It was approaching 5 p.m. on his first day back from the winter break, and New York City Schools Chancellor Rudy F. Crew had not even had a chance to eat lunch. As he was driven through the rush-hour traffic of Brooklyn in his chauffeur-driven Chevrolet Suburban, heading towards a meeting with the mayor, it was clear that dinner would be a long way off. However, Mr. Crew had no intention of complaining, even if he had the time. On this first business day of the new year, the head of the nation’s largest school system was exactly where he wanted to be.
Just days before the holiday break, the 46-year-old administrator had come out as the biggest winner in a significant shake-up of the city’s school system, which was considered the most significant change in a generation. After months of political maneuvering, Mr. Crew had gained new powers that he believed would finally give him control over the system he had been overseeing for the past 14 months.
The big losers in this shake-up were the local elected school boards of the city. They had lost much of their authority due to a state law that was passed last month. Since taking office in October 1995, Mr. Crew had clashed multiple times with these boards, which had faced accusations ranging from election fraud to corruption. The new law faced criticism from many, especially those who advocated for local control. They saw it as a return to centralization, a system that was first implemented in the city a century ago. Even strong supporters of the law admitted that it wouldn’t completely solve the problems in the school system, which include overcrowded and rundown facilities, consistently failing schools, and a bureaucratic system that stifles progress.
Despite these challenges, Mr. Crew and his allies believed that the law provided a real opportunity to address long-standing obstacles in a school system responsible for educating over a million children. Mr. Crew stated that it was a defining moment for systemic reform in New York City. Though there was apprehension surrounding the new law, he saw it as a chance for him to make a real difference.
The new law restructures a governance system that was originally established in the late 1960s during a period of societal unrest. At that time, black and Latino activists fought for community control, and the city’s schools experienced multiple teacher strikes. As a result, a decentralization law was passed in 1969, creating the position of chancellor and dividing the city into 32 community school districts. Each district had its own superintendent and elected board. Under this structure, the chancellor had control over the city’s high schools and centralized functions like transportation and maintenance. However, the community boards were responsible for running the elementary, middle, and junior high schools, with oversight from the central board.
Critics argued that this dual system led to a blurred line of authority and accountability, resulting in a lack of progress in the city’s education system. State leaders in Albany took action last month due to a series of scandals involving the community boards. The bill, which was made possible after Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani dropped his demands for direct control, was passed during a special legislative session with overwhelming support. It was signed into law by Governor George E. Pataki on December 31st.
Under this new law, there has been a significant shift in power.
Questioning the Power Structure
However, skeptics are skeptical that an appropriate balance has been achieved. Despite lawmakers expressing sympathy towards granting individual schools more autonomy, there are concerns among some parent groups and those who work with them that the legislation only pays lip service to the concept of school-based governance.
Kavitha Mediratta, the co-director of community involvement programs at the Institute for Education and Social Policy at New York University, voices their concerns by stating, "Parents and teachers have no influence. They have a role, but they lack real decision-making power."
One area where Mr. Crew will assert his newfound authority promptly is in the selection of superintendents. Most of the law won’t take effect until the end of March. However, since the contracts of the 32 local chiefs expire at the end of this school year, the sections of the law pertaining to the hiring of superintendents became binding upon its passage to allow the hiring process to proceed.
In a few districts, the community boards have already voted to extend their superintendents’ contracts. The rest, at least theoretically, are up for negotiation. Mr. Crew anticipates that he will have to remove a few superintendents supported by community boards, and he expects that some boards will "play games" by repeatedly sending him nominees he deems unacceptable. Nonetheless, he believes the overall process should work out reasonably well.
Diane Ravitch, an authority on New York City schools and a former U.S. assistant secretary of education, argues that many of the community boards have shown more interest in favoritism, privileges, and politics rather than education, which is why she believes they should be completely abolished. However, she agrees that the legislation should have done more to empower schools.
"The answer is not to centralize everything under the chancellor," says Ms. Ravitch, now a senior researcher at NYU. "He’s not the captain of a ship; he’s a harbor master. There are 1,100 ships in his harbor, and he can’t manage all of them. We have to trust the captain and the crew."
Sandra Feldman, the president of the city’s 125,000-member United Federation of Teachers and a strong supporter of the bill, disagrees with the notion that the new law centralizes power. She sees it as more of a correction, saying, "I view this as a necessary adjustment."
Chancellor Crew argues that clarifying lines of accountability will directly benefit individual schools. "Having clearer supervision over superintendents is exactly what we need to ensure strong, dynamic leadership at the school level," he asserts. He believes that the law will help schools build the shared sense of purpose they have been lacking for far too long.
"This system used to be a loose association of schools," he notes. "There was no common vision binding them together."
Mr. Crew sees his main responsibility in the upcoming months as "marketing" the new law and encouraging more people to participate in the process of improving schools.
"Now is the time for the village to step up," he says, referring to the popular adage that "it takes a village to raise a child."
