Testimony of Michael Mulgrew, UFT President, submitted before the New York City Council Committee on Education

Good morning. My name is Michael Mulgrew, and I am the president of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). On behalf of our over 200,000 members, I would like to thank Chair Eric Dinowitz and the Committee on Education for holding this oversight hearing on mayoral control. This hearing is of great importance as Governor Kathy Hochul just proposed extending mayoral control over New York City public schools until 2030 in the fiscal year 2027 executive budget.

It has been over 20 years since New York City began its experiment with mayoral control, and the UFT has witnessed what comes with giving the mayor unfettered authority over the city’s schools. Most recently, during the Adams administration, we saw the mayor use his unchecked power to slash education funding by as much as 15%. Despite prohibitions against supplanting Contracts for Excellence funding and a separate legal obligation to maintain FY23 city funding levels, the Adams administration went ahead and eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars of funding. These cuts limited critical programs such as pre-K, 3-K, special education services and computer science education. Over the course of his term, the former mayor also repeatedly used his control of the school system to obstruct the implementation of the state’s class size law, which educators, parents and advocates fought for and supported for years. These examples demonstrate the harm that can be done to our schools and communities when a mayor has the power to make major decisions unilaterally.

Because of experiences with past mayors, the UFT’s position has been and continues to be that we are opposed to the city’s current version of mayoral control. However, we are not opposed to all versions of mayoral control, so long as those versions include checks and balances on the mayor’s power. This city needs a school governance system that includes and represents our incredibly diverse student body. We need a system that centers the voices of educators, parents and communities. No one wants to return to the old ways of school boards, nor do we want increased red tape and bureaucracy. Instead, we are seeking a new model of school governance that decentralizes authority.

Mayor Mamdani has pledged to support this vision. On the campaign trail, he expressed his support for ending mayoral control with the intent of giving more voice to educators and communities. Although he has since retracted this support, he has expressed his disapproval for how Eric Adams managed the school system and has vowed to approach mayoral control differently. We are eager to work with him to bring this vow to fruition, and we believe that, if implemented, the following six reforms would improve the mayor’s ability to oversee our school system effectively while increasing representation for our schools and communities.

1. Balance the composition of the Panel for Educational Policy: The Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) must be reconstructed to properly serve its role as a representative of parents and other residents of the city. The PEP votes on critically important decisions such as school co‐locations, school closures and vendor contracts. The lopsided number of mayoral appointees has led the panel to become a rubber stamp for the mayor’s decisions. The lack of PEP independence also means that there are virtually no checks on mayoral control other than through the courts. The school governance laws need to be changed so that the mayor’s power over schools is balanced by other stakeholders. 

We recommend that the voting membership of the panel be composed of:

• Ten appointees from the mayor. Mayoral appointees must still include at least four NYC public school parents, including:
  • At least one parent of a child with an Individualized Education Program
  • At least one parent of a child who is in a bilingual or English as a second language program
  • At least one parent of a child attending a District 75 school or program
• Five appointees (one each) from the city’s five borough presidents
• Five members elected by Community Education Council (CEC) presidents (one member from each borough)
• Three appointees (one each) from the city comptroller, the City Council speaker and the public advocate 
   

2. Enhance PEP role in the selection of the chancellor: The Panel for Educational Policy must be empowered to play a meaningful role in choosing candidates for chancellor. The PEP, as a representative of parents and other residents of this city, should have the responsibility of conducting the initial search for chancellors and the screening of candidates. The PEP would then forward the names of the top three candidates to the mayor, and the mayor would have to choose from among these three. Once this reform is implemented, chancellors selected by way of this new process should serve for a renewable, fixed two‐year term and be removable only for cause during that term.

3. Provide CECs control over co‐location decisions: Community Education Councils should be empowered to approve all co‐locations of schools geographically located in their community school districts, including high schools. Co‐locations are not necessarily bad for schools. But the determination of whether to co‐locate two or more schools in the same building should depend on the circumstances of the schools in question and the wishes of the community. Local communities should have the final say on whether they want schools in their area co-located.

4. Restore the power and independence of high school and community superintendents: Currently, high school superintendents and community superintendents, who are responsible for elementary and middle schools in their districts, serve at the pleasure of the chancellor and can be removed at any time for any reason. This greatly inhibits their ability to act independently and in the best interests of their districts. To give superintendents real authority, CECs should play a role in their selection. State education law should be changed so that CECs conduct candidate screenings for superintendent positions and forward the names of the top three candidates to the chancellor, who would select from among those three. In addition, community superintendents should serve renewable three‐year terms and not be removable except for just cause. We also recommend that superintendents be put in charge of all school‐related issues, i.e., transportation, safety, placement, curriculum, medical, contracts, hiring and firing, and other educational issues, and that they be directed to work with the CECs to ensure that students’ mandated support services are provided.

5. Provide greater transparency to SLTs: The role of school leadership teams (SLTs) is to make sure each school’s resources are aligned with its educational goals. To do this, SLTs are supposed to have oversight of their schools’ budgets. Many principals, however, skirt the requirement to turn over their school budget to their SLT by giving them only the budget summary available on the DOE website, which does not show expenditures. For SLTs to fulfill their role of serving as advocates for their school communities, superintendents should be required to ensure that all principals in their districts give their SLTs thorough information about fund allocations, including their school’s Galaxy table of organization, which shows money budgeted for personnel, per-diem substitutes, after‐school and before‐school activities, books and other supplies, and other expenses. This information on money scheduled and spent should be given to the SLT once per month. SLTs’ C‐30 subcommittees should also be restored to their status prior to 2002, so that in any search for a new principal, they are empowered to put forth the list of candidates from which the new principal is selected.

6. No NYC school governance longer than two years: We believe a two-year extension is the appropriate length of time to allow for a review of the implementation of necessary reforms like those above.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important matter. We are eager to engage in a meaningful conversation around possible reforms to the current system to reassure our union members and the parents of NYC schoolchildren that their concerns are properly addressed.