CER and Education Reform In The News

CITY LIFE: Parents Should Vote to Improve Schools
By Jeanne Allen
Newsday, February 16, 2001

        The world of education in America today is fraught with the kind of power plays, hypocrisies and downright greed that characterized the days of Boss Tweed.

        The most recent example of this comes to us not surprisingly from the Boss' hometown -New York City. Here, New York City Schools Chancellor Harold Levy is the first in a long line of city education leaders to take decisive action to save children at five of the city's lowest performing schools. He sought the help of private companies that have been in the business of managing schools for the last several years -companies that have to show success to stay in business. Levy settled on Edison Schools, Inc, which operates 113 schools in 22 states and which we think does a bang-up job with some of the worst-off children in this nation.

        But to complete the process of giving Edison a charter with the authority to bring in its program, its money and its resources, the parents at each school must vote in favor of having them in. Elections are set for March 12.

        And, of course, true to the politics of NYC at the turn of the century, the parents in those five schools' districts have been besieged with scary stories and lies about the fate of their children should Edison come in to manage their schools. Rather than see the potential benefit to their children, they've been led to believe that their children-in some cases 72 percent of whom read below grade level-will somehow be even worse off. It's not surprising that they are being aided and abetted by virtually every education group that stands to lose something in this endeavor.

        Nor does it appear that anyone has pointed out the interesting dynamic of parents voting whether to have Edison come in. Did the same parents get to vote where their children went to school in the first place? Did they get to vote on how the district spends money, so that all and not just half the money gets spent on children? Indeed, they should vote on whether Edison comes in. And, if they decide against it, they should be able to vote on whether teachers come and go, and whether they should be able to choose a different, more successful school for their children.

        That's a proposition that none of the usual education groups wants to see happen. In fact, the school bureaucrats hardly ever care about what parents think when their children are in failing public schools, but they suddenly praise the right of parents to vote when it's possible that they may lose control over that school.

        When P.S. 161 on Amsterdam Avenue and 133 Street in Harlem was first put on the state's failing schools' list, there was no record of any education official or group asking the parents what the educators should do. In fact, nothing happened at all, as one would expect when there's no real consequence for poor behavior.

        In fact, very little has changed at all over the last few years at this school. Eighth-grade math scores remain unacceptable, with only a 23-percent passing rate. In English, the passing rate actually went down two points to 33 percent. If this were a health disaster, there'd be a citywide response of epidemic proportions. Yet whether it's in Harlem, or Mt. Vernon or Roosevelt School District on Long Island, where similar battles have been waged between the status quo and reform, proposals to help the schools are summarily rejected by the education bureaucracy.

        At the five schools that are being considered for Edison's contract, barely 20 percent of all students read at the basic level for their grade. This is a crisis at best, a plague by any other name. And yet rather than call in people willing to do something about it to help the children, the adults involved would rather fight to retain their power.

        This tale of woe in education is not about Edison Schools, of course, or any private company in particular. It's about who has power over education and who makes progress. The reason there is a national demand for more accountability in public education is precisely because schools have been allowed for too long to act like monarchies whose subjects exist for their convenience.

        Apparently what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and the only time the education bureaucrats cry for democracy is when the tables have been turned and they can control the vote.

        Watch closely as the five failing schools consider the Edison partnership.

        If the unions and their allies succeed in scaring the parents, what will those same groups do about the schools' continual failure? Or will we see the same abysmal conditions five years from now? 

###

See also CER Newswire, February 13, 2001.

Jeanne Allen is president of The Center for Education Reform, which is a national, independent, non-profit advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

CER Home Page School Choice In the News  CER Opeds E-Mail CER