At a recent press conference, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that people who want to change the school governance law are either irrational or putting their own interests ahead of students. On his radio show, he said that there would be riots in the streets if his control over schools is not continued.
Over the past two years, I have had discussions with many people who stated their opposition to the current law based upon their desire for providing students with a quality education. It seems Bloomberg’s position is irrational and based on his desire to control every aspect of the city public education system, regardless of the consequences to our children’s interests.
First, his claim that there will be riots in the street if he does not get his way speaks volumes about his sense of self. Also, most observers of the current system acknowledge that the rules and intent of the law are not being followed. Simply put, the law was not intended to give Bloomberg the degree of control he has been exercising.
He violated the law by eliminating local school districts and eviscerating their authority; stripping authority from district superintendents to the point that, in some districts, they are prohibited from entering schools; not seeking the advice of the Panel for Education Policy and making this panel a rubber stamp whose members risk dismissal if they suggest disagreement with policies emanating from the mayor and city Schools Chancellor Joel Klein; and not seeking meaningful input from Community District Education Councils on education and zoning matters that affect those districts.
We the people who seek changes in the law want mechanisms to ensure enforcement of its provisions and assurances that the mayor will consider and accommodate the concerns of those working in our schools and those whose children use our public schools.
Second, it takes a special kind of arrogance to accuse us who seek changes in the law of being motivated by self−interest. Many of us have children in public schools and cannot afford non−public schools. There is nothing more important to us than our children’s education. We worry about the quality of teaching, curriculum, school services and school safety because our children’s future depends upon them.
In essence, our interest is vested in education, not selfish needs. Compare us to our mayor: He never had a child in city public schools, or any pubic school, and has never worried that his children’s future would be bleak if their education was of a low quality. Clearly, his interest is not vested with our children’s education — rather, it stems more from politics and ego.
In evaluating school governance, there is a difference between mayoral energy and autocratic license, between leadership and authoritarianism. It is a challenge to create a law that allows leadership without allowing for easy degeneration into authoritarianism.
The current law does not meet that challenge, but if changes are made that create effective checks and balances, clear lines of authority and meaningful oversight, that challenge will be met. To do otherwise is irrational.
©2009 Community News Group
By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:
You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.