The argument that mayoral control of schools will eliminate squabbling between City Hall and the School District is like rewarding a dog for biting. City Hall attacks the School District for failures and shortfalls endemic to the urban condition, which Mary Anna articulated very well, but then the District, the Superintendent, and the School Board get criticized for trying to defend itself against those attacks.

If the mayor wants responsibility for the schools, the easy answer is to let him have it and see if he can do it better. But I don't think he does want control of schools. I think he just if he really just wants out of the Maintenance of Effort (MOE)requirements, and that he is using his popularity to blackmail both the state legislature and the voting public into a trade off: "give me relief from MOE, or give me control". Then, if he gets some MOE relief this go-around, he'll raise the same demand next year and the year after. That is the real reason legislators are inclined to give him mayoral control from the outset. Is intimidation a good reason to give in?

I agree with Ms. Towler that it would end the antagonism, but at what cost? The most immediate outcome would be that the mayor will rape the District of local-share funding (if he can) and leave the District without needed resources. If that happens, I would have to consider moving out of the city myself, and taking my school-aged children with me. How does decreasing aid to schools attract those middle-class families to the city that everyone believes will be the savior of the school district?

Mary Ann Towler has articulated many of the same thoughts that I have been having, tho my expression is not so elevated. Mayor Duffy thinks he can whoosh in like Superman and suddenly fix everything. But he has no idea how much Kryptonite hidden everywhere that will handicap him, if not stop him outright.

I don't know what he thinks he can change so drastically and immediately that will make any significant change in this June's graduation rate - unless he orders every City Employee to mentor a student, every single Senior first, starting Monday Jan 4th. (I believe a significant percentage of city employees live outside of the city, so it's not like that would detract from RCSD parents supporting their own children.)

As an active district parent, I continue to disagree with some of Mr. Brizard's actions; however he HAS moved forward in developing more Community Relations with local service organizations and colleges. We already have a lot of them - you can see them listed in the budget resolutions every month. But having support from a non-profit usually means paying it, either from the budget or finding a grant. Center for Youth can't just show up. They may be a non-profit, but they do have operating expenses. If the Mayor wants to support the youth of the city with more after-school programs, help them find jobs, or recreate the Children's Zone, he can do that right now, without control of the District. Which leaves me agreeing with Willa Powell in my suspicions of his intentions towards the $119 million.

Once again , Mary Anna, it seems that you are the only voice in this city that is not pretending that that huge elephant called poverty is not standing in the room looming over every school, class, teacher, and student. I don't know what the Mayor's political agenda is, but he is biting off way more than he can chew if he thinks he can solve a problem that is endemic to every urban( and a lot of rural) area(s), and that greater minds than his have been stymied by for decades. Without " Childrens' Zone" type of solutions, the Mayor's head will be just as sore as everyone else's from banging it on that poverty tree.

I am just as suspicious of how the RCSD spends it's money. Just ask for the State Department of Special Education to come in for a full evaluation and audit...... have them ask "how is it that SO so many special education students are kept on the books, yet have the poorest attendance and graduation rate in the district?" Willa, open your eyes, there are already parents who are taking their children out of the city school distict and they are of all socio-economic status....so the idea that you will have to remove your children out of the RCSD is a weak statement and carries little value to the overarching question; will Mayor Duffy and his administration do a better job? I think so.
I also do not believe that Duffy and his cabinet would stoop as low as to use the EOM money for self serving endeavours...that is what the RCSD and it's chiefs and cabinet members do.....

Allowing the Mayor control of the RCSD just so you can prove a point is like burning down your house to prove the fire is dangerous. I almost stopped reading at that point. But, to be fair, I finished this piece. I agree that the RCSD services a different clientele than suburban schools and that poverty is a defining factor. It will never be properly addressed, though, until we see educational reform at the State and Federal level. Schools are driven by, and in many cases running scared of, blanket standards and assessments that miss the mark on what kids really need... which is so often determined by their background and local demographics. If Mayor Duffy, Ms. Towler, or anyone else wants to do something to make a difference, then petition the Board of Regents to leave the stone age, downsize, and let some of us who know our kids make some decisions regarding what they need and what they have accomplished.

Centralizing the district would make it easier to obfuscate data, and this would prove all too tempting if a budget of over a billion dollars is involved. There is no research to indicate that mayoral control is more effective, the results are, at best, mixed . The district is already headed in the direction of outsourcing, following a business model which doesn't even work for business! Research indicates that student performance is improved when parents actively participate in the education of their children, and mayoral control is a move away from parental and community participation in the schools. Mayoral control would present a hierarchy in which educators would be subservient to politicians. Luring jobs to the city would prove of greater long term benefit to the RCSD

How about Mayoral support instead of control

We’ve heard graduation rates and finances but what about “the hundred pound gorilla in the room”? “Savage Inequalities” by Johnathan Kozal discusses the discrepancies between public suburban and urban schools similar to what Rochester is experiencing. We can’t be in denial that city schools have far more challenges than the suburbs. Focus on changing the conditions of the city so as to prevent or improve the conditions which our children are exposed and learn.
Mayoral control will remove the representation of the community and its ability to have a voice in how the schools are run. The real problem is the significant flight of educated people from the city. If the children you are serving are exposed to drugs, violence, and incarcerated parents it has a profound effect on their ability to succeed. Parents also have to take responsibility but working multiple low wage jobs makes it harder.
The Mayor’s priorities must be centered on solutions like increasing multi-income housing, parks and prevention of crime. Teachers have their cars broken into, stolen and stripped on a regular basis while they work. How can we attract teachers when they are subject to these conditions? We are moving to a militarized system of education where going to school feels more like a prison sentence than a learning environment. A start may be to reduce the number of guns on the city streets by offering incentive programs to collect guns. Place special focus around the schools that are failing the most. If we do not get to the heart of the issue there will be no end to the cycle, no matter who is in control.
Why are the suburbs able to successfully operate with a school board in place, whereas the perception being presented by the mayor is that the city school board cannot? The mayor is implying that graduation rates are directly related to school boards. I argue that this is not the case and fundamental socioeconomics are at play here. There are schools within the RCSD that have good graduation rates while other failing schools pull the overall average down. The real issue is not the school board or ineffective teachers; it all has to do with the child’s environment. There is a class and cultural issue at play here that Mayoral control alone will not solve.
Why not include the mayor in partnership with the school board by allowing him a seat at the table. Full control and privatization is extreme but a seat at the school board would be fitting no matter who the Mayor is in the future. How about “smaller schools by design”? The Harlem Children’s Zone, directed by Geoffrey Canada is a successful model with a slogan “From Cradle to College to Community Building”. Let’s start with a mandatory program for parents on raising children “Baby College” like they do in Harlem. Manage children mental health and create child-centered school zones that limit school hopping to avoid discipline issues.
When the charter schools came into town, especially the Charter School of Science and Technology, they promised much like the Mayor is. They had uniforms, bussing, good curriculum, excellent professional development and technology. It had privatization and corporate money to create a “State of the Art School”. The school failed for many reasons after five years. One might blame the principal but why did the five principals after him not fix things from the top? The charter’s corporate board similar to the one Duffy wants to place, failed. The answer is simple; it is the high number of at risk children.
Fortunately, I can send my kids to a suburban school but many of our citizens within the city do not have the opportunity to move. Isn’t it more along the line of “we are products of our environment” rather than where we are educated? The Mayor doesn’t have to control the schools in order to bridge the gap between the city, colleges, and business to create partnerships that lift up our most in need.