administration, it was important to postpone, not cancel, the rally. This way, we can all hold the administration’s feet to the fire — in other words, make it accountable for the agreements it just made. And it knows, if it fails to live up to the agreement, there will be a “face-off.”
Still, probably the most valuable long-run gains are the partnerships we forged.
Even during the Delegate Assembly debate about whether to postpone the rally, the dissenters acknowledged we had done something real about bringing parents, community and educators together in the process. That must continue and be built upon.
Not surprisingly, there was suspicion at first that the UFT would not fight equally hard for every group in the coalition and that other groups would not fight on behalf of teacher interests. Trust is built by actions and sometimes it can be built only on a one-to-one basis as parents and educators start to recognize the common interest that binds us. Usually that is the education and achievement of children, but sometimes it is just our shared anger at how people talk a good game about helping children, but never seem to provide the resources or support to do so. Once we have forged that bond we can fight off those who try to divide us, whether they are editorial boards, chancellors or principals.
In the end, the administration heard every school constituency and many thought all the major concerns were addressed. On funding, there were concrete agreements and on other matters there were consultative processes created — for the first time in this administration.
On the issues where we didn’t reach agreement — like excessive testing — City Hall knows we will not shy away from both private conversation and a public fight.
We must build on the new relationships that have been forged because only through working with others and having the clout of the education community behind us will we ensure that public education remains a viable institution.
That sense of shared purpose was best expressed at the City Hall press conference by a recent graduate, Jorman Nunez. He represented the Urban Youth Collaborative, which argued for a wonderful program called Student Success Centers — designed to prevent dropouts and to better prepare young people for college and careers. During these last few months he had asked, with obvious frustration and wonder, his version of the question the rest of us had asked: “If the DOE is so worried about improving graduation rates, why doesn’t it ask us, the students, what to do? We don’t want to drop out either.” What a concept! Ask the people who have the most at stake: the kids, their parents, their teachers.
So the coalition we formed was for much more than the issue of how to respond to the reorganization. It was about forcing the administration (which says it’s concerned about educating our next generation) to listen and constructively engage with those who actually do the work and with those who are affected the most. On that point, the agreement was a huge success.
