The mayoral control outrage
One of the most revered civil rights leaders the world has ever known, Nelson Mandela, once stated: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” It is disgraceful that today some would rather play politics when it comes to the education of New York City students instead of doing what is in the best interests of our children.
There’s no disputing this fact: Mayoral control is the best way to run the largest public school system in the nation. In the special session called by Gov. Cuomo, the Senate and Assembly must swiftly get past their petty differences and extend it — ideally without any expiration date.
Not only have graduation rates improved since the transition from the unaccountable old Board of Education to a Department of Education back in 2002, but the disparities between wealthier and poorer school districts has decreased with the implementation of certain universal requirements and standards.
New York City’s students are doing better by every available measure than they were before the change.
And while many people may be aware of these key benefits of mayoral control, there are other reasons why we should not allow it to expire — reasons that fly in the face of those who claim that bringing back the Board of Education would be a victory for small-d democracy.
First, public comment rules would change and the Board of Education would be able to meet in “executive session” — in other words, behind closed doors. The board could therefore make decisions without public comment.
When the mayoral control law expires, statutory requirements for community engagement prior to changing the use of a school building expire, too. That means no local input and no citywide engagement; the Board of Education could close schools, co-locate them or make other changes without any notice or opportunity for public comment.
If we were to eliminate mayoral control, Community Education Councils would cease to exist — but Community School Board elections wouldn’t take place until next May. That means for almost an entire year, there would be no place for the community to get involved. The ability to appoint new principals, vote on rezoning and so much more would simply not be possible.
The Senate has attempted to play politics by linking renewal of mayoral control to an expansion in the number of charter schools. This is holding our children hostage. It is beyond reprehensible.
Allowing a major battle between charter schools and teachers unions to consume the urgent debate about basic accountability for a school system that educates more than 1 million kids will do nothing but waste money, time and resources as groups and individuals push for their own special interests.
And that would foreshadow all-consuming, counterproductive, big-money political fights in neighborhoods across the city.
We witnessed this exact phenomenon in Los Angeles, where $15 million was spent in a charter-union war in the last school board election — the most expensive school board election in U.S. history. In a city like New York, with 32 school boards and hundreds of elections, the situation would be even worse.
If a method of running our school system is proven to be more effective and allows for more community engagement on a host of levels, why would anyone want to alter it?
According to Deputy Mayor Anthony Shorris, eliminating mayoral control and going back to the old method could cost the city up to $1.6 billion over 10 years.
That is simply unacceptable. We cannot lose billions by returning to a system that was corrupt and ineffective.
It is indisputable that educational attainment lays the foundation for what kind of opportunities a child will have in life. It opens the door for multiple levels of advancement that would otherwise not be possible.
A child born in the South Bronx or Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, deserves the same educational opportunities — including things like pre-K for all — as a child born on the Upper East Side.
Mayoral control has been proven to bring us closer to leveling the playing field, allow for the implementation of key programs, increase graduation rates, provide space for community input and more. Who can, with a straight face, argue against it? Only those with some sort of vested interest — political or otherwise.