As our lives at school approach routine, and the adjustment to a new school is diminished, it’s easy to forget how outside forces deeply affect our daily lives. Each day still seems to follow a similar pattern. You’ll still see the same familiar faces in the halls; as teachers and friends come and go, you learn to adapt with or without them to this slightly changed environment. Because of this routine of school life, the affect that the government has on our education often goes unrecognized. And yet, a series of reforms that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has plans for implementing in his final year of occupancy as the mayor of New York City bring to light just how much our current system of school life is dependent on governmental whims. Much could be changed, both positively and negatively, as a result of the new system’s implementation.
Bloomberg’s recent plans represent an overhaul of the school system that has been deemed necessary by a number of people, and with the recent election of Elliot Spitzer as the Governor of New York, these goals have become closer to finalization. The priorities have been shifted to include education at the top. With this added support, a variety of significant changes have been proposed by Bloomberg. It is particularly interesting to note the affects that these reforms will have on an unusual school like Stuyvesant with a number of experienced faculty members, already soaring standardized test scores, and a passionate and outspoken student body.
These reforms are sweeping and could potentially see a great change in student life at schools like Stuyvesant, as well as schools in poor urban neighborhoods. Most importantly, Bloomberg plans to give principals more power in the decision-making process for the betterment of their respective schools. In fact, Bloomberg plans to completely overhaul the 10 regional offices, thus making principals completely accountable for the hiring of teachers, training, budgets, and curriculum. In exchange for this, an evaluation report of principals will be given to the board of education based on student success on standardized tests. He claims that this will be one step towards equalizing education quality in poorer neighborhoods.
Another reform that promises great change is the supposed repair of the current tenure system. This proposes that teachers go under extensive review to gain this protection at their respective schools. Under today’s system, tenure is almost automatically granted, even without consideration of the teacher’s credentials or success within the profession. Under Bloomberg’s proposed system, teachers would be evaluated to determine whether they were worthy of tenure. Many teachers have protested this, and believe that instead reforms should be geared towards different things, like reducing class size.
Lastly, the greatest reform involves the distribution of money towards schools. Under today’s system, schools with more teachers with much experience, such as in Park Slope and the Upper West Side (largely wealthy neighborhoods), are given higher salaries, and thus the school’s payroll is higher. Thus, by increasing payrolls at less affluent schools, experienced teachers are more likely to gravitate towards such schools. This effort will be greatly helped by increased funding from Spitzer’s administration, and increased priority on education.
For a school like Stuyvesant, it may seem as though much is being taken away. The increased autonomy of the principal could potentially be seen as either liberating or threatening to the very outspoken student body. The progress reports will always reflect positively on Stuy, as standardized test scores are sky-high, and thus necessary reforms may not be implemented in other areas. In addition, accomplished schools like Stuyvesant, in an affluent neighborhood like Tribeca, will likely be losing out on both experienced teachers and much needed funding as a result of a shift in funding to less affluent neighborhoods. However, the shift in tenure policy may see a much needed change in teachers at Stuyvesant, as well as at many other schools. For too long, students of both Stuyvesant and other public high schools have had to deal with subpar teachers. This system partly eliminates this worry by giving teachers a trial period of 3 years before the bad teachers are rooted out from the good ones. This change is the one that seems to affect Stuyvesant in the most positive and practical way. By having young and bright teachers being funneled into an institution like Stuyvesant, classes will become more enjoyable, and students will have a more effective support group to rely on. Thus, although these reforms will surely create change in some way, our school lives have the potential to be affected positively with this new batch of reform.
