Table Of Content

FIELD HEARING ON THE OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT [OERI] Y 4, ED 8/1:103-18 Field Hearing on the Office of Educ... HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD IN NEW YORK, NY, MARCH 8, 1993 Serial No. 103-18 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor OC U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70-651±5 WASHINGTON 1993 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington.DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-041296-X FIELD HEARING ON THE OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT [OERI] Y 4. ED 8/1:103-18 Field Hearin§ on the Office of Educ. . . HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD IN NEW YORK, NY, MARCH 8, 1993 Serial No. 103-18 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor Cr '• ', , U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70-651±5 WASHINGTON : 1993 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-041296-X COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan, Chairman WGIELOLRIGAEMM(IBLILLELRI,CLCAaYli,foMrinsisaouri TWIHLOLMIAASMEF..PGEOTORDI,LIWNiGs,conPseinnnsylvania AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin PAT WILLIAMS, Montana RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois MAJOR R. OWENS, New York PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey SUSAN MOLINARI, New York JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington BILL BARRETT, Nebraska PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California JACK REED, Rhode Island PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan TIM ROEMER, Indiana HOWARD "BUCK" McKEON, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DAN MILLER, Florida XAVIER BECERRA, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia GENE GREEN, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RON KLINK, Pennsylvania KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona TED STRICKLAND, Ohio RENOINFD.EH.LFUGAOL,EOVMirAgVinAEIsGlAan,ds ' '. ^ American Samoa SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky Patricia F. Rissler, StaffDirector Jay Eagen, Minority StaffDirector Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights MAJOR R. OWENS, New York, Chairman DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BILL BARRETT, Nebraska THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois (II) CONTENTS Page Hearingheld in New York, NY, March 8, 1993 1 Statement of: Connell, Noreen, Executive Director ofEducational Priorities Panel, New NY York, 26 HoNltYzman, Hon. Elizabeth, Comptroller, City of New York; New York, 13 JohBnosaornd,ofArEgdiuecatKi.o,n,DeBpruootkylyCnh,anNcYellor of Instruction, New York City 45 Law, Bob, Director, Respect YourselfYouth Organization, Member ofthe Board, Education ofPeople ofAfrican Ancestry, NewYork, NY 62 LitBoowa,rdStoafnEldeuycaSt.i,onD,epBruotoyklCyhna,ncNeYllor for Operations, New York City 4 Sanford, Adelaide, New York State Regents, New York State Board of NY Regents, Albany, 69 StaSncchioko,lEDdi,stSripcetc,iaNleCwomYmoirsks,iNonYerofInvestigation forthe New York City 22 Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera: Connell, Noreen, Executive Director ofEducational Priorities Panel, New York, NY, prepared statement of 31 Holtzman, Hon. Elizabeth, Comptroller, City of New York; New York, NY, prepared statement of 17 Johnson, Argie K., Deputy Chancellor of Instruction, New York City Board ofEducation, Brooklyn, NY, prepared statement of 49 Law, Bob, Director, Respect YourselfYouth Organization, Member ofthe Board, Education of People of African Ancestry, New York, NY, prepared statement of 66 Owens, Hon. Major R., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of 3 Payne, Hon. Donald M., a Representative in Congress from the State of NewJersey, prepared statement of 8 Stancik, Edward F. Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District, prepared statement of 25 (III) <9 FIELD HEARING ON THE OFFICE OF EDUCA- TIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT [OERI] MONDAY. MARCH 8, 1993 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights, Committee on Education and Labor, New York, NY. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., Room 305A- B-C, Federal Building Courthouse, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, Hon. Major R. Owens, Chairman, presiding. Members present: Representatives Owens and Payne. Staff present: Maria Cuprill, Wanser Green, Laurence Peters. Chairman Owens. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights will come to order. Today we are here to examine two recurring problems in the New York City school system. Education, like all other functions in our complex modern society, can greatly benefit from the scientific approach to problem-solving. Research and development for the purpose of improving education, which is under the oversight responsibility of this committee, is as vital as research and development in the areas of defense, agriculture, commerce or health. Systematic investigation and study, along with controlled experimentation and adequate funding for demonstration projects, is both appropriate and highly desirable for the resolution ofany problem related to education. This hearing will focus on two widespread, recurring problems which could greatly benefit from increased Federal attention and resources. Problem one: Mismanagement, corruption and waste in non-instructional educational services results from failures in governance and management. When governors, mayors and school boards fail to use their policymaking and their oversight powers or when they misapply or squander these powers, they victimize the children and teachers in the classrooms. In New York City, for several decades, there has been widespread discussion of abuses related to the custodian contracts, the bus transportation services and the purchasing practices authorized by the Board of Education. To date, no governmental body has acted decisively to eliminate this systematic stealing from the children of New York City. Legislation proposed by this Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights advocates the creation of an Institute for Govern- ance and Management within the Office of Educational Research (1) and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. This Insti- tute would provide Federal assistance to school boards, chancellors, superintendents, parent bodies and others concerned with educational policymaking and management as it relates to schools and school systems. One clear goal of the Institute would be the provision of Federal assistance for those seeking to eliminate practices which drain resources from the all important instructional component of local education agencies. Problem number two which will be the subject for the second panel is: Incompetence and blundering in curriculum development. This is related to the agenda proposed for an Institute for the Edu- cation ofAt-Risk Students. Among the activities authorized for this Institute would be Fed- eral support for curriculum development which improves student performance and eliminates high drop-out rates in inner city schools. Large numbers of African-American educators and other leaders are advocating a curriculum of inclusion or a multicultural curriculum or ethnocentric curriculum to combat the problems of low self-esteem and low sense of self-worth among failing students. It is generally recognized that motivation constitutes more than half of the educational process. It is also universally recognized that students with deficiencies in perceptions of their self-worth are seldom motivated to learn. If these truths are self-evident, then the questions which cry out loudly for an answer are: Why have educators been so reluctant to develop such motivating curricula? What are the obstacles? Has racism among educators created an insurmountable barrier? Is the slowness in the development ofsuch curricula due to a lack oftech- nical competence? Is a curriculum of inclusion considered a frill, a luxury or is it a vital necessity? Does the absence of a curriculum of inclusion constitute miseducation or gross negligence? In order to overcome some of the obstacles to more creative curriculum development, is there a role for the Federal Government? These are a few of the questions which an Institute for the Edu- cation of At-Risk Students will seek to answer. Across the Nation from Portland, Oregon to Omaha, Nebraska and the entire State of California there are examples of attempts to grapple with these questions. In New York City, the Rainbow Curriculum has generated a tremendous amount of heat over the past few months. For the benefit of all concerned, and in order to refine the proposed legislation, the New York City curriculum development process should be closely examined. Local newspapers have charged that there was a considerable amount of incompetence and blundering in the production of the Rainbow Curriculum. Of still greater importance is the question of delay and tardiness. Why has the school system serving the largest number of African American students in the Nation and also serving the most diverse student body in the Nation taken so long to issue its first multicultural curriculum guideline? The mission statement of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement clearly indicates that its primary concern is the education of poor students like the majority ofthe students who attend New York City schools. Today's hearing in the City of New York will greatly enhance the efforts ofthe Subcommittee on Select Edu- cation and Civil Rights to strengthen the operations of this vital component ofthe U.S. Department of Education. [The prepared statement of Hon. Major R. Owens follows:] Statement of Hon. Major R. Owens, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York Education, like all other functions in our complex modern society, can greatly benefit from the scientific approach to problem-solving. Research and development for the purpose of improving education is as vital as research and development in the areas of defense, agriculture, commerce and health. Systematic investigation and study along with controlled experimentation and adequate funding for demonstration projects is both appropriate and highly desirable for the resolution of any problem related to education. This hearing will focus on two widespread, recurring problems which could greatly benefit from increased Federal attention and resources. Problem one: Mismanage- ment, corruption and waste in non-instructional educational services results from failures in governance and management. When governors, mayors and school boards fail to use their policymaking and their oversight powers; or when they misapply or squander these powers they victimize the children and teachers in the classrooms. In New York City, for several decades, there has been widespread discussion of abuses related to the custodian contracts, the bus transportation services and the purchasing practices authorized by the Board ofEducation. To date, no governmental body has acted decisively to eliminate this systematic stealing from the children ofNew York City. Legislation proposed by this Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights advocates the creation of an Institute for Governance and Management within the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement ofthe U.S. Department ofEduca- tion. This Institute would provide Federal assistance to school boards, chancellors, superintendents, parent bodies and others concerned with educational policymaking and management as it relates to schools and school systems. One clear goal ofthe Institute would be the provision ofFederal assistance for those seeking to eliminate practices which drain resources from the all important instructional components of local education agencies. Problem number two: Incompetence and blundering in curriculum development is related to the agenda proposed for an Institute for the Education of At-Risk Stu- dents. Among the activities authorized for this Institute would be Federal support for curriculum development which improves student performance and eliminates high drop-out rates in inner city schools. Large numbers ofAfrican-American educators and other leaders are advocating a curriculum of inclusion or a multicultural curriculum or an ethnic-centric curriculum to combat the problems of low self- esteem and a low sense of self-worth among failing students. It is generally recognized that motivation constitutes more than half of the educational process. It is also universally recognized that students with deficiencies in perceptions of their self-worth are seldom motivated to learn. If these truths are self-evident, then the question which cries out loudly for an answer is: Why have educators been so reluctant to develop such motivating curricula? What are the obstacles? Has racism among educators created an insurmountable barrier? Is the slowness in the development ofsuch curricula due to a lack of technical competence? Is a curriculum ofinclusion considered a frill, a luxury or is it a vital necessity? Does the absence ofa curriculum ofinclusion constitute miseducation or gross negligence? In order to overcome some ofthe obstacles to more creative curriculum development, is there a role forthe Federal Government? These are a few ofthe questions which an Institute for the Education ofAt-Risk Students will seek to answer. Across the Nation from Portland, Oregon to Omaha, Nebraska and the entire State ofCalifornia there are examples ofattempts to grapple with these questions. In New York City, the "Rainbow Curriculum" hasgenerat- ed a tremendous amount of heat over the past few months. For the benefit of all concerned, and in order to refine the proposed legislation, the New York City curriculum development process should be closely examined. Local newspapers have charged that there was a considerable amount of incompetence and blundering in the production of the "Rainbow Curriculum." Of still greater importance is the question ofdelay and tardiness. Why has the school system serving the largest number of African-American students in the Nation, and also serving the most diverse student body in the Nation, taken so longto issue its first multicultural curriculum guideline? The mission statement of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement clearly indicates that its primary concern is the education ofpoor students like the majority ofthe students who attend New York City schools. Today's hearing in the City of New York will greatly enhance the efforts of the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights to strengthen the operations of this vital component of the U.S. Department ofEducation. Chairman Owens. For our opening panel, I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Stanley Litow, the Deputy Chancellor for the New York City Board of Education. Since Mr. Litow has a time problem, we'll take his testimony first. In addition to Mr. Litow, other witnesses for this panel include Mr. Ed Stancik, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District. Mr. Litow, we will take your testimony and ask you a few questions ifyou have time. You may begin. STATEMENT OF STANLEY S. LITOW, DEPUTY CHANCELLOR FOR OPERATIONS, NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BROOK- LYN, NEW YORK Mr. Litow. Thank you very much, Congressman Owens. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to discuss the management and operations of the New York City public schools. I've had an opportunity to review the draft of the legislation and it certainly would go a long way toward providing information and dissemination of good practice around the school systems of this country. New York City's public school system is by far the largest public school system in America. We are 300,000 students; larger than number two, Los Angeles. We have 1,000,000 pupils. We have 125,000 staff. We have 1,000 buildings. To give you some sense of size, scope and problems, we have over 150,000 youngsters in the New York City public schools who are limited English proficient and 50,000 of them are limited English proficient in other than Spanish. We have received 125,000 new im- migrant students in the New York City public schools just over the last 3 years and have not received one additional dollar in terms of emergency immigration assistance from the Federal Government. The $4.5 million that we have received this year and last year is the exact same sum of money that we received the year before and the year before that. The structure that the Chancellor inherited when he got here in 1990 was developed for the Board of Education by the Economic Development Council, a business group that presented that structure in the year 1974. It was far too top-down. It had too many layers. It had 5,259 funded central head count positions and it had an administrative structure that cushioned decision-makers from the activities that took—place in the field. We currently spend to give you a sense of how important it—is to spend as little as possible administering the school system $1,300 less than the statewide average to educate our children in the New York City public schools. That means it would take $1,300 per pupil or $1.3 billion just for us to rank 350th in the State in