NYCivic - Stick a Fork in Livingston

Stick a Fork in Livingston.
Can We Succeed in Tweed?

By Henry J. Stern
September 9, 2003

School opened yesterday in New York City for 1,100,000 children and 150,000 employees. In that sentence, the children came first. That is the condition that Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein are trying to bring about. What is happening now in the schools is the largest intervention in a major city agency that we have ever seen. The last four mayors have described police and education as their major priorities, which may be justified but which caused pain to those of us in lesser agencies, who felt cannibalized by the insatiable financial demands of the big two.

Probably the last example before this of a top-down work over of an agency came in 1994, when Mayor Giuliani, Commissioner Bratton and the late Jack Maple reoriented the Police Department to concentrate on preventing crimes as well as reporting them. But the education shake-up is more massive, in terms of people affected, locations changed, new syllabi and teaching methods, and the prospective sale of that bastion of bureaucracy, 110 Livingston Street.

Of course, the Tweed Building is scarcely a symbol of reform, and I was surprised to see it listed under that dishonored name by the Board, now Department of Education's brochure for 2003-04. Isn't 52 Chambers Street enough? It makes one wonder who 110 Livingston should have been named for; maybe Lemuel Gulliver, the Swiftian traveler who was pinned down by Lilliputians.

The press has been skeptical of aspects of the Education Revolution. Friday we sent you articles by Tony Coles on five obstructions to progress, and Andrew Wolf, who doubts the theory on which the reform is said to be based. Today we add a column by Sol Stern (no relation), who in "One Enemy is Inside the Tent," identifies an ideological villain. An op-ed piece in today's Daily News, by Lydia Segal and William Ouchi, praises the Department of Education's focus on principals and school leadership.

From a different point of view, the Chief-Leader, the civil service employees' weekly, has a page one article this week by the prolific Deidre McFadyen, "Unions Call Klein an Autocrat". To many school watchers, criticism by the UFT is a high compliment. The grievance of the UFT and its smaller ally, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, is that they were not consulted sufficiently. That is probably so, but the institutional interests of management, trying to make the system more effective for children, and unions, trying to preserve the prerogatives and privileges of their members, are probably irreconcilable.

Joel Klein has the unique authority that comes from being the first chancellor appointed directly by the Mayor, who is elected directly by the people. His constituency is all the people of the City, not merely his employees who, naturally and logically, are concerned with their own status, working or non-working conditions and ultimately their pensions.

So in principle we support what Mayor Bloomberg is trying so hard to do. He has invested the city's resources and his own reputation in a massive effort to improve reading and math scores. It is nearly universally believed that the old Board of Education failed to meet its responsibilities. Common sense tells us that it is better for an executive to have one boss, rather than seven, representing six different constituencies with varying interests and ambitions. The old Board of Education has taken its place in the dustbin of history, along with far bloodier institutions.

The question arises, however, now that the system has been seized, who shall shape its reconstruction. There is considerable concern that the new curriculum provided by Deputy Chancellor Diana Lam may not be the best way to teach children the three R's. (Remember what they stand for: reading and 'riting and 'rithmetic.) Of course, the next line, 'taught to the tune of a hickory stick', is definitely out of date, even in most Catholic schools.

But the question of pragmatic v. progressive education looms large, specifically whether the most effective teaching method today is the one developed at Teachers College of Columbia University in the 1920's, and preached with fervor ever since by some people who, devoid of ideas of their own, follow whichever gospel is in vogue. We know that in 'political correctness', a committed vanguard sets ideas, styles and language, which sheep follow and wolves enforce. Because a purpose is noble does not mean that the methods to achieve it are fair and effective, or even that good results are actually attained. The Soviet Union had problems in that area, that is one reason why, along with the Board of Education, it is in that dustbin, so aptly named by Leon Trotsky (1879-1940).

In 2003, the goal should be to administer education with a minimum of ideology, and a maximum concern with results, that is children learning. There are ways to quantify (measure) performance, and they are valuable. Part of the fuzzy thinking that has characterized this subject is the downgrading of objective measures, and the exaltation of incalculable personal values alleged, without credible evidence, to be derived from activities not particularly related to learning facts and techniques.

A hidden reason not to measure children's achievement is that non-measurement conceals the performance of teachers, who thus escape responsibility for the failures of the pupils they teach. Educational decisions should be based on results, not fashions. We need more citizens concerning themselves with these issues, instead of leaving them entirely to a Mandarin establishment, which by now has subsumed much of the foundation world in its sticky goo of sanctimonius righteousness and its rejection of measurable norms.

The way that many intellectuals and professionals in this field are led around by their noses would be amusing, if it did not so adversely affect children who, of course, have no part in the making of any decisions. Together, we can explore this field, which should be no more demanding than rocket science or brain surgery. We would like to widen the circle of decision makers in public education, on the basis of data which we hope to acquire and disseminate. I hope many of you will join in this effort.