The legislature in New York is close to a final deal to permit mayoral control of the public schools for another year.
When Michael Bloomberg became Mayor of New York City, one of his first goals was to take control of the school system. He claimed he could get better results because of his experience as a businessman. The Board of Educationconsisted of seven members, one appointed by each of five borough presidents, and two appointed by the Mayor. The Mayor controlled the budget, so he was not powerless. The city was divided into 32 local community school districts, each of which had its own board. The community boards listened to parents’ complaints, but they didn’t have much power.
The legislature granted Bloomberg complete control of the school system. He got to appoint 8 of 13 school board members, who were told to follow the Mayor’s orders. He got to appoint the Chancellor of the school system, and he picked someone who knew as little about education as the Mayor, lawyer Joel Klein. The legislature gave him seven years of control. When the seven years expired, the legislature gave him another generous grant of power.
Mike Bloomberg is a very smart guy. He was the single biggest contributor to the campaign funds of the Republivan-controlled state senate.
After Bloomberg steps down, having served three terms, Bill De Blasio is elected. Unlike Bloomberg, he did not give money to Senate Republicans. He even tried to help fellow Democrats take control of the State Senate, and the Republican leaders never forgave him. Unlike Bloomberg, he was not a devotee of charter schoools. So the Senate gave him a one-year extension of mayoral control. They forced him to accept more charter schools and even to give them free space in the public schools that they competed with.
Now, once again, the State Senate is prepared to give De Blasio a one-year extension of mayoral control. But the head of the state senate, John Flanagan of Long Island, wants more charter schools. Flanagan loves charter schools, so long as they are not in his district. De Blasio said no. The State Assembly said no.
But according to Politico, a deal may be near. What the charters really want is the power to hire uncertified teachers. Think of it: the charters want the power to hire uncertified teachers, and THIS IS CALLED “REFORM”?
John Flanagan, whose district has no charters, is able to get what he wants for the charter industry every year by holding mayoral control hostage.
Anyone who thinks that mayoral control is a panacea should be sure to check out Cleveland and Chicago. Both have mayoral control, and both are struggling.
Peter Goodman says that if mayoral control dies, the one person responsible is Eva Moskowitz. It’s her way or the highway.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Politics is the art of compromise. In the realm of education it looks as if trading one bad deal for another has become the norm. And in the age of spin, all parties get to claim victory as they wage campaigns to see whose insincerity is most persuasive.
I don’t think “compromise” has anything to do with it. That’s just the story they sell us to cover their behinds. “Sorry, that was the best we could do. Republican/Democrat obstructionism, you know.” But the reality is that both sides are getting exactly what they want. The politicians are getting their pockets lined and the oligarchs are getting control of the nation (and the world). Win-win.
So lifting the charter cap is not part of the discussion?
I had the same question. I thought lifting the charter cap was the main sticking point. Are the upstate Republicans trading away getting something for their own constituents in order to get more charter schools downstate for their big donors?
Upstate Republicans wanted more charter schools in NYC because that’s what their donors wanted. If it meant losing the ability to negotiate for something that might help their own constituents, they were happy to do so because donors come first.
I doubt it , but perhaps Cuomo made another trade . ?????????????
Delete that comment
” Legislative session Wednesday night, with a set of regulations that will make it much easier for large charter networks to hire more uncertified teachers.
The new rules fulfill a major legislative priority for the city’s most powerful charter leader, Eva Moskowitz, and Success Academy, her 41-school network.”
Joel Herman,
I saw that but the previous sticking point was lifting the charter cap and I was wondering if getting uncertified teachers was instead of that or in addition to it.
The point in the end is to break the “powerful” teachers’ union. If only there was no union, then all the students would be college ready and pass all their assessments.
But in the end, it’s the kids who will suffer. Just as they suffered when Bloomberg/Kline changed curriculum and standards and even organization of the bureaucracy of the DOE (even the name) for 12 years.
Organize the unorganized or perish.
Art is the organization of chaos.
Unfortunately, Bloomberg and the rest of the reform crowd have made it their business to create chaos.
Bloomberg and Klein were devout believers in disruption. For other people. Their lessers.
But the word, “chaos” can create some negative imagery when presented to a parent who’s concerned about his or her child in the classroom.
Enter “Disruptive Innovation”:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2014/07/02/disruptive-innovation-and-education/#55ea77303c6e
Always a way to spin the product to make it look good…and it starts with the label/name.
Why not just give up mayoral control and give control back to a locally elected school board?
As a NYC public school parent, I absolutely preferred standing firm and allowing mayoral control to expire.
You don’t give in to hostage takers. It just encourages them to keep taking hostages.
I want to know how much ransom I had to pay for this extension of control.
Totally agreed.
I don’t think DiBlasio’s going to give in on the charter cap. Think he’ll let is control expire. Certainly hope so.
No deal
These legislators should point fingers at each other for the failed system.
Citizens need to elect their own school boards. Finally there may be some light at the end of the tunnel if the Mayor fails to gain control.
Then a cap on charters has to be fought for just as Massachusetts did in their state.
CA is most likely a lost cause but we keep fighting to keep public education a priority.
People in NYS do elect their own school boards . The city had 32 different boards and perhaps it would have been better served to have had 32 representatives to one board or more consolidated boards. .
The complaint on Long Island is that we have too many school boards from a cost perspective . That will never change because they are tied to real estate values and segregation. I am sure the less affluent districts would love to merge .
I heard Cuomo talking about how terrible it’ll be, going back to the borough and 2 mayoral appointed school board system. He was citing the corruption that we’d seen under that system.
There is still corruption under the centralized mayoral control.
I hope they let it go back to the original system.
The better governance structure was the one that preceded the 7-member board.
I could do a search but would you like to talk some more about that? I’m very interested.
Knowledge is power.
OMG! Mayoral control of schools is stupid. It’s a TAKE OVER of our public schools to FEED the profiteers.