CB1 Resolutions

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

COMMUNITY BOARD #1 – MANHATTANRESOLUTIONDATE: APRIL 28, 2009 COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: YOUTH & EDUCATIONCOMMITTEE VOTE: 8 In Favor 0 Opposed 0 Abstained 0 RecusedPUBLIC MEMBERS: 3 In Favor 0 Opposed 1 Abstained 0 RecusedBOARD VOTE: 36 In Favor 0 Opposed 0 Abstained 0 RecusedRE:Empowering Community Education CouncilsWHEREAS:Parental engagement is one of the most critical contributors to educationalattainment, andWHEREAS:After New York City’s school governance structure was reformed in 2002, the New York State Legislature created Community Education Councils in 2003 to“provide an opportunity for meaningful participation for both parents and thecommunity”, andWHEREAS:Whatever the other benefits of Mayoral control, a growing consensus has emergedthat the current system of parental engagement has not succeeded, with PublicAdvocate Gotbaum’s School Governance Commission, the City Council WorkingGroup on Mayoral Control, the Campaign for Better Schools, the ParentCommission on School Governance, the leadership of LEARN-NY, and evenChancellor Joel Klein all calling for parental input and engagement to beimproved, andWHEREAS:In the Manhattan Borough President’s 2006 survey of CEC members, “ParentsDismissed,” 92% of respondents reported not being trained in one or more of their state-mandated functions, 50% reported that DOE never provided them with PTAcontact information, 37% reported that they had not attended a hearing on DOEcapital plans, and 61% reported that they had never prepared a report card for their school district, andWHEREAS:Two of the main reasons that the CEC model has not succeeded is that CECs aredependent upon the Department of Education for resources and training,undermining their independence, and because the process through which CECsare supposed to provide input into educational decisions is vague and undefined inState law, andWHEREAS:New York City’s Community Boards offer a more successful model for community input, because Community Boards have Borough Presidents to provide resources, support and training, making them more independent from theCity’s Executive Branch, and because Community Boards have recognized,formal procedures in law, such as the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure(ULURP), through which they provide input into various City decisions, and

WHEREAS:New York City’s parent and school communities need and deserve an empoweredvoice in the City’s school system, nowTHEREFOREBE ITRESOLVEDTHAT:Community Board 1 supports Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s proposal to reform and empower Community Education Councils after the modelof the City’s Community Boards, by giving the City’s five Borough Presidentsresponsibility for training and supporting them, and by creating a UniformParental Engagement Procedure (UPEP) in State law, with specific timelines for hearings and input into educational policy decisions and District-level decisionssuch as the opening, closing, and relocation of schools, andBE ITFURTHER RESOLVEDTHAT:Community Board 1 supports legislation to enact this proposal, sponsored byState Senator Daniel Squadron and Assembly Member Jeffrey Dinowitz,andurges the State Legislature to reform parental engagement and empower Community Education Councils in any law that renews New York City’s schoolgovernance structure, andBE ITFURTHER RESOLVEDTHAT:CB1 encourages Manhattan Borough President Stringer to reach out to the other Borough Presidents to request their support for this initiative and urges them tosupport it.

COMMUNITY BOARD #1 – MANHATTANRESOLUTIONDATE: APRIL 28, 2009 COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: YOUTH & EDUCATIONCOMMITTEE VOTE: 8 In Favor 0 Opposed 0 Abstained 0 RecusedPUBLIC MEMBERS: 3 In Favor 0 Opposed 1 Abstained 0 RecusedBOARD VOTE: 34 In Favor 4 Opposed 1 Abstained 0 RecusedRE:School governance law and mayoral controlWHEREAS: The law that gives control over the city’s public schools to the Mayor of the Cityof New York is set to expire on June 30 2009, andWHEREAS: The future of this law will be decided by the New York State Legislature, andWHEREAS:Our current system of school governance and its structure hinders publicinvolvement in decision making, andWHEREAS: The current structure does not ensure accountability and transparency with checksand balances at all levels, andWHEREAS:The central Board of Education was replaced with a Panel for Education Policythat is primarily composed of mayoral appointees, andWHEREAS:The current structure lacks accountability to the public, through transparency andchecks and balances, andWHEREAS: The current structure also lacks a meaningful mechanism for all stakeholders,from parents and teachers to elected officials and community leaders, to beinvolved in and influence school affairs, andWHEREAS:The current structure lacks timely and community friendly zoning arrangementsfor children entering kindergarten, andWHEREAS:Dismissal and arrival times are altered with little or no parent consultation or notification, andWHEREAS:The middle school application/admission process is unnecessarily complex andconvoluted causing confusion and hardships for families, andWHEREAS:This structure also lacks opportunities for public discussion about issues such asschool closings, graduation rates, student transportation, school capacity and howto improve student performance and success, and

of 00

Leave a Comment