Scholar Criticizes Mayor’s Control of Public Schools
Sol Stern, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a research institution known for conservative leanings, has been a persistent critic of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’ s takeover of the city’s school system, which took effect in 2002 and is up for reauthorization next year. In a 3,800-word essay in the latest issue of City Journal, the Manhattan Institute’s quarterly publication, Mr. Stern is harsh on the progress of the city’s schools under the leadership of Mr. Bloomberg and his schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein.
The fact that he is a critic from the right — the Manhattan Institute wielded considerable influence during the mayoralty of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Bloomberg’s predecessor — has made Mr. Stern a particularly effective thorn in the side of the Education Department.
In 2003, Mr. Stern accused Chancellor Klein of “deferring to the system’s progressive-ed old guard” on pedagogical matters. Last month, Mr. Stern called the city’s proposal to give cash payments to parents whose children take standardized tests and show up for class an “insult to every hard-working parent.'’
But Mr. Stern’s latest essay appears to be his most blistering and withering yet. He asserts that the schools chancellor’s popularity has plummeted because the Education Department remains bureaucratic, arrogant and unaccountable — the very traits that were fodder for the mayor’s push to abolish the Board of Education:
Stirring public unease is the realization that what Bloomberg really meant by accountability was one election, one time. If you didn’t like the way that mayoral control was working under Bloomberg, you could vote for Democrat Freddy Ferrer in the 2005 mayoral election (Bloomberg’s last, because of term limits). But what could you do after that election? Bloomberg’s suggestion: “Boo me at parades.”
The arrogance of that response demonstrates how little Bloomberg really seems to care about accountability. In fact, his Department of Education routinely undermines accountability with a public-relations juggernaut that deflects legitimate criticism of his education policies, dominates the mainstream press, uses the schools as campaign props, and, most ominously, distorts student test-score data. Without transparency, real accountability doesn’t exist.
Mr. Stern’s essay touches on many areas — test scores, the use of consultants and the seemingly unceasing flow-chart reorganizations at the Education Department — but his most far-reaching conclusion is that the department cannot be trusted to independently report on its progress:
No sane person would want to go back to anything like the discredited Board of Ed. But without a guarantee that an independent research agency will be created and properly funded, extending mayoral control would be an invitation for the next politically ambitious mayor to keep undermining the credibility of the public education system that is so essential to our democracy.
Politicians from the mayor’s left have already been promising to ask tough questions when mayoral control of the school system comes up for reauthorization in Albany. Mr. Stern’s essay may have the effect of raising questions on the right as well.
David Cantor, a spokesman for the Education Department and Chancellor Klein, dismissed the significant of Mr. Stern’s criticisms and asserted that Mr. Stern is sloppy with his facts. Mr. Cantor said in a statement:
Sol has been unremittingly critical of the mayor’s record on education for several years and can’t be considered a fair source. For instance, he says “the Department of Education’s communications office is 29-strong,” a number he gets from a budget code in a D.O.E. financial report. In fact, that code designates not just communications but also the Office of Public and Community Affairs, which has no media responsibilities; the office that answers the department’s mail; and four members of the family engagement office. (The actual number is 14, by the way, including two secretaries.)
