By: admin on 2/24/10
As a graduate of the University of Rochester and prior to that of Wilson Magnet High School, I was taught to employ knowledge, inquiry, and research in evaluating issues so that all sides are considered and adequately assessed. A letter to the Democrat and Chronicle by presidents of area colleges on the subject of mayoral control of the Rochester City School District dismisses this concept.

These respected academic leaders urge the State to give control of the District to the mayor. They present information that mirrors Mayor Duffy’s call for reform but fails to take into consideration 1) the lack of detail put forth by the Mayor on how he will improve schools, and 2) the recent progress of the District under the leadership of the Board of Education.

School performance data cited in the letter are from 2007-08; data for 2008-09, showing gains, are not mentioned. We are nowhere near where we should be, but progress deserves acknowledgment. In 2008-09:

* Global Media Arts High School at Franklin increased the percentage of eighth graders passing the NYS English exam by 22 percentage points; Bioscience & Health Careers High School at Franklin increased that percentage by 9 points;

* Monroe High School increased the percentage of eighth graders passing the NYS Math exam by 19 points; East High School increased that percentage by 15 points.

These data are available on the New York State Education Department’s website.

In December, the majority of the Board approved the formation of the District’s first Early College High School, which will open in September. The school is designed to better prepare our students, who are generally underrepresented in higher education, for high-skill careers by engaging them in a rigorous, college preparatory curriculum. This is just one recent example of action the Board has taken to better prepare all students for not only high school graduation but success in college and beyond.

Improvements in graduation rates and college-readiness are paramount goals on the Board’s agenda. To accomplish these goals the Board will continue to champion strategies that foster innovation while responding to the needs of the Rochester community by increasing student achievement, parent involvement, fiscal efficiency, and transparency.

Malik Evans
President, Rochester City School Board
Rochester, NY

By: admin on 2/24/10
"Our children are not guinea pigs: The critically important issue of mayoral
control --- observations and thoughts by a seriously concerned parent"

It's been a long time since I read a newspaper article and became really pissed off, but that definitely occurred on the evening of February 23rd --- in the process of reading (several times) an article titled 'College leaders back mayoral control of Rochester schools' --- published on the Democrat and Chronicle's website.

My initial thought was, and still is, that even if 119 or 1,019 college presidents from around the world declared their support for mayoral control --- that wouldn't change my mind one little bit (if for no other reason) because I'll never support (under any circumstances or conditions) the idea of diminishing predominantly poor African American and Hispanic peoples suffrage rights --- never!

I asked myself (out loud) how could college presidents (of all people) be so ignorant? However, once I got over the initial shock of what I had read --- it dawned on me that they aren't really ignorant at all. People don't become presidents of colleges and universities, especially internationally known, top-rated universities, by being ignorant --- or do they?

With regard to this particular situation --- I concluded that the gang of 19 were fully aware of what they were doing. That is, they had made a collective, conscious, choice (at his request) to back the smooth-talking, fair-haired, hometown all American Mayor --- even if it was at the expense of the lives and futures of our children. Like Duffy (politically speaking), they had chosen "the hill that they are willing to die on." That is, the national hill of Arnold Duncan school-of -thought and direction (privatization today --- privatization tomorrow --- privatization forever).

What really dawned on me though was that this is no longer a normal, run-of-the-mill debate. People, especially Robert Duffy is really playing hard-ball politics. I also thought about how correct Rochester City Councilman Adam McFadden had been several weeks earlier (1/14/10) when, as a guest on Bob Smith's WXXI radio talk show --- he had mentioned the possibility of the mayoral control issue tearing the community apart in a manner that we haven't seen for many years. This possibility and probability certainly is evidenced by the fact that we now have top leaders of local colleges and universities taking a public position that is diametrically opposed to the position taken by some of the most notable professors and researchers working at those same colleges and universities. Several outstanding examples that immediately come to mind include the position of Joel Seligman vis-a-vis that of Dr. David Hursh; Dr. William Destler vis-a-vis distinguished professor of public policy and former Rochester mayor William Johnson, and Daan Braveman vis-a-vis professor and former Fairport, NY and Rochester City School District Superintendent, Dr. William Cala. Perhaps this is all part of healthy dialogue, but one thing for sure is --- it is not part of the norm.

The actual letter of support, which was endorsed by "the presidents of every major higher learning institution in the area," and sent to the president and Publisher of the Democrat and Chronicle --- is really quite amazing. The first amazing thing about it is that, according to the above referenced article, the presidents had made a decision to support Duffy as early as 2/3/10. A full twenty days after the decision was made, the original version of the 2/23/10 letter from 19 top-level "academians" contained at least two typos. I don't mean to nit-pick, but is it not reasonable to expect excellence from this group?

In their soon to be infamous letter, these "academians" claim that they "realize that all involved in this discussion want the best for our students..." Our students? By their own admission (no pun intended) most RCSD students never even come close to gaining entrance into their colleges and universities. Another very amazing thing about their letter and position is that they magically connect the latter fact to the issue of "governance" within the RCSD --- amazing!

With regard to the issue of RCSD governance (as a guest on Bob Smith's WXXI radio talk show on 2/11/10) former Rochester mayor and distinguished RIT professor of public policy, William Johnson is quoted as having said the following: "My view is that we need to look at the more basic issues here. I think we need to look at how to reform the delivery of urban education, not the governance structure. I think, to be fair --- to say that you're going to disrupt a whole $700 million structure --- subsume it into your organization, and if it doesn't work after 4 years, you will take it and send it back --- you can't put humpty-dumpty back together again, after you have made all those changes, and I think that we (as a community) need to understand that it is easier said than done. It has been tried by people much smarter than Bob Duffy and Bill Johnson, and they haven't been able to make it work. It has been tried by communities all over the country. With all due respect to Mayor Duffy (a man who I admire; a man who I supported for election; a man who I worked with for 12 years; a man whose sincerity I do not question in the least bit) --- I think he is biting off a lot more than he can chew (as we say down South), particularly given some of the other challenges which this City
faces at this particular point and time."

Also, in their letter --- in the process of pointing out extremely poor performance on English Exams by 8th graders at two RCSD schools --- the intellectual "dream-team" made the blatantly obvious point that "students who cannot understand what they are reading, cannot succeed in high school," (no kidding). What's most interesting about this observation is that if anyone should know, these super-intellectuals certainly should know that mounds of research exists, which supports the vital need for successful students to be reading at or above grade level by or about 3rd grade. Thus, the critical task is not to just point out that schools have huge numbers of students who are light-years away from where they should be relative to basic skills-development. In so doing, they are only describing a symptom, which almost anyone can do, but the real fundamental issue and problem that must be solved is figuring out and eliminating that which allows for "84%" or "85%" of a school's student body to reach 8th grade without having acquired basic reading, writing and math skills. This is absolutely one of the most critical issues that must be thoroughly addressed in any legitimate, authentic, urban education reform model. Since we know that Board of Education members are not directly responsible for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic --- I can't wait to hear the academic leaders explain how this and other such fundamentally critical issues are related to RCSD governance. Clearly as professor Johnson pointed out --- this is an educational delivery issue, as opposed to one of governance.

Furthermore, when intellectuals begin hypocritically spewing rhetoric about poor academic "results [being] especially tragic in Rochester, a city with a proud history of quality educational institutions that has fueled entrepreneurialism, innovation and creativity for almost two centuries" --- then we can be absolutely certain that they don't have the best interests of the majority of our students in mind or at heart. Remember the history. "Two centuries" ago the ancestors of the overwhelming majority of our students couldn't get near the "quality educational institutions," which the intellectuals referenced in their letter.

They also make the bogus claim that "there is considerable evidence that mayoral control improves outcomes from cities as diverse at [their typo] New York City, Boston, New Haven, Hartford, Cleveland, Washington D.C. and Chicago." I say if "considerable evidence" exists --- they should produce it now.

The president of Finger Lakes Community College was quoted as having the audacity to say that "overwhelming research shows [mayoral control] has delivered good results." Wow! Again I say, if "overwhelming" evidence exists --- they should produce it now.

It's difficult to determine whose statements (the intellectual's or Duffy's) are most ludicrous and absurd. With regard to the gang of 19, the Mayor is quoted as having said "I think they are as connected as anybody could be..." Incredible! Imagine that. I mean really imagine that this guy is serious. He really means this --- I think.

We (RCSD parents and concerned community members in general) absolutely cannot allow the likes of Duffy and/or totally disconnected intellectuals , or anyone else for that matter --- to preside over the destruction of another generation of our children without being at every major decision-making table.

We must continue to organize!!!

Howard J. Eagle
Rochester, NY

By: wfpritchard on 2/25/10
To Smugtown Beacon Readers:

I am disappointed that no one has called out Howard Eagle for the racist comments he made in reply to a previous post of mine in response to an article by Chris Wilmot, or for the race-bating being engaged in here.

Penfield was disrespectfully referred to as being "lily white" in the other response. Here, Adam McFadden's stated concern over how this issue could tear our community apart is mentioned, yet again the race card is played by saying, "Two centuries" ago the ancestors of the overwhelming majority of our students couldn't get near the "quality educational institutions," which the intellectuals referenced in their letter." There can be no other explanation for use of these phrases than to take advantage of the racial divide that unfortunately does exist in our community.

Playing on racial differences in order to advance an argument or point of view only serves to distract from the substantive debate that should take place.

Still, while I am troubled by these comments, I am even more concerned by the silence of the Smugtown Beacon readership on denouncing them. I believe that, if a similar statement was made to describe the City of Rochester as was used in reference to Penfield, the outcry would have been thunderous.

Bill Pritchard
Penfield

By: vote4harry on 2/26/10
I am opposed to mayoral control of Rochester city schools. What mayoral control in cities like New York and Washington D.C. has taught us is that allowing the mayors to run these school districts hurts, not helps, the system. In these cities, the student performance among minority groups is poor and the gap is widening. And as Dr. William Cala pointed out in his op-ed in the City Newspaper, spending by cities on these school districts has increased. As an example, he cites New York City, where mayoral control under Mayor Michael Bloomberg increase from $12.5 billion in 2002 to $21 billion in 2009.

If we are going to invest more money in education, it better be working. Taxpayers, and more importantly, our students deserve the best. And in Rochester, they deserve better.

That is why mayoral control is not the answer.

In his op-ed in the Democrat and Chronicle, former Mayor Bill Johnson asked several important questions. One of those questions was:

"Since urban districts with concentrated poverty generally require more, and not less, resources, what guarantees can be extracted in advance from state government to insure a successful takeover?"

The truth is Albany can’t make guarantees. New York City is in a different position. They have more money they can invest in their city’s education while also receiving state funds. But for Rochester, we are dependent on state help. And during these tough fiscal times for the state and Governor David Paterson proposing cuts to education, that help from the state won’t happen.

To answer Mayor Johnson’s question, there are no guarantees. The state government can’t help. If anything, our education funding will be cut by Albany and we must do more with less.

One of the great crimes we have seen with mayoral control is its negative impact on minority students. In a city like Chicago, test scores for Black and Latino students are improving, but very slowly. And that improvement in many cases means moving out of single-digit percentiles into the teens. Going from eight percent proficient in a certain subject area (i.e Math) to 12 percent might be considered an improvement, but it’s still a disappointment. Combine that with the test scores of white students that aren’t any better and mayoral control is an experiment that has failed.

Rochester should not make its students part of that experiment. It has been proven in other cities to be a failure. It only gives more powers to mayors who believe they need to take the reins from school boards and school administrators and run the schools themselves. The problem is, as history has taught us, they aren’t doing any better.

In New York City, the Board of Education was replaced by a panel set up by the mayor and those individuals, instead of serving on behalf of voters, serve at the pleasure of the mayor. That is not what we need. We need independent thinkers who oversee our education system. We do not need people who will be beholden to the mayor, whether that’s Mayor Robert Duffy or anyone else down the road.

We need a board of education who was accountable to taxpayers and responsible for achieving the best possible education for all of our students. And it must be free of mayoral influence.

I oppose mayoral control and will continue my opposition against running our city’s educational system through City Hall. The future of our students should not rest with one solitary individual, but rather a classroom of competent teachers working with our bright minds to raise test scores and to increase student performance.

Harry Davis
Rochester, New York

By: Howard on 2/27/10
Dear Mister Pritchard,

Your "disappointment" is actually a testament to the fact that the days are long-gone when you could count on utilizing your socioeconomic and political clout and privilege to convince others to intervene and help you put the little ghetto 'boy' back in his place --- for having dared to challenge one who is out of his league.

Accusing me, or anyone for that matter, but especially me (one who has taken the time to study and understand, from an historical perspective, how racism developed and how it functions and manifests itself) of being "racist" or of "race-bating" --- is a very serious charge. Now that you have stepped into that very serious trap, the onus is on you to prove it --- as I shall attempt to do in your case.

Your fallacious belief and opinion that I "disrespectfully referred to Penfield as being lily white" is just that, i.e. your fallacious belief and opinion.

You probably gambled on the likelihood that I don't know anything about Penfield, NY. Sorry, you lose.

In 1968 my family moved to the Rochester metropolitan region. We lived and worked as migrant farm workers on Heberlee's Farm in Penfield, New York. Even though our address in Penfield was 1605 Qualtrough Road, there was nothing in that spot except a mailbox on the side of the Road. The farm stretched for at least a couple of miles long --- beginning at Embury Road --- heading South towards Atlantic Avenue, and was at least a half mile wide on both sides of Qualtrough. It was located in a very wealthy community, but we lived literally in a three-room shack (behind Heberlee's barn). When we first moved there in 1968, the place still had an outdoor toilet! Until the time that I moved to Rochester (after graduating from Penfield High School in 1972), and the time that my parents moved during the early 1980's --- this make-shift house that we had called home --- was heated by a coal-burning, pot-bellied stove! I believe that the barn referenced above is still standing (unless it was torn down recently). But other than the barn and the fruit stand near the corner of Qualtrough and Embury, which I also believe was originally established by the Heberlees --- there are no remnants of the sprawling orchards that extracted so much sweat and blood from my parents, me, and other migrant farm works who once lived there (with the possible exception of a fruit tree here and there in the yards (for aesthetics) of the sprawling $300,000 and $400,000 homes that now occupy the same land.

We also toiled in fruit orchards that were located on Plank Road, and even one that was near Empire Blvd.

I attended Bay Trail Middle School on Scribner Road. At Bay Trail and Penfield High School, but especially at Bay Trail, I could literally count the students, and definitely the adults of color on two hands. I still remember most of the student's names, including the famous, local, African American scientist, Dr. Walter Cooper's son. The Cooper's lived on a hill in what I imagine was a very fine home (at the other end of Qualtrough Road, which really becomes Clark Road, once it crosses Atlantic Avenue).

Sir, even though I'm not a betting man, I'd be willing to lay you a small wager, that today, nearly 40 years later, with regard to racial composition, both the adult and student populations at Bay Trail, Penfield High School, and in the town in general --- still resembles a-fly-in-a-bowl-of-butter-milk. So, if this is not a classic case of lily whiteness --- then what exactly is it?

You are obviously stretching in your feeble, unsuccessful attempt to paint me as a racist. The examples that you used clearly demonstrate your need for education concerning what racism is; what it's not, and some of the numerous ways in which it functions and manifests itself (such as, for example, within your plea to "the Smugtown Beacon readership").

It would be most interesting to read your explanation of how my mentioning "Adam McFadden's stated concern over how this [mayoral control] issue could tear our community apart" --- amounts to racism. In fact, when I mentioned Councilman McFadden's stated concern, I had mentioned it in the context that one way in which his concern is being played out is via the clear, dichotomous positions that have developed between local college presidents and some of their most accomplished staff ---the overwhelming majority of whom are white. So, what's your point sir? Mentioning that "two centuries ago the ancestors of the overwhelming majority of our students couldn't get near the quality educational institutions, which the intellectuals referenced in their letter" is definitely not a matter of playing the so-called "race card." On the contrary, I played the HISTORICAL-FACT-CARD.

You may not be an oppressor, but part of your statement above is indicative of the fact that you definitely think like one (at least to some extent). One thing that oppressors are well known for is employing strategies by which they get to define everything. Your specific statement above that: "There can be no other explanation for use of these phrases than to take advantage of the racial divide that unfortunately does exist in our community" --- is clearly indicative of an oppressor's mindset. So, instead of asking me why I chose to use certain phrases --- you made an erroneous decision that there is only one possible reason. I used the phrases to help drive-home my points, and because they are FACTUAL.


What is this abstract thing that you, the mayor, and others keep referring to as "substantive debate"? You all keep talking about it, but none of you seem willing to engage in it --- at least not with grassroots parents and community members.

It is not possible to accurately use a "similar statement to describe the City of Rochester as was used in reference to Penfield." That is to say, Penfield is lily white, and the City of Rochester is not. In fact, as you well know, the city is now composed of a majority of so-called "minorities." So again I ask, what is your point sir?

Howard J. Eagle
Rochester

By: vote4harry on 2/27/10
Please, tell me, what is the "substantive debate that should take place"?

Bill says:

"Playing on racial differences in order to advance an argument or point of view only serves to distract from the substantive debate that should take place."

"Still, while I am troubled by these comments, I am even more concerned by the silence of the Smugtown Beacon readership on denouncing them. I believe that, if a similar statement was made to describe the City of Rochester as was used in reference to Penfield, the outcry would have been thunderous."

Bill, precisely! I will make the statement. The city is known as black; the burbs, white! I grew up in the burbs; now I live in the city. And going back many hundreds of years, this is the historical problem. When the white man enslaved the black man to build America, and btw, killed off the Red man to do it, do you think these problems have all gone away? Did the slaveholders play on racial differences? Damn straight they did!

If you look at the blogs & Facebook where much of this conversation has taken place, you will know that the people who now live near you in the "lily white" suburb of Penfield, in no way want to see city students mix with their schools.

Why is the city black & the suburbs white? Was this a random occurrence or something else? Therefore, why does Brighton High School achieve near the top and most of the city at the bottom? Where do the university Presidents live & pay taxes?

The only way this problem will be settled is when the city & the burbs can say, "One City/Suburb, One Future" or something like that that Mayor Duffy says all the time.

Bill, tell me please, what is the "substantive debate that should take place"?

Harry Davis
Rochester, NY

By: admin on 3/2/10
(As refrence to College Presidents sign on to Duffy's mayoral control plan) Howard Eagle as very able to defend himself, as he has ably shown on this page in his response to Bill Pritchard. I would like, however, to introduce two points inspired by Howards comments: "You may not be an oppressor, but part of your statement above is indicative of the fact that you definitely think like one (at least to some extent). One thing that oppressors are well known for is employing strategies by which they get to define everything."

I think these points start with Howard's observation of the nature of institutional racism (points with which I agree) but go well beyond that, into current psychological and sociological research. First, consider what John Dean describes in his book Conservatives Without Conscience as the "Double High", meaning high social domination traits and high conservative authoritarian traits. For those who haven't read this book, I would like to apply the themes of this book to the issue of Mayoral Control of schools: conservative authoritarian leaders are seeking support of authoritarian followers (those who want a father figure to tell them what to do) to execute the most radical social engineering project of our time - the transformation of our democratic society into an authoritarian society. It would not be an overstatement to frame it as a move toward Facism.

Second, conservative authoritarians are not very capable of seeing themselves as others see them. They are prone to numerous prejudices (John Dean and social psychologist Bob Altemeyer's observations, not mine), and a self-rightousness that blinds them to their own to hypocracy (e.g. Never mind that gays in our community have had to live lives of supression and oppression, and therefore - potentially - share common ground, including institutional racism, sexism and other related isms. Nevermind that it is the authoritarian side of social systems that created that common history of oppression. If I [Bill P.] am in a position to dominate or hold opinions in favor of domination, then I am thoroughly entitled to advance those notions, no matter how hypocritical they are.)
Willa Powell
Rochester, NY