April 22, 2009

Esteemed School Governance Task Force Members:

As many of you know, I have compiled a report on my findings and recommendations for the future
direction of the New York City school governance system. To this end, I am asking all task force
members to develop your own set of recommendations and to submit them to me as soon as possible.
I plan to integrate these recommendations into a comprehensive final report, endorsed by all
members of the task force. It is my hope that the findings from the task force hearings will provide
the Senate Majority with the knowledge and resources necessary to develop a plan for meaningful
reform when the School Governance Act of 2002 expires this June.

Yesterday, I circulated a copy of my report to most of the members of the Task Force and many
members of the Education Committee. Please contact my office if you have not received a copy of
this report. Additionally, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
I look forward to your recommendations and to engaging in a thoughtful discourse throughout the
coming weeks.

Sincerely,

Martin Malave Dilan

cc: Senator Smith

Angelo Aponte
Shelley Mayer
Michael Kink
The New York State Senate
Democratic Majority

Task Force on New York

City School Governance
Senator Martin Malavé Dilan
Co-Chair
April 20, 2009

Honorable Malcolm Smith

President Pro Tempore & Majority Leader
New York State Senate
909 Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247

Dear Senator Smith:

On behalf of the Democratic Majority Task Force on School Governance, it is my

pleasure to present to you the following report, outlining the state of New York City
School Governance since the inception of Mayoral Control, and offering
recommendations for reform.

This report is the culmination of seven hearings held by task force members
throughout the City of New York in an effort to comprehend the state of the current
system by receiving testimony from the individuals who have the greatest stake in the
system—parents, teachers, school administrators, union representatives, and interest
groups. It is clear from the testimony that while mayoral control has brought about
some encouraging changes, the system is still in need of significant improvements.

It is my hope that the expiration of the current law will create an opportunity for
meaningful reform, and that the recommendations herein will be incorporated into an
innovative school governance system which allows all stakeholders to play an equally
significant role in crafting the direction of individual schools and the system as a
whole. I look forward to a thought provoking discussion in the coming weeks.

Sincerely,

Martin Malavé Dilan

BACKGROUND
In preparation for the sunset of mayoral control in June 2009 when the School
Governance Reform Act of 2002 will expire, the Senate Democratic Task Force on New York
City School Governance convened to review and evaluate the current system and to offer
recommendations for the future control of New York City Schools.

Prior to the School Governance Reform Act of 2002, the New York City Education
System was governed by a Board of Education, which consisted of one appointee by each of
the five Borough Presidents and two Mayoral appointees. The Chancellor was selected by
the Board of Education. Elected Community School Board members assisted in selecting
Community Superintendents by submitting a list of recommended candidates from which
the Chancellor would chose. The School Governance Reform Act granted authority over the
New York City Education System to the Mayor of New York City and consolidated virtually
all administrative and personnel powers in the office of the Chancellor, who is solely
accountable to the Mayor. Should the current law sunset without legislative action, the
school governance structure would revert back to the previous system.

The nine member task force, led by co-chairs Martin Malave Dilan (D-Brooklyn) and
Shirley Huntley (D-Queens), held hearings throughout New York City in an effort to
understand the concerns and critiques of mayoral control by parents, teachers, educators,
administrators and other stakeholders. The other task force members include State Senators
Toby Ann Stavisky (D-Queens), Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), Velmanette Montgomery (D-
Brooklyn), Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan), Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), and Suzi Oppenheimer (D-
Mamaroneck), who is Chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee. Hearings were held
in the following locations:

August 6, 2008, Senate Hearing Room, Lower Manhattan

August 12, 2008, Brooklyn Borough Hall, Downtown Brooklyn
August 26, 2008, Chinatown YMCA, Lower East Side Manhattan
September 18, 2008, CUNY Graduate Center, Manhattan
October 2, 2008, Queens Borough Hall, Kew Gardens
October 15, 2008, Manhattan Neighborhood Network Studio
February 5, 2009, Queens Borough Hall, Kew Gardens

In approaching these hearings, it was the goal of the task force to be open-minded as
possible without pre-judging the current system in an effort to formulate a comprehensive
and unbiased opinion about the state of the current system and to propose recommendations
for reform. The following is a summary of the findings of the Task Force, along with
recommendations for reform.

1|Page
FINDINGS
The intention in restructuring the control of school governance in New York City was
to create more accountability, establish a process by which parents and community members
could become more involved, and establish greater financial and procurement oversight.
While there is mixed opinion about whether the system is better off after six years of
mayoral control, it is clear from the testimony that there is substantial room for
improvement in all three of these areas.

There were approximately 60 individuals who testified throughout the seven hearings.
Those offering testimony included parents, teachers, administrators, union representatives,
and special-interest groups. The prevailing viewpoint among stakeholders is that mayoral
control should, in fact, continue but only with significant modifications.

Finding #1: The primary complaint of parents was lack of representation in decision
making.

Nearly a quarter of the testimony came from parents and concerned community
members. Their primary complaint was lack of representation in decision making. They
have no permanent forum in which to question policies and decisions, participate and make
recommendations, and relay grievances. Their voices have been eroded due, in part, to the
dissolution of the Board of Education and locally elected Community School Boards, that
were replaced with a Panel on Education Policy and Community District Education
Councils, respectively. Parents argue that these forums have been stripped of power and are
purely symbolic in nature, leaving no substantive outlet within which to express grievances.
Principals currently serve as the only real outlet for grievances, and if parents are unhappy
with the way an issue is resolved by the principal, there is nowhere for them to go for redress
outside the Chancellor himself.

Finding #2: The autonomy of individual schools has been significantly eroded.

This is due, in part, to the dissolution of traditional parent teacher organizations,

which allowed for parent participation in school-based planning. Such organizations have
been replaced with School Leadership Teams, which have been criticized as having no real
influence or authority to enact change. The intent of SLTs was to allow for school
communities to participate in decisions affecting individual schools, but this intent has not
been carried out in practice. The authority to make decisions which affect the day to day
activities of individual schools has been placed solely within the hands of the school
principal.

2|Page
Finding #3: An overwhelming complaint among all stakeholders was the lack of
accountability and checks and balances.

One of the original intentions of the School Governance Reform Act was to provide for
accountability by vesting power in the hands of the Mayor who could, in fact, be held
accountable. However, the converse has resulted, with the Mayor and Chancellor retaining
unilateral decision making authority, creating an autocratic-like system. Testimony offered
by special interest and watchdog groups have alleged that the Chancellor has been non-
compliant with city laws. They claim the Chancellor has stated that because the governance
system receives authority from the state, neither he nor the Department of Education are
subject to city laws. Many of the special interest and watchdog groups testifying called for a
countervailing entity with substantive authority over policy and budgetary decisions to act
as a check on the Chancellor’s power.

Finding #4: There was a strong call for more financial transparency.

Currently, there is little accountability to the public on budgetary issues.

Expenditures and spending procedures should be documented so that taxpayers can readily
access such information. The lack of accessibility of any budgetary information challenges
the ability of experts or the public to monitor spending efficacy. The administration has
made a practice of awarding costly no-bid contracts for projects which have not produced
any constructive benefits to the system. Several of these projects are cited in the testimony,
including the bus route reorganization fiasco. Concerns about the awarding of no-bid
contracts were among the most voiced complaints throughout the seven hearings.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A Stronger Voice for Parents

In order to place parents on an equal footing with other stakeholders, they must have an
outlet for meaningful input. To do this, they need organized forums to question policies and
decisions, make recommendations, and relay grievances. This can be achieved by
strengthening the role of School Leadership Teams to allow for greater input on an
individual school level, restoring Community School Districts, and creating an independent
office within the central administration to address parental grievances. This would give
parents access to school administrators at all three levels of educational bureaucracy—
within individual schools, school districts, and the Chancellor’s office. Finally, the
traditional role of District Superintendent should be restored, allowing for oversight of
individual schools within the geographical boundaries of a school district, and serving as a

3|Page
resource for school administrators, teachers, and parents. To this end, the following specific
reforms are recommended:

Recommendation #1: Strengthen the role of School Leadership Teams.

School leadership teams are designed to provide parents and staff members the
opportunity to participate in shaping the vision and practices of individual schools. The
duties and responsibilities of SLTs must be expanded to ensure genuine authority.
Currently, the SLTs help craft the school’s Comprehensive Educational Plan and the school-
based budget, but the Chancellor has stripped parents’ role in this process by granting final
decision-making authority in the principal alone. Parents must be placed on an equal footing
with principals and Superintendents in crafting final budgetary and policy decisions
affecting individual schools.

Recommendation #2: Restore Community School Districts.

Organization at the district level is in disarray. Multiple organizations have overlapping

membership and little meaningful responsibility. These organizations include the
Community District Education Councils, the Citywide Council on High School, the Citywide
Council on Special Education, the District Presidents’ Council, the Borough High Schools
Presidents’ Council, the District Title I Parent Advisory Council, and the District Leadership
Team. The role of all of these organizations can be combined within effective and
meaningful school districts, which would not only foster parental and community
involvement, but would oversee individual schools, make decisions regarding zoning and
enrollment, and facilitate teaching and learning development. An ideal district office would
have staff and programs to assist parents in navigating the system from pre-K through high
school.

Recommendation #3: Create an independent office within the central administration.

Parents need an organized and responsive office with the power to address serious
problems that cannot be resolved at a more local level. There is currently no such system
and parents have voiced frustration at their inability to access anyone in the central
administration with legitimate decision making authority. An office charged with
addressing such complaints and making recommendations to the Chancellor would serve
this purpose.

Recommendation #4: Restore the role of traditional District Superintendent.

Superintendents have continued to exist in some form under mayoral control. However,
they are now referred to as Senior Assessment Officers and no longer oversee schools within
traditional district boundaries. They are required to spend 90% of their time working with
schools outside their designated geographical area. When school districts are resurrected,
Superintendents can work solely within their designated school districts, overseeing and
supporting parents and schools within the district. This will give parents with grievances a
4|Page
place to go for intermediary recourse if they are unhappy with the way an issue is resolved
by the school’s principal.

More Accountability and Checks & Balances

In striving to achieve a system with more accountability, the law that established mayoral
control of school governance has created a system in which the Mayor and Chancellor have
unilateral decision making authority and are answerable to no one. The first necessary step
in creating greater accountability is to establish a countervailing body to act as a check on
the Chancellor’s office. The current law envisions the Panel on Educational Policy, which
was formerly the Board of Education, to serve such a purpose. The PEP is designed to be
similar in form and function to that of the Board of Education. However, the majority of the
members on the Panel serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, thus undermining the independent
nature of such body. Additionally, Community District Education Councils, which replaced
elected school boards, can be maintained at the district level; however, a process should be
developed to assure that they have meaningful authority. Finally, the New York City school
system, unlike any other agency or department under mayoral control, has conducted itself
as though it is exempt from city or state law. The central administration of the New York
City school system must fully comply with city and state law to further discourage
unchecked, unilateral power. The following reformations are recommended to achieve these
goals:

Recommendation #5: Create a countervailing body as a check on the Chancellor.

Such body should have the explicit authority to approve or disapprove all budgetary and
policy decisions made by the Chancellor, all contracts exceeding a certain amount, and all
collective bargaining agreements. Additionally, this body should annually evaluate the
performance of the Chancellor. Such a body can be derived by resurrecting a Board of
Education or by reforming the Panel on Education Policy. The former Board of Education
was made up of seven members, with each Borough President having an appointment and
the Mayor having two appointments. The Panel on Educational Policy, however, has seven
members chosen by the Mayor, with the remaining five selected by each of the Borough
Presidents. The Chancellor serves as chair on the PEP, which further undermines the
Panel’s ability to act as a check on the central administration. The PEP in its current form is
not a truly independent body and must be significantly reformed if it is to take on this role. If
it continues to act at the pleasure of the Mayor, a new body or a resurrected Board of
Education should be established to serve in such a capacity.

Recommendation #6: Grant the Community District Education Councils meaningful

authority.

The School Governance Reform Act replaced popularly elected school boards with
Community District Education Councils, which are made up of two members chosen by the
respective Borough President and nine members chosen by local parent associations.

5|Page
Parents have voiced concern that CDECs currently have limited decision making authority.
In order to ensure meaningful influence, their powers should be expanded to provide for
explicit authority to review and approve proposals to close, lease, or sell any school building,
approve zoning changes, and participate in the selection process for District
Superintendents. Additionally, the Department of Education should seek the input of CDEC
members before policy changes are instituted.

Recommendation #7: Hold the central administration of the school system

accountable to city and state law.

The central administration for the public school system has conducted itself under the
assumption that it is not subject to city and state law. The law should explicitly clarify that
the central administration is not free from legal constraints. Any allegation in the future
that it has not complied with city procurement policy or state law should be taken seriously
and fully investigated.

Financial Transparency

The Central Administration’s finances and contracting procedures should fall under the
jurisdiction of the City Comptroller, as do all other agencies. The current law is ambiguous
as to whether the State or City Comptroller has primary auditing responsibility. There is
also ambiguity with regard to rules for the procurement of contracts. This must be clarified.
It has been alleged by numerous witnesses that the use of non-competitive bids has
skyrocketed during mayoral control. For additional financial transparency, the Independent
Budget Office for the City of New York should act as an independent review body charged
with monitoring all finances of the central administration and the Department of Education
and reporting information and performance to the public. To this end, the following steps
should be taken:

Recommendation #8: Provide the City Comptroller with auditing authority over all
finances.

The City Comptroller must be provided full access to financial records and data from the
City’s central administration and from the Department of Education, and must meet
regularly with financial staff from both offices. The City Comptroller must have the same
auditing powers over the New York City school system as it does over any other municipal
agency, which includes the ability to audit the spending of the central administration, school
districts, and individual schools. However, these duties should not negate the power
designated to the State Comptroller pursuant to state law to audit school districts and
schools.

Recommendation #9: Grant the City Comptroller control over all contract
procurement.

6|Page
 All contracts should be registered with the City Comptroller’s office, which should have
the authority to approve or terminate wasteful contracts. The awarding of costly no-bid
contracts has been the subject of much criticism. To curb this practice, any exception to the
bidding process should be proposed in detail to the City Comptroller and the he or she must
be authorized to reject such proposals.

Recommendation #10: Designate the Independent Budget Office for the City of New
York to act as a review body over all finances of the New York City School System.

Such office should provide oversight of data, long term impacts of expenditures and
capital funds and issue reports to the public. The office must be given explicit authority to
perform such functions and must be provided with access to any and all records, documents
and resources necessary to fulfill such responsibilities. The Independent Budget Office
maintains a reputation for high professional standards and independence.

7|Page