In a hotly contested four-way race he defeated the establishment candidate, a progressive endorsed by the Liberal party, the city facing enormous problems, I’m referring to John Lindsay in 1965.
In the 1960s the nation was torn apart by an unpopular war, a rising civil rights movement and bubbling urban violence across the nation.
From Newark to Detroit to Los Angeles National Guard in the streets, hundreds of fatalities, untold billions in property destruction, the assassination of Martin Luther King: would it end?
In New York the Great Migration, millions of Afro Americans fleeing the South and Puerto Ricans fleeing the island.
A school system struggling with overcrowded, segregated schools, understaffed and an aggressive teacher union fighting to improve the system.
The Board of Education, an inept bureaucracy, an attempt to integrate schools thwarted by Parents and Taxpayers, a grassroots organization (Ralph Rogers, 110 Livingston Street: Politics and Bureau in the NYC School System, 1967) and the internal bickering among school board members and city politicians.
The Lindsay administration coupled with the Ford Foundation, a precursor to decentralizing the entire school system created three “demonstration” school districts, a middle school and the feeder elementary schools, one on the Lower East Side (“Two Bridges”), another in East Harlem (“IS 201”) and in Brooklyn (“Oceanhill-Brownsville”), the demonstration districts elected school boards, hired superintendents, and had wide discretion in curriculum matters although the union contract and state law was maintained.
The nascent teacher union, flexing its muscles demanded increases in salary, working conditions and increased funding in the highest poverty schools plus a system for addressing “disruptive students,” a two week strike in September, 1967 before a settlement that included increased funding, called “More Effective Schools.” and a controversial process to remove disruptive students from class.
In the meantime the Ford Foundation was crafting a plan to decentralize the school system, the report moved from one top down system to 30 – 60 self-governing school districts with school boards having budgetary and personnel powers.
The 150 page report (Read entire report here – fascinating) released two months after the strike (11/67) acknowledged the challenges, the report included a draft of legislation requiring the approval of the legislature and the governor. The report was concerned: the conflicts among “power” groups, community groups, politicians, the union and throughout the report praised and emphasized the importance of collaboration among the many groups.
In the Spring of 1968, only a few months after the report was released, the Oceanhill Demonstration District fired seventeen white teachers, tenured teachers clearly violating the teacher contract and state education law; however, the central board took no action.
Mayor Lindsay, by his inaction seemed to be endorsing the actions of the Oceanhill Board, the union threatened a citywide strike, and when Lindsay continued to take no action a citywide teacher strike began, a thirty-six day strike that only ended when a state Supreme Court justice imposed a settlement basically supporting the position of the union. Listen to an interview with Martin Mayer who explored the events in detail. Lindsay feared disruption in the streets more than the union and saw the union as an impediment to the implementation of his policies.
The legislature convened for the 1969 session and after months of internal negotiations a decentralization law, and thirty years of a decentralized school system.
Upon his election in 2001 Mayor Bloomberg, citing corruption in the decentralized school system, zipped up to Albany who approved the “new thing,” a mayoral control school system. Read a detailed examination of mayor control across the nation here.
Was decentralization corrupt?
If so, why did Koch and Giuliani take no action?
In my view, with a wink and a nod, Koch and Giuliani gave a thumbs up to local politicians who dominated school board elections, especially in the highest poverty districts, patronage jobs to supporters, maybe $$, old fashioned Tammany Hall politics. In the middle class, higher academic achievement districts, models of collaboration, innovative programs, high levels of parent engagement, teachers “at the table,” exactly what the current mayor-elect is advocating.
What was the glue that held decentralization together?
With the decentralization of school districts the teacher union decentralized the membership service model.
A district representative mirroring each school district, serving effectively as a local union president: on the District Leadership Team, meeting with parents and local advocacy organizations, endorsing candidates in school board and other local elections, maintaining close relationships with in-district power brokers, visiting schools on a daily basis, they were “in the room where it happened.”
The UFT was the glue, collaborating with all the “players.”
With mayoral control the UFT expanded membership services, from certification, to pension counseling to membership counseling to new teacher recruitment.
However, the elephantine bureau of the 60s continued to trumpet from the heights during mayoral control, instead of recognizing that decisions impacting the lives of children must be made by the teachers and school leaders, not distant bureaucrats. Our mayor-elect understands that any plan to reorganize the Department of Education must be crafted by the “best and brightest,” leaders who have succeeded as well as parents, teachers and school leaders, and student leaders.
The clock is ticking, Trump etc. promotes vouchers, let the parents pick any school, charters, religious schools, home-schooling, unrestricted vouchers, we have a mayor-elect who is supporting public schools, lets help him design a school system reflecting the views of parents and teachers, this may be our last chance.
Ed in the Apple: Blogging on the Intersection of Education and Politics Title 