A story in the New York Times caught my eye recently (read it here) and when I followed it back I found a tale of incompetent school boards, uninvolved parents, heavy-handed government, and questionable professionals. The surface story details a lack of involvement in the parent councils of NYC schools where in many districts as few as four or five parents are on the ballot for a board with nine elected positions. But the real story is about the ongoing struggle over schools that is occurring in many of the country's major cities. According to the article the number of parents running has gone from about 1,200 in the first parent council election in 2004 to 744 candidates this year. What has caused such a drastic decline in parental involvement? Some cite a feeling of uselessness and lack of power stating that the councils are ineffective and often ignored. Others claim there's not enough information, that many parents who are approached about running are unaware of what the council does, how long the terms last, and what, ultimately, they as council members would be expected to do. Curious to learn more about the situation in NYC and mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2002 takeover of the city's school system I found this article from the Washington Post: NYC School Takeover Inspires Fenty, but Critics Abound. There are three particular points of interest from the article that I would like to highlight although time and space keep me from fully examining these themes as they relate to the situation in NYC. In any case the "hidden themes" are accountability, professionalism, and urban contexts.
Between the two articles I found the question of who's accountable to whom answered in very different ways. The parents were concerned that Bloomberg and his appointed Chancellor of Education, Klein, were not accountable to anyone, didn't listen to the parent councils, and were exercising "complete dictatorial powers" in the words of one parent. Later in the article Bloomberg speaks to the "culture of patronage" and making educators accountable for results basically through hiring and firing mechanisms. In essence it appears that Bloomberg's position is that only by making the management unaccountable can the professionals be held truly accountable. It seems that accountability for all is not a feasible position; an interesting question but one which I happen to disagree with. On a related note Bloomberg also had several members of the city's Panel on Education Policy (the committee that replaced the school board) whom he himself had appointed, dismissed when they disagreed with him over the issue of social promotion. And these members aren't your average community member either, but are all leaders in their respective fields; professionals if you will. This leads into professionalism; the second hidden thread. Bloomberg makes a rather provocative statement regarding professionalism which reads as follows: "Parents know about their kids, but they're not professional educators. There is no reason to think they should be designing a school system or running a school system. Do you want parents to make medical decisions? I don't think so." There are two issues here the first being a distrust of parents and the second being a distrust of professionals. While Bloomberg bases his distrust of parents on their lack of professional knowledge he seems to also mistrust professionals as evidenced by his replacement of the board members.
Although Bloomberg's tactics have raised the hackles of many, this sort of mayoral takeover is catching on in many large cities which face dire educational situations. I believe that there are two main contributors to this trend. The first is that larger cities have larger bureaucracies and therefore the easiest solution may be to cut through the red tape with one fell swoop. The second and related feature is that the scope of the problem seems so much bigger in urban areas that it appears unmanageable by ordinary means and the city may on the whole beg for heroic intervention even while those on the ground complain.
While cutting the Gordian Knot proves a quick, and perhaps easy solution, it remains less clear whether or not it is a good one. Like other emergency powers perhaps such takeovers should only be temporary. In fact Bloomberg's management will be reevaluated in 2009. But on the other hand will the ultimate costs of a temporary fix be worth any benefits gained?
No comments:
Post a Comment