UFT President Michael Mulgrew gave a power point presentation to Chapter Leaders and delegates on Oct. 14th concerning the responsibilities and powers of School Leadership Teams under the new governance law. He urged Chapter leaders, who are core members of teams, "to exercise those responsibilities immediately".
Mr. Mulgrew said, "we need an active SLT in every school".The vast majority of Chapter Leaders indicated that they had not "been informed of their new responsibilities or tackled their bylaws and the school budget" at the first SLT meeting in September.
The UFT plans to offer training "to educate members and parents about the new SLT role." Mr. Mulgrew said if the principal ignores the new law with regard to SLTs,the UFT district representative should be notified immediately.
I urge parents and the PA President on SLTs, to work with the UFT Chapter Leader on your team, to focus the principal on SLT responsibilities and powers.For more information and resources for School Leadership Teams, visit the SLT Support Center at sltsupport.blogspot.com.
Sincerely,
James Calantjis
718 458-4237
calantjis@aol.com
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
NYCDOE Freedom of Information Law Requests
Freedom of Information Law or FOIL requests, can be made to the NYCDOE by anyone seeking record documents pertaining to the central office, specific district or local school. All you need to do is to send an e-mail to the Central Record Access Officer Joseph Baranello, giving a description of the documents you are seeking and informing him that you wish to inspect them, or receive copies, pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law. His e-mail is jbaranello3@schools.nyc.gov. Also, copy your e-mail to foil@schools.nyc.gov.
For more information, you can access Chancellor's Regulation D-110 on the NYCDOE website or click the link on this site. It will give you specific guidelines and list any restictions in providing documents.
The Central Record Access Officer must respond to your request within five days. The response will acknowledge receipt of your request and state a time frame for searching and producing the documents. There is a cost of 25 cents per page for printing unless you request and they are able to e-mail the documents.
FOIL can be a very powerful tool to inspect or obtain copies of documents that school officials might not want to share pertaining to budgets, school leadership and district leadership teams( ex. Minutes, DLT CEP's), attendance, graduation and other statistics.
Try asking for the records at your local school, district or central office first. If they are not cooperative or give you the "runaround", submit a FOIL request.
For a copy of FOIL, see: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/foil2.html
For more information, you can access Chancellor's Regulation D-110 on the NYCDOE website or click the link on this site. It will give you specific guidelines and list any restictions in providing documents.
The Central Record Access Officer must respond to your request within five days. The response will acknowledge receipt of your request and state a time frame for searching and producing the documents. There is a cost of 25 cents per page for printing unless you request and they are able to e-mail the documents.
FOIL can be a very powerful tool to inspect or obtain copies of documents that school officials might not want to share pertaining to budgets, school leadership and district leadership teams( ex. Minutes, DLT CEP's), attendance, graduation and other statistics.
Try asking for the records at your local school, district or central office first. If they are not cooperative or give you the "runaround", submit a FOIL request.
For a copy of FOIL, see: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/foil2.html
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Role of Parent Coordinators - by Jacob Morris
A DIPLOMATIC ADVOCATE
Conceptualizing the Optimum Role & Skill Sets of Parent Coordinators in our Education System’s New Ecology of Power
by Jacob Morris
This is an exploratory concept paper - not a training manual. Ultimately how to respond to common problems that arise (a casebook approach) must become part of the training curriculum for Parent Coordinators. For now, let us recognize that the people in these new positions have no power. Influence and effectiveness is the most we can hope for. If we can achieve that, we’ll know we did something right. The key for them being perceived as successful in a system of competing interests and egos, is prompt, positive feedback from the constituency they are being paid to serve - Parents and their Children.
So how do you develop respect for yourself and your new profession from the other players in the Power Ecology of a school community? Integrity and competence are critical to credibility, and innovative diplomatic problem solving must be valued in the nature of communication. Smooth, calm, non-adversarial persistence is essential, and follow though is necessary. A new profession (Parent Coordinator) must be developed by those responsible for productive involvement. Towards that objective, multiple systems and instruments of evaluating satisfaction, responsiveness, and optimum problem-solving should be implemented.
Inventing a new profession is not easy, so don’t expect perfection the first year. If we get continuing improvement we’ll know we’re on the right track.
It is necessary to take a systems approach to solve this problem. The new Coordinators will not interact in isolation. An understanding must be developed as to who the people are that they will need to deal with to solve problems. Principals must be trained to utilize them productively - almost in effect as their ambassadors to the parents, as well as the point of first contact with the school system. Customer service representative is another very valid analogy.
Let’s start with a problem - when you get right down to it, a perception of unfairness or injustice underlies passionate dissatisfaction with any institution or organization. If a Parent feels their child has been unjustly treated, that motivates them to do something about it. Subsequently, if the system is unresponsive, and they feel they’ve been rolled over by the weight of organizational inertia, then we have the present state of affairs - widespread alienation. The Parent Coordinator positions were created precisely to enhance responsiveness and help deal with organizational gridlock within our school system.
It’s been said before, but along with the establishment of the new positions, a fervent commitment must be communicated by the new leaders of our school system for individual schools, clusters, and regional districts as well as the entire system to become learning organizations. What does it mean to become a Learning Organization? Several years ago, I developed a Tool for Under- standing that can be very useful for the leaders of organizations to not just solve the symptoms of problems but to prevent them from arising in the first place. It’s called “Problem Prevention through Encounter Analysis.” This method can be paraphrased as “The Solution is in the Problem.” As the hoped for point of first contact (encounter) with the school, the development and use of an intake processing form will enable us to take an systemic approach for leadership to understand better the nature of the problems that parents feel the need to come to school to deal with. Let’s us emphasis here the deep truth that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
There are various scenarios that can be described when a parent arrives at the school to deal with a problem that has arisen with their child. Among these potential problems are:
1) Referral to special education or resource room
2) A fight or an attack on or by the child
3) A suspension (with or without due process)
4) A failing grade and/or homework problems
5) Problems or questions about admission to the next level of school
6) Transfer to another school or tutoring available under NCLB
7) The child being retained in grade (left back)
8) College admission and scholarship information
9) Push-out of the child to a GED program
10) Attendance and/or cutting
11) Possible malfeasance or arbitrary and capricious behavior within the PTA
The above list is inherently incomplete, but in looking it over I am confident that readers in leadership positions will begin to see an awareness of systemic solutions emerging through insightful description and categorization of problems. At it’s root communication is the key to prevention. A transparent school web-site and voice mail system would do much to alleviate the perception and reality of unresponsiveness that the school system is known for. Wouldn’t that be a resource for all constituencies and make everyone’s lives easier?
Even after the implementation of the school web-site and the closing of the “digital divide” quite a few problems will remain that can only be solved through a personal meeting at the school.
Let us trace the steps of a typical parent with a typical problem from our list to see what understandings we can derive.
The child brings home a failing report card, because the child had the flu for ten days.
Three of the child’s teachers gave a failing grade for that marking period on the child’s report card. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual circumstance, sooner or later every child gets sick. For us, the question arises why do some of the teachers fail the child and yet other teachers understand and do not? Right there we identify a systemic issue. Of course inconsistencies in policy lead immediately to a perception of injustice.
So now we have a parent who is justifiably upset, but when the parent calls the school administration, some how, no one returns the parent’s phone call, (perhaps because of language or other reasons the parent is not able to articulate clearly what underlies their unhappiness). Should not the parent coordinator have a role in helping the parent articulate and communicate the essence of their dissatisfaction to the school administration? But we digress, let’s continue with the scenario. Since the school, for whatever reason, has failed to be responsive within a reasonable time frame in returning the parent’s phone call, Murphy’s Law continues to operate. The justifiably upset parent then comes to the school and meets the school security guards who proceed to treat the parent, who is already upset, in an adversarial manner because they have not been trained to be aware of “The Parent Involvement Policy.” In essence this is an awareness and respect for the fact that “every parent has an integral role in their child’s education.” They wind up blocking the parent from entrance to the school - a totally unsatisfactory result. At present the great majority of schools have no mechanism or waiting area for a parent with a justifiable concern, except perhaps outside the principal’s office which you can’t get to without an appointment. Talk about frustration! It is very conceivable that right there a child’s future has been destroyed. Ask yourself - how it feels to the child to see his or her parent so profoundly disrespected!
Just a description of the scenario gives us insight into answers and solutions. Let’s start with the report card and its inconsistent use by the child’s teachers. If you are the parent coordinator, how do you deal with it, when it is bought to you by the parent?
A systemic solution would be for all teachers to know that the education system’s policy is to give a medical incomplete in the event of illness or accident (broken hand, etc.).
Until the time that the system communicates that uniform policy to its teachers and administrators, the parent coordinator’s job in facilitating a solution to the above problem becomes much more difficult. Let’s keep in mind here that the primary mission of the school is the satisfactory academic improvement of the child. In the event that there are involuntary medical problems, the school’s response should be to remediate, not to punish. Failing a child under these circumstances is punitive and destroys motivation.
The parent coordinator would then bring this problem to the attention of the principal who, in lieu of a system wide policy, could establish a school wide policy allowing the use of medical incomplete as a grade on the report card. If not, then hopefully the principal would see the negative ramifications of inconsistencies in grading. He would have to delegate to his respective APs and department chairs the solving of this problem. Of course this approach is much more time consuming for the organization because then the school must deal with each individual circumstance on a case by case basis. This eats up a tremendous amount of managerial time. Let’s not forget that on an individual basis, if the teacher refuses to change the grade then either the child is screwed or the child must be transferred out of that teacher’s class. This leads straight to huge scheduling problems which must be coordinated with the guidance office; obviously a lot of follow-through attention would be demanded of the parent coordinator. Its easy to see that a simple policy change is a lot easier for all concerned. This brings us right back around to the concept of a learning organization - what do we learn how- and how do we learn what?
There are universal principles in implementing continuous organizational quality service improvement:
1) Focus on the student
2) Streamline the process and conception of solutions
3) Leaders and administrators must value system-wide quality improvement
4) The vision of the school must be compelling and exciting
5) Use team work and partnerships to solve problems - each person can be a part
of the solution
6) Invest in creating a learning organization
7) Understand that a few big things done right, is better than a lot of small things done halfway (strategic understanding)
Remember; here are many ways to feel pressured and do things wrong.
1) Be defensive
2) Blame others
3) Go for the quick fix
4) Demand uncritical allegiance
5) Ignore suggestions for improvement
6) Insist everything be an immediate priority
7) Keep your vision a secret (if you have one)
8) Become incapable of delegating responsibility
9) Be rude, abrupt, and insulting ( or bury people under meaningless verbiage).
Today, more than ever, it is the people in our schools who will determine what quality improvement will mean. Appreciation of quality and a search for excellence and discovery breeds a respect for others which improves us all. Quality improvement is something you practice with others - not to them. These principles are as appropriate at home as they are at school or any work place. More than a type of management practice, it becomes an underlying value for a better way of life for all of us; especially if we desire to fully develop the potential of our children!
- Show quoted text -
.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}
Conceptualizing the Optimum Role & Skill Sets of Parent Coordinators in our Education System’s New Ecology of Power
by Jacob Morris
This is an exploratory concept paper - not a training manual. Ultimately how to respond to common problems that arise (a casebook approach) must become part of the training curriculum for Parent Coordinators. For now, let us recognize that the people in these new positions have no power. Influence and effectiveness is the most we can hope for. If we can achieve that, we’ll know we did something right. The key for them being perceived as successful in a system of competing interests and egos, is prompt, positive feedback from the constituency they are being paid to serve - Parents and their Children.
So how do you develop respect for yourself and your new profession from the other players in the Power Ecology of a school community? Integrity and competence are critical to credibility, and innovative diplomatic problem solving must be valued in the nature of communication. Smooth, calm, non-adversarial persistence is essential, and follow though is necessary. A new profession (Parent Coordinator) must be developed by those responsible for productive involvement. Towards that objective, multiple systems and instruments of evaluating satisfaction, responsiveness, and optimum problem-solving should be implemented.
Inventing a new profession is not easy, so don’t expect perfection the first year. If we get continuing improvement we’ll know we’re on the right track.
It is necessary to take a systems approach to solve this problem. The new Coordinators will not interact in isolation. An understanding must be developed as to who the people are that they will need to deal with to solve problems. Principals must be trained to utilize them productively - almost in effect as their ambassadors to the parents, as well as the point of first contact with the school system. Customer service representative is another very valid analogy.
Let’s start with a problem - when you get right down to it, a perception of unfairness or injustice underlies passionate dissatisfaction with any institution or organization. If a Parent feels their child has been unjustly treated, that motivates them to do something about it. Subsequently, if the system is unresponsive, and they feel they’ve been rolled over by the weight of organizational inertia, then we have the present state of affairs - widespread alienation. The Parent Coordinator positions were created precisely to enhance responsiveness and help deal with organizational gridlock within our school system.
It’s been said before, but along with the establishment of the new positions, a fervent commitment must be communicated by the new leaders of our school system for individual schools, clusters, and regional districts as well as the entire system to become learning organizations. What does it mean to become a Learning Organization? Several years ago, I developed a Tool for Under- standing that can be very useful for the leaders of organizations to not just solve the symptoms of problems but to prevent them from arising in the first place. It’s called “Problem Prevention through Encounter Analysis.” This method can be paraphrased as “The Solution is in the Problem.” As the hoped for point of first contact (encounter) with the school, the development and use of an intake processing form will enable us to take an systemic approach for leadership to understand better the nature of the problems that parents feel the need to come to school to deal with. Let’s us emphasis here the deep truth that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
There are various scenarios that can be described when a parent arrives at the school to deal with a problem that has arisen with their child. Among these potential problems are:
1) Referral to special education or resource room
2) A fight or an attack on or by the child
3) A suspension (with or without due process)
4) A failing grade and/or homework problems
5) Problems or questions about admission to the next level of school
6) Transfer to another school or tutoring available under NCLB
7) The child being retained in grade (left back)
8) College admission and scholarship information
9) Push-out of the child to a GED program
10) Attendance and/or cutting
11) Possible malfeasance or arbitrary and capricious behavior within the PTA
The above list is inherently incomplete, but in looking it over I am confident that readers in leadership positions will begin to see an awareness of systemic solutions emerging through insightful description and categorization of problems. At it’s root communication is the key to prevention. A transparent school web-site and voice mail system would do much to alleviate the perception and reality of unresponsiveness that the school system is known for. Wouldn’t that be a resource for all constituencies and make everyone’s lives easier?
Even after the implementation of the school web-site and the closing of the “digital divide” quite a few problems will remain that can only be solved through a personal meeting at the school.
Let us trace the steps of a typical parent with a typical problem from our list to see what understandings we can derive.
The child brings home a failing report card, because the child had the flu for ten days.
Three of the child’s teachers gave a failing grade for that marking period on the child’s report card. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual circumstance, sooner or later every child gets sick. For us, the question arises why do some of the teachers fail the child and yet other teachers understand and do not? Right there we identify a systemic issue. Of course inconsistencies in policy lead immediately to a perception of injustice.
So now we have a parent who is justifiably upset, but when the parent calls the school administration, some how, no one returns the parent’s phone call, (perhaps because of language or other reasons the parent is not able to articulate clearly what underlies their unhappiness). Should not the parent coordinator have a role in helping the parent articulate and communicate the essence of their dissatisfaction to the school administration? But we digress, let’s continue with the scenario. Since the school, for whatever reason, has failed to be responsive within a reasonable time frame in returning the parent’s phone call, Murphy’s Law continues to operate. The justifiably upset parent then comes to the school and meets the school security guards who proceed to treat the parent, who is already upset, in an adversarial manner because they have not been trained to be aware of “The Parent Involvement Policy.” In essence this is an awareness and respect for the fact that “every parent has an integral role in their child’s education.” They wind up blocking the parent from entrance to the school - a totally unsatisfactory result. At present the great majority of schools have no mechanism or waiting area for a parent with a justifiable concern, except perhaps outside the principal’s office which you can’t get to without an appointment. Talk about frustration! It is very conceivable that right there a child’s future has been destroyed. Ask yourself - how it feels to the child to see his or her parent so profoundly disrespected!
Just a description of the scenario gives us insight into answers and solutions. Let’s start with the report card and its inconsistent use by the child’s teachers. If you are the parent coordinator, how do you deal with it, when it is bought to you by the parent?
A systemic solution would be for all teachers to know that the education system’s policy is to give a medical incomplete in the event of illness or accident (broken hand, etc.).
Until the time that the system communicates that uniform policy to its teachers and administrators, the parent coordinator’s job in facilitating a solution to the above problem becomes much more difficult. Let’s keep in mind here that the primary mission of the school is the satisfactory academic improvement of the child. In the event that there are involuntary medical problems, the school’s response should be to remediate, not to punish. Failing a child under these circumstances is punitive and destroys motivation.
The parent coordinator would then bring this problem to the attention of the principal who, in lieu of a system wide policy, could establish a school wide policy allowing the use of medical incomplete as a grade on the report card. If not, then hopefully the principal would see the negative ramifications of inconsistencies in grading. He would have to delegate to his respective APs and department chairs the solving of this problem. Of course this approach is much more time consuming for the organization because then the school must deal with each individual circumstance on a case by case basis. This eats up a tremendous amount of managerial time. Let’s not forget that on an individual basis, if the teacher refuses to change the grade then either the child is screwed or the child must be transferred out of that teacher’s class. This leads straight to huge scheduling problems which must be coordinated with the guidance office; obviously a lot of follow-through attention would be demanded of the parent coordinator. Its easy to see that a simple policy change is a lot easier for all concerned. This brings us right back around to the concept of a learning organization - what do we learn how- and how do we learn what?
There are universal principles in implementing continuous organizational quality service improvement:
1) Focus on the student
2) Streamline the process and conception of solutions
3) Leaders and administrators must value system-wide quality improvement
4) The vision of the school must be compelling and exciting
5) Use team work and partnerships to solve problems - each person can be a part
of the solution
6) Invest in creating a learning organization
7) Understand that a few big things done right, is better than a lot of small things done halfway (strategic understanding)
Remember; here are many ways to feel pressured and do things wrong.
1) Be defensive
2) Blame others
3) Go for the quick fix
4) Demand uncritical allegiance
5) Ignore suggestions for improvement
6) Insist everything be an immediate priority
7) Keep your vision a secret (if you have one)
8) Become incapable of delegating responsibility
9) Be rude, abrupt, and insulting ( or bury people under meaningless verbiage).
Today, more than ever, it is the people in our schools who will determine what quality improvement will mean. Appreciation of quality and a search for excellence and discovery breeds a respect for others which improves us all. Quality improvement is something you practice with others - not to them. These principles are as appropriate at home as they are at school or any work place. More than a type of management practice, it becomes an underlying value for a better way of life for all of us; especially if we desire to fully develop the potential of our children!
- Show quoted text -
.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}
Thursday, August 20, 2009
How new State Legislation Affects School Leadership Teams
The new legislation passed by the Assembly and State Senate in many ways strengthens the role of School Leadership Teams. You can view a summary of the legislation or read the bill by going to the legislative sites and searching for Assembly Bill A08550 or Senate Bill A8903A.
The law still gives SLT's the authority to collaboratively develop the Comprehensive Educational Plan by means of shared decision making. It also mandates that CEP's be posted on the school's internet website, where it can be scrutinized by the public. The law also strengthens the District Superintendent's supervision of principals and gives them oversight of the CEP and budget process.This means that SLT's will have a place to go when a principal is uncooperative in collaboratively developing the CEP or providing transparency and consultation concerning the development of the school based budget.
The law now has more specific language concerning the budget responsibilities of the SLT and as stated, provides for Superintendent oversight and principal accountability. It states that principals must consult with their SLT's concerning the development of the school based budget and it must be aligned with the Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP). This means that SLT's must be actively involved in how the budget is prepared and funds allocated, providing for school budget transparancy. The Superintendent must approve the school based budget after certifying it is "sufficiently aligned" with the school's CEP. The principal must submit written justification that the budget is aligned with the CEP and the SLT can respond to the principal's certification.
The law also allows any SLT member to dispute any decision made by the principal, to the Superintendent, where Team members reach a consensus that the decision is inconsistent with the goals and policies set forth in the existing CEP. The Superintendent must then communicate his decision in writing to the SLT and principal. In addition, the law provides for Superintendents to evaluate principals on how effective they were in developing shared decision making relationships with their SLT's (referred to as School Based Management Teams). The Superintendent will also consider comments contained in an annual assessment of the principal made by the SLT.
An amendment to the law proposed by the State Senate ,will provide money for the creation of a Parent Training Center, to be operated under CUNY. It is an understanding that the Parent Center will provide training concerning SLT's CEP and budget duties, as well as Parent Association (PA) and Community Education Council ( CEC) responsibilities. The law continues to mandate that SLT members be trained in their CEP and budget responsibilities.
The law still gives SLT's the authority to collaboratively develop the Comprehensive Educational Plan by means of shared decision making. It also mandates that CEP's be posted on the school's internet website, where it can be scrutinized by the public. The law also strengthens the District Superintendent's supervision of principals and gives them oversight of the CEP and budget process.This means that SLT's will have a place to go when a principal is uncooperative in collaboratively developing the CEP or providing transparency and consultation concerning the development of the school based budget.
The law now has more specific language concerning the budget responsibilities of the SLT and as stated, provides for Superintendent oversight and principal accountability. It states that principals must consult with their SLT's concerning the development of the school based budget and it must be aligned with the Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP). This means that SLT's must be actively involved in how the budget is prepared and funds allocated, providing for school budget transparancy. The Superintendent must approve the school based budget after certifying it is "sufficiently aligned" with the school's CEP. The principal must submit written justification that the budget is aligned with the CEP and the SLT can respond to the principal's certification.
The law also allows any SLT member to dispute any decision made by the principal, to the Superintendent, where Team members reach a consensus that the decision is inconsistent with the goals and policies set forth in the existing CEP. The Superintendent must then communicate his decision in writing to the SLT and principal. In addition, the law provides for Superintendents to evaluate principals on how effective they were in developing shared decision making relationships with their SLT's (referred to as School Based Management Teams). The Superintendent will also consider comments contained in an annual assessment of the principal made by the SLT.
An amendment to the law proposed by the State Senate ,will provide money for the creation of a Parent Training Center, to be operated under CUNY. It is an understanding that the Parent Center will provide training concerning SLT's CEP and budget duties, as well as Parent Association (PA) and Community Education Council ( CEC) responsibilities. The law continues to mandate that SLT members be trained in their CEP and budget responsibilities.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
School Governance in New York City III by Jacob Morris
School Governance in New York City III
The Naked Dictator by Jacob MorrisOr the Negative Evolution of a Benevolent Dictator
There is a New Sociological “Law of Power” It states that regardless of the initial Benevolent Intent of the Controlling Authority – as time passes Maintenance of Unfettered Control outweighs the original Benevolent Intent – In other words having to Listen irritates them – “Don’t Bother Me”
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it” - William Pitt
We’ve just had to endure repeated over the top hysterical warnings about the coming of the apocalypse and rioting in the Streets if Mayoral Control did not get renewed. In the calm of the morning after the expiration of the Law, we get a chance to rationally assess - Where Are We Now?
In my humble opinion, William Pitt and Lord Acton knew what they were talking about in regards to the negative effects Power has on the Minds of those who imagine they have it. In the wake of the passing of their hysterical language – which I feel it very significant that we remember they used – their credibility and believability has been impeached. There is an attitude on the part of the administration of, “How dare you oppose me”. Word has been received of Robo-Calls to constituents of various Senators who have supported a School Governance structure that facilitates Parent & Community input.
This garbage must be exposed and confronted!! So now we have a Board of Education – WOW – and they have a meeting where the Public and Parents are not allowed to speak. At least with the old Board of Education – there was a respected mechanism for Public Input and to get on the Agenda. I personally remember speaking before the old Board in 1998-9 about Asthma & Absenteeism along with the problem of Disproportionate Placement of Black & Hispanic Boys in Special Education, and having them listen.
Borough President Rueben Diaz Jr. made a very salient observation the other day in regards to the newly reconstituted Board of Education. The phrase he used was related to the individual brainpower of the Board Members – and the Structural Waste of their “Intellectual Capital”. This is why I used the “Naked Dictator” title above.
EVERYTHING IS NOT PERFECT!!!
The Math & Science Achievement Gap, the statistical “Black Hole” of the “Pushout Problem”, the increasing number of our Children in Special Education, and the continuing problem of Asthma & Absenteeism, are only a few of the major issues that our Public Education System must work on solving.
So it’s back to – “Where are we Now”? If the State Senate was to approve the Legislation approved by the Assembly – and then pass their Amendments separately – the Mayor would never dignify their action with the respect of a Negotiation. It must be newly crafted Legislation. So the basic questions remain –
What do we Want? – And also, What do we as a Society Need?
I nominate “Transparency” as something we should value highly. If we attain that then it would be a short step to “Accountability”. So that whatever governance structure we finally arrive at can be viewed as Healthy and Functioning with the Objective of Better Quality Decision Making on behalf of our Children.
How do we attain “Transparency”?
The simple answer to that is “Alignment & Professional Development Training”.
The Management Structure must meet with the Participatory Structure’s Entities monthly. Also the Agenda can not be controlled only by Management. There must be a mechanism for ALL participatory members to place items on the Agenda for consideration. However, if the members don’t feel knowledgeable – we’ll find their ability to participate in a meaningful manner problematic.
Now imagine if you will – that you are a Parent in NYC – and you have your child in a Public School. You participate in the PTA, people come to like you, and feel that you have the ability to contribute input of value to the School, and the opportunity arises for you to get elected to the School’s Leadership Team. If you knew that you could be fired “At Will” by the Principal, would you bother to participate? Could you go to a meeting of the Team knowing that arbitrarily and capriciously, one word or look could get you humiliated by the person with the POWER / AUTHORITY?
So the question remains – Why bother to have a Panel, Council, or Board at all, if the intelligent people appointed or selected are going to do their imitation as Potted Plants? In a recent interview former Chancellor Harold Levy made an interesting point, the Mayor must FEEL in Control. The reason why is because only then will that Mayor deliver resources (i.e. MONEY) to the School System. There is no question that Mayor Bloomberg has dramatically raised the amount of money in the System’s Budget, since he took over.
From his perspective he probably feels like he’s doing a good job.
In a business you throw money at a problem – pick your own, hopefully competent people – and tell them to fix it. Unfortunately – an Educational System and the nature of Human Learning are not quite so suitable for an Executive top down approach to solving problems. In a Public School System you need to get “Buy In”, from the people you have to work with. This way they become invested in being part of the solution.
Recent Examples of Major Negative Credibility Issues
1). Education Panel, Forgotten, Rushes to Approve Budget June 20, 2009
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
If there was ever any question over the lack of influence wielded by the Panel for Educational Policy — a group of 13 responsible for overseeing city education matters but often ridiculed as a rubber stamp — Friday morning appeared to clear things up.
The Department of Education, it seems, forgot to get the blessing of the panel, as required by State Law, before it submitted its $22.3 billion budget to the City Council.
After Patrick J. Sullivan, a Manhattan parent on the panel, pointed out the relevant statute, the city scrambled to call an emergency meeting of the panel for Friday, just hours before the expected Council vote. The public was given 54 minutes of notice.
(--- But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — who controls 8 of the panel’s 13 seats — made plain during the negotiations that he preferred no panel at all, and over the past seven years, he and Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, who as the panel’s chairman, have eased it into irrelevance. The volunteer panelists — rarely engage in discussions with those who rise to address them. They do not debate the educational issues of the day, but spend most sessions applauding packaged presentations by staff. Some have barely uttered a public word during their tenures. )
2). WHY ARE DROPOUTS LEAVING SCHOOL YEARS EARLIER THAN BEFORE THE SUPPOSED END OF SOCIAL PROMOTION???
When you leave a child back multiple times – they leave School – then they go to Jail….
So why are they getting Left Back over and over? The answer is simple – it’s the failure of Administrators to deliver effective Remediation to these young people – a broken promise….
3). WHEN THE MAYOR GAVE THE AT LENGTH ANALOGY OF HIMSELF AS NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN – WHAT DID HE MEAN???
If you know History you know the answer – to even infer that Members of the State Senate who are advocating for a System of NYC School Governance – in good faith – seem like Hitler is an insult to the meaning of History – again demonstrating that having to listen irritates him - now he wants to pretend he did not hear the question
4). WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE ENTITY YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH HAS A TRACK RECORD OF BROKEN COURT AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS???
Literally- NYCDOE has repeatedly broken State Education Law - basically destroying the Community School Districts – and their Superintendents – as well as ignoring the Decision by Commissioner Mills that their revision of the regulations governing School Leadership Teams was illegal – daring anyone to bring a lawsuit – and then quietly ignoring Court Orders…- This is a Problematic (ie. Bad) Track Record -
**NONE-THE-LESS** MAYORAL CONTROL IS OK
The reason is why is simple - if the Mayor feels he has Control then the School System is given more money
What we want is for the Bloomberg/Klein Administration to LISTEN!!!
THE NEW BOARD MUST BE A POLICY MAKING BODY
Also given that the prior structure of Community School Districts has been in effect destroyed by the Bloomberg/Klein Administration; we have an opportunity to establish a new structure of Community School Districts that is naturally aligned with an existing, healthy, respected, and functioning Community Board District Structure:
a) We therefore recommend that a new Community School District structure in New York City be established that aligns exactly with the existing Community Board District Lines.
b) That the current members of the Community Education Councils (CEC’s) be designated and become Community Board members on their Community Boards with the appropriate jurisdictions. Furthermore, that they be specifically designated to serve on the Education Committees of those respective Community Boards.
c) That a Community Board District Superintendent be designated for each Community School District as their primary responsibility, and of course have a Real Office in that district that is accessible to the Community, with a real staff that actually functions. It is expected that the Superintendent would meet monthly with the Education Committee of that Community Board and form a mutually respectful relationship with that Community Board. Of course we also expect that the District Superintendent would also meet with the District Leadership Team on a monthly basis.
3) We call for replacement of the failed “Parent Coordinator” job category. In their place, we would establish a new job category, for which all existing Parent Coordinators would have a preference in applying and qualifying for.
4) The title for this new job category would be that of “Parent Ombudsman.” The functions of these Parent Ombudsmen would be to help solve the problems of parents who would call or come to the School in respond to issues that arise in their Child’s path through the Educational System.
We expect that not only will the Board of Education work to facilitate the competence and credibility of the Parent Ombudsman so that they can do their jobs better on behalf of the parents and their children, but they will also be allowed to choose their Union Representation in a transparent process.
5) In regards to School Leadership Teams (SLTs), we call for:
a) Two year terms in the terms of election of team members so as to preserve the continuity of team function and knowledge.
b) The restoration of discretionary professional development training funds to the Teams so that they feel empowered and respected by the Educational System in which they can play such a potentially positive role.
c) Restoration of a Competitive Professional Development Vendor Training Catalog.
d) Giving responsibility to the School Leadership Teams for the maintenance of the content of their respective school web-sites. This would be in harmony with a critical element of their mission under State Law to communicate effectively with their respective constituents.
e) On an annual basis the SLT members will elect a member from their team to represent them on the District Leadership Team. This would promote the flow of information about problems and issues up from the School Based Level.
6) We recommend that the respective five Borough Presidents establish Education Advisory Councils, analogous to the council that has been functioning in Queens under the purview of that esteemed Borough President.
a) Obviously we recommend that the core membership of the Boroughs Advisory Councils have among their members the chairs of the various district leadership teams and community board educational committees within their respective Boroughs.
b) In the event these Education Advisory Councils elect or designate a chairperson, the Borough President could seriously consider designating that person as their representative to the Citywide Education Policy Council.
7) In regards to the newly established “Citywide Educational Policy Council”, we would build on the UFT proposal and add members; a least two more appointees for the Mayor and one each to represent the Community Boards and also the District Leadership Teams; they would be respectively elected by a separate Citywide gatherings of the Chairs of the District Leadership Teams, and also the chairs of the Education Committees of every Community Board in NYC. Further, it is critical that any member in good standing of the Citywide Education Policy Council be empowered to make a motion to place items on the Agenda for the following month’s meeting, and hopefully allow for Public Input at the end of the meetings.
Envisioning a Community & Parent Friendly Naturally Aligned Structure for School Governance in NYC
Conjecture
What should be the Purpose of a System of School Governance?
Answer: Better Decisions and Responsiveness on Behalf of the Children
Axiom #1
The School is the Fundamental Unit of a School Governance System
Axiom #2
The Management Structure and the Participatory Structure Must be Aligned
Axiom #3
Continuity has a Value – It Enables us to Build on a Foundation over Time
Axiom #4
A Desire for Consensus Should not be allowed to Degenerate into Paralysis
Axiom #5
Team Participation in Decision Making Promotes Buy-In of Implementation
Axiom #6
The System will never be Perfect – Nonetheless it should Strive to Emulate a Learning Organization so it can Grow from both Acknowledgement of Mistakes and also Anticipation of Possible Problems
The Naked Dictator by Jacob MorrisOr the Negative Evolution of a Benevolent Dictator
There is a New Sociological “Law of Power” It states that regardless of the initial Benevolent Intent of the Controlling Authority – as time passes Maintenance of Unfettered Control outweighs the original Benevolent Intent – In other words having to Listen irritates them – “Don’t Bother Me”
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it” - William Pitt
We’ve just had to endure repeated over the top hysterical warnings about the coming of the apocalypse and rioting in the Streets if Mayoral Control did not get renewed. In the calm of the morning after the expiration of the Law, we get a chance to rationally assess - Where Are We Now?
In my humble opinion, William Pitt and Lord Acton knew what they were talking about in regards to the negative effects Power has on the Minds of those who imagine they have it. In the wake of the passing of their hysterical language – which I feel it very significant that we remember they used – their credibility and believability has been impeached. There is an attitude on the part of the administration of, “How dare you oppose me”. Word has been received of Robo-Calls to constituents of various Senators who have supported a School Governance structure that facilitates Parent & Community input.
This garbage must be exposed and confronted!! So now we have a Board of Education – WOW – and they have a meeting where the Public and Parents are not allowed to speak. At least with the old Board of Education – there was a respected mechanism for Public Input and to get on the Agenda. I personally remember speaking before the old Board in 1998-9 about Asthma & Absenteeism along with the problem of Disproportionate Placement of Black & Hispanic Boys in Special Education, and having them listen.
Borough President Rueben Diaz Jr. made a very salient observation the other day in regards to the newly reconstituted Board of Education. The phrase he used was related to the individual brainpower of the Board Members – and the Structural Waste of their “Intellectual Capital”. This is why I used the “Naked Dictator” title above.
EVERYTHING IS NOT PERFECT!!!
The Math & Science Achievement Gap, the statistical “Black Hole” of the “Pushout Problem”, the increasing number of our Children in Special Education, and the continuing problem of Asthma & Absenteeism, are only a few of the major issues that our Public Education System must work on solving.
So it’s back to – “Where are we Now”? If the State Senate was to approve the Legislation approved by the Assembly – and then pass their Amendments separately – the Mayor would never dignify their action with the respect of a Negotiation. It must be newly crafted Legislation. So the basic questions remain –
What do we Want? – And also, What do we as a Society Need?
I nominate “Transparency” as something we should value highly. If we attain that then it would be a short step to “Accountability”. So that whatever governance structure we finally arrive at can be viewed as Healthy and Functioning with the Objective of Better Quality Decision Making on behalf of our Children.
How do we attain “Transparency”?
The simple answer to that is “Alignment & Professional Development Training”.
The Management Structure must meet with the Participatory Structure’s Entities monthly. Also the Agenda can not be controlled only by Management. There must be a mechanism for ALL participatory members to place items on the Agenda for consideration. However, if the members don’t feel knowledgeable – we’ll find their ability to participate in a meaningful manner problematic.
Now imagine if you will – that you are a Parent in NYC – and you have your child in a Public School. You participate in the PTA, people come to like you, and feel that you have the ability to contribute input of value to the School, and the opportunity arises for you to get elected to the School’s Leadership Team. If you knew that you could be fired “At Will” by the Principal, would you bother to participate? Could you go to a meeting of the Team knowing that arbitrarily and capriciously, one word or look could get you humiliated by the person with the POWER / AUTHORITY?
So the question remains – Why bother to have a Panel, Council, or Board at all, if the intelligent people appointed or selected are going to do their imitation as Potted Plants? In a recent interview former Chancellor Harold Levy made an interesting point, the Mayor must FEEL in Control. The reason why is because only then will that Mayor deliver resources (i.e. MONEY) to the School System. There is no question that Mayor Bloomberg has dramatically raised the amount of money in the System’s Budget, since he took over.
From his perspective he probably feels like he’s doing a good job.
In a business you throw money at a problem – pick your own, hopefully competent people – and tell them to fix it. Unfortunately – an Educational System and the nature of Human Learning are not quite so suitable for an Executive top down approach to solving problems. In a Public School System you need to get “Buy In”, from the people you have to work with. This way they become invested in being part of the solution.
Recent Examples of Major Negative Credibility Issues
1). Education Panel, Forgotten, Rushes to Approve Budget June 20, 2009
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
If there was ever any question over the lack of influence wielded by the Panel for Educational Policy — a group of 13 responsible for overseeing city education matters but often ridiculed as a rubber stamp — Friday morning appeared to clear things up.
The Department of Education, it seems, forgot to get the blessing of the panel, as required by State Law, before it submitted its $22.3 billion budget to the City Council.
After Patrick J. Sullivan, a Manhattan parent on the panel, pointed out the relevant statute, the city scrambled to call an emergency meeting of the panel for Friday, just hours before the expected Council vote. The public was given 54 minutes of notice.
(--- But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — who controls 8 of the panel’s 13 seats — made plain during the negotiations that he preferred no panel at all, and over the past seven years, he and Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, who as the panel’s chairman, have eased it into irrelevance. The volunteer panelists — rarely engage in discussions with those who rise to address them. They do not debate the educational issues of the day, but spend most sessions applauding packaged presentations by staff. Some have barely uttered a public word during their tenures. )
2). WHY ARE DROPOUTS LEAVING SCHOOL YEARS EARLIER THAN BEFORE THE SUPPOSED END OF SOCIAL PROMOTION???
When you leave a child back multiple times – they leave School – then they go to Jail….
So why are they getting Left Back over and over? The answer is simple – it’s the failure of Administrators to deliver effective Remediation to these young people – a broken promise….
3). WHEN THE MAYOR GAVE THE AT LENGTH ANALOGY OF HIMSELF AS NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN – WHAT DID HE MEAN???
If you know History you know the answer – to even infer that Members of the State Senate who are advocating for a System of NYC School Governance – in good faith – seem like Hitler is an insult to the meaning of History – again demonstrating that having to listen irritates him - now he wants to pretend he did not hear the question
4). WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE ENTITY YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH HAS A TRACK RECORD OF BROKEN COURT AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS???
Literally- NYCDOE has repeatedly broken State Education Law - basically destroying the Community School Districts – and their Superintendents – as well as ignoring the Decision by Commissioner Mills that their revision of the regulations governing School Leadership Teams was illegal – daring anyone to bring a lawsuit – and then quietly ignoring Court Orders…- This is a Problematic (ie. Bad) Track Record -
**NONE-THE-LESS** MAYORAL CONTROL IS OK
The reason is why is simple - if the Mayor feels he has Control then the School System is given more money
What we want is for the Bloomberg/Klein Administration to LISTEN!!!
THE NEW BOARD MUST BE A POLICY MAKING BODY
Also given that the prior structure of Community School Districts has been in effect destroyed by the Bloomberg/Klein Administration; we have an opportunity to establish a new structure of Community School Districts that is naturally aligned with an existing, healthy, respected, and functioning Community Board District Structure:
a) We therefore recommend that a new Community School District structure in New York City be established that aligns exactly with the existing Community Board District Lines.
b) That the current members of the Community Education Councils (CEC’s) be designated and become Community Board members on their Community Boards with the appropriate jurisdictions. Furthermore, that they be specifically designated to serve on the Education Committees of those respective Community Boards.
c) That a Community Board District Superintendent be designated for each Community School District as their primary responsibility, and of course have a Real Office in that district that is accessible to the Community, with a real staff that actually functions. It is expected that the Superintendent would meet monthly with the Education Committee of that Community Board and form a mutually respectful relationship with that Community Board. Of course we also expect that the District Superintendent would also meet with the District Leadership Team on a monthly basis.
3) We call for replacement of the failed “Parent Coordinator” job category. In their place, we would establish a new job category, for which all existing Parent Coordinators would have a preference in applying and qualifying for.
4) The title for this new job category would be that of “Parent Ombudsman.” The functions of these Parent Ombudsmen would be to help solve the problems of parents who would call or come to the School in respond to issues that arise in their Child’s path through the Educational System.
We expect that not only will the Board of Education work to facilitate the competence and credibility of the Parent Ombudsman so that they can do their jobs better on behalf of the parents and their children, but they will also be allowed to choose their Union Representation in a transparent process.
5) In regards to School Leadership Teams (SLTs), we call for:
a) Two year terms in the terms of election of team members so as to preserve the continuity of team function and knowledge.
b) The restoration of discretionary professional development training funds to the Teams so that they feel empowered and respected by the Educational System in which they can play such a potentially positive role.
c) Restoration of a Competitive Professional Development Vendor Training Catalog.
d) Giving responsibility to the School Leadership Teams for the maintenance of the content of their respective school web-sites. This would be in harmony with a critical element of their mission under State Law to communicate effectively with their respective constituents.
e) On an annual basis the SLT members will elect a member from their team to represent them on the District Leadership Team. This would promote the flow of information about problems and issues up from the School Based Level.
6) We recommend that the respective five Borough Presidents establish Education Advisory Councils, analogous to the council that has been functioning in Queens under the purview of that esteemed Borough President.
a) Obviously we recommend that the core membership of the Boroughs Advisory Councils have among their members the chairs of the various district leadership teams and community board educational committees within their respective Boroughs.
b) In the event these Education Advisory Councils elect or designate a chairperson, the Borough President could seriously consider designating that person as their representative to the Citywide Education Policy Council.
7) In regards to the newly established “Citywide Educational Policy Council”, we would build on the UFT proposal and add members; a least two more appointees for the Mayor and one each to represent the Community Boards and also the District Leadership Teams; they would be respectively elected by a separate Citywide gatherings of the Chairs of the District Leadership Teams, and also the chairs of the Education Committees of every Community Board in NYC. Further, it is critical that any member in good standing of the Citywide Education Policy Council be empowered to make a motion to place items on the Agenda for the following month’s meeting, and hopefully allow for Public Input at the end of the meetings.
Envisioning a Community & Parent Friendly Naturally Aligned Structure for School Governance in NYC
Conjecture
What should be the Purpose of a System of School Governance?
Answer: Better Decisions and Responsiveness on Behalf of the Children
Axiom #1
The School is the Fundamental Unit of a School Governance System
Axiom #2
The Management Structure and the Participatory Structure Must be Aligned
Axiom #3
Continuity has a Value – It Enables us to Build on a Foundation over Time
Axiom #4
A Desire for Consensus Should not be allowed to Degenerate into Paralysis
Axiom #5
Team Participation in Decision Making Promotes Buy-In of Implementation
Axiom #6
The System will never be Perfect – Nonetheless it should Strive to Emulate a Learning Organization so it can Grow from both Acknowledgement of Mistakes and also Anticipation of Possible Problems
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
School Governance in NYC II - by Jacob Morris
School Governance in New York City II
From Control to Contempt by Jacob Morris
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" – Lord Acton
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" - William Pitt
Personally I do not like the word Power, in my view, Power is an Illusion and Responsibility is a much healthier concept for us to keep foremost in our mind as something we value. All too many people have become careless in their interchangeable use of the words Power, Control, and Authority. Actually, the terms Control and Authority are much more precisely understood and utilized in general discourse for this analysis.What is Control? Is it like an on/off switch, or can it work on a sliding scale? Then there's the question of what is it you are controlling, a machine or something that is alive? And lastly, what are the limits? When do we cross the line towards disrespect and/or contempt for whatever it is, man or machine that we have control over, or responsibility for?
Let there be no doubt, it is just as possible to disrespect a machine, (and have it breakdown on you) as it is to disrespect Human Beings and also whatever Panel, Team, Entity, the function of which those human beings happen to be participating in.Ultimately, if someone holds (like the Mayor or the Chancellor for example), the absolute authority over someone to dismiss them at will, that translates into an example of arbitrary and capricious Absolute Power. This is not a healthy situation, either for its Possessor or the Human Beings serving in such a state of discretionary limbo. If you appointed them to this position, to advise on educational and issues policies, because you believe in their qualities of Knowledge and Intelligence, then what are you afraid of? What it may be is that you do not believe in discussion or the integrity of the people you appoint, and when Push comes to Shove, what you are really saying is that you want them to be Robots.
In a Transportation System, like a poorly made car, people when they stop believing in its quality and utility, stop buying it or riding in it (Sound familiar, GM & Chrysler?). In a School Governance System, when people stop believing in its credibility, they stop participating in it, they hold it in ridicule and they call it a rubber stamp.
Given the critical societal importance in which we hold the quality of decision-making regarding the education of our children, to give such arbitrary and capricious absolute power over the individuals serving on such an ostensibly valuable Educational Policy Panel will inevitably lead to the holders of that power viewing those Individuals, the Panel and the functions of that Panel in Contempt.What do we want? The answer is "Fixed Terms", and the ability to place items on to the Agenda. Even if the Mayor has a majority of appointments, as long as the members have fixed terms, they need be able to maintain some reasonable level of personal Intelligence and Integrity in regards to the discussion of various Educational Policy Issues that come before them in their roles as members of the Panel.Also, in approaching this from the perspective of quality team functioning, provision for independent and completive Professional Development must be delineated clearly by Legislative Authority as a resource for the Panel to render quality decisions on the quality of our Children's Schooling and to increase the credibility in which the Panel's deliberations are viewed by our Community.
__._,_.___
From Control to Contempt by Jacob Morris
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" – Lord Acton
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" - William Pitt
Personally I do not like the word Power, in my view, Power is an Illusion and Responsibility is a much healthier concept for us to keep foremost in our mind as something we value. All too many people have become careless in their interchangeable use of the words Power, Control, and Authority. Actually, the terms Control and Authority are much more precisely understood and utilized in general discourse for this analysis.What is Control? Is it like an on/off switch, or can it work on a sliding scale? Then there's the question of what is it you are controlling, a machine or something that is alive? And lastly, what are the limits? When do we cross the line towards disrespect and/or contempt for whatever it is, man or machine that we have control over, or responsibility for?
Let there be no doubt, it is just as possible to disrespect a machine, (and have it breakdown on you) as it is to disrespect Human Beings and also whatever Panel, Team, Entity, the function of which those human beings happen to be participating in.Ultimately, if someone holds (like the Mayor or the Chancellor for example), the absolute authority over someone to dismiss them at will, that translates into an example of arbitrary and capricious Absolute Power. This is not a healthy situation, either for its Possessor or the Human Beings serving in such a state of discretionary limbo. If you appointed them to this position, to advise on educational and issues policies, because you believe in their qualities of Knowledge and Intelligence, then what are you afraid of? What it may be is that you do not believe in discussion or the integrity of the people you appoint, and when Push comes to Shove, what you are really saying is that you want them to be Robots.
In a Transportation System, like a poorly made car, people when they stop believing in its quality and utility, stop buying it or riding in it (Sound familiar, GM & Chrysler?). In a School Governance System, when people stop believing in its credibility, they stop participating in it, they hold it in ridicule and they call it a rubber stamp.
Given the critical societal importance in which we hold the quality of decision-making regarding the education of our children, to give such arbitrary and capricious absolute power over the individuals serving on such an ostensibly valuable Educational Policy Panel will inevitably lead to the holders of that power viewing those Individuals, the Panel and the functions of that Panel in Contempt.What do we want? The answer is "Fixed Terms", and the ability to place items on to the Agenda. Even if the Mayor has a majority of appointments, as long as the members have fixed terms, they need be able to maintain some reasonable level of personal Intelligence and Integrity in regards to the discussion of various Educational Policy Issues that come before them in their roles as members of the Panel.Also, in approaching this from the perspective of quality team functioning, provision for independent and completive Professional Development must be delineated clearly by Legislative Authority as a resource for the Panel to render quality decisions on the quality of our Children's Schooling and to increase the credibility in which the Panel's deliberations are viewed by our Community.
__._,_.___
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Open Meetings Law and SLT's
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT
41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231
(518) 474-2518
Fax (518) 474-1927
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html
OML-AO-3828
June 22, 2004
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.
Dear
I have received your letter concerning meetings of School Leadership Teams ("SLT’s") and school based management teams operating in New York City.
By way of background, in 2003 you questioned the status of the entities in question under the Open Meetings Law, and I prepared an advisory opinion in response. An element of the opinion suggested that the time of the meetings of your interest, 7:20 a.m., conflicted with the judicial construction of the Open Meetings Law. Based upon that advice, you initiated a grievance with the New York City Board of Education and received the following response from the Office of Counsel:
"The Open Meetings Law states that ‘public business be performed in an open and public manner.’ Section 2590-h15(b-1)(ii) of the Education Law has been amended to require that the school leadership teams hold their monthly meetings at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives. Thus, if the parents on the SLT have agreed that their meeting will be held at 7:30 a.m this is consistent with law. If other people wish to attend it is their obligation to make themselves available at the time the team has chosen to meet."
From my perspective, while participation by parent members of school based management teams is clearly a consideration, the ability of others to attend is also relevant.
As indicated in the opinion addressed to you on December 29, 2003, the entities at issue are, in my view, "public bodies" required to comply with the Open Meetings Law. They are creations of law, and it is my understanding that they are the New York City entities that carry out the shared decision making functions required to be accomplished pursuant to §100.11 of the regulations promulgated by the NYS Commissioner of Education.
The provision cited by the Office of Counsel does not, in my opinion, affect the obligation of an SLT or a school based management team to comply with the Open Meetings Law. Section 2590-h(15)(b)(ii) requires that school board management teams shall:
"hold at least one meeting per month during the school year. Each monthly meeting shall be held at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives."
As the foregoing relates to the Open Meetings Law, I believe every statute, including the Open Meetings Law, must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent. In the only decision that dealt with meetings held as early as those held by the body of your interest, the court found that the entity at issue failed to comply with the Open Meetings Law.
To reiterate a point offered in last year’s opinion, the intent of the Open Meetings Law is clearly stated in §100 as follows:
"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of an able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it."
In short, the Open Meetings Law confers a right upon the public to attend and listen to the deliberations of public bodies and to observe the performance of public officials who serve on such bodies.
Further, in the decision to which reference was made involving meetings held at 7:30 a.m., it was stated that:
"It is...apparent to this Court that the scheduling of a board meeting at 7:30 a.m. -- even assuming arguendo that such meetings were properly noticed and promptly conducted -- does not facilitate attendance by members of the public, whether employed within or without the home, particularly those with school age or younger children..." (Matter of Goetchius v. Board of Education, Supreme Court, Westchester County, New York Law Journal, August 8, 1996).
While meetings held at 7:20 a.m. may be convenient for parent members of an SLT or school based management team, many others interested in attending may be unable to do so because they have small children, because of work schedules, commuting, and other matters that might effectively preclude them from attending meetings held so early in the morning. In consideration of those persons and the holding by the court, I continue to believe that it would be unreasonable and inconsistent with law for an SLT or school based management team to conduct meetings at or near 7:20 a.m.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT
41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231
(518) 474-2518
Fax (518) 474-1927
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html
OML-AO-3828
June 22, 2004
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.
Dear
I have received your letter concerning meetings of School Leadership Teams ("SLT’s") and school based management teams operating in New York City.
By way of background, in 2003 you questioned the status of the entities in question under the Open Meetings Law, and I prepared an advisory opinion in response. An element of the opinion suggested that the time of the meetings of your interest, 7:20 a.m., conflicted with the judicial construction of the Open Meetings Law. Based upon that advice, you initiated a grievance with the New York City Board of Education and received the following response from the Office of Counsel:
"The Open Meetings Law states that ‘public business be performed in an open and public manner.’ Section 2590-h15(b-1)(ii) of the Education Law has been amended to require that the school leadership teams hold their monthly meetings at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives. Thus, if the parents on the SLT have agreed that their meeting will be held at 7:30 a.m this is consistent with law. If other people wish to attend it is their obligation to make themselves available at the time the team has chosen to meet."
From my perspective, while participation by parent members of school based management teams is clearly a consideration, the ability of others to attend is also relevant.
As indicated in the opinion addressed to you on December 29, 2003, the entities at issue are, in my view, "public bodies" required to comply with the Open Meetings Law. They are creations of law, and it is my understanding that they are the New York City entities that carry out the shared decision making functions required to be accomplished pursuant to §100.11 of the regulations promulgated by the NYS Commissioner of Education.
The provision cited by the Office of Counsel does not, in my opinion, affect the obligation of an SLT or a school based management team to comply with the Open Meetings Law. Section 2590-h(15)(b)(ii) requires that school board management teams shall:
"hold at least one meeting per month during the school year. Each monthly meeting shall be held at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives."
As the foregoing relates to the Open Meetings Law, I believe every statute, including the Open Meetings Law, must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent. In the only decision that dealt with meetings held as early as those held by the body of your interest, the court found that the entity at issue failed to comply with the Open Meetings Law.
To reiterate a point offered in last year’s opinion, the intent of the Open Meetings Law is clearly stated in §100 as follows:
"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of an able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it."
In short, the Open Meetings Law confers a right upon the public to attend and listen to the deliberations of public bodies and to observe the performance of public officials who serve on such bodies.
Further, in the decision to which reference was made involving meetings held at 7:30 a.m., it was stated that:
"It is...apparent to this Court that the scheduling of a board meeting at 7:30 a.m. -- even assuming arguendo that such meetings were properly noticed and promptly conducted -- does not facilitate attendance by members of the public, whether employed within or without the home, particularly those with school age or younger children..." (Matter of Goetchius v. Board of Education, Supreme Court, Westchester County, New York Law Journal, August 8, 1996).
While meetings held at 7:20 a.m. may be convenient for parent members of an SLT or school based management team, many others interested in attending may be unable to do so because they have small children, because of work schedules, commuting, and other matters that might effectively preclude them from attending meetings held so early in the morning. In consideration of those persons and the holding by the court, I continue to believe that it would be unreasonable and inconsistent with law for an SLT or school based management team to conduct meetings at or near 7:20 a.m.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)