Rochester schools will open next week as they always do,
with teachers, administrators, and children full of enthusiasm and hope. But a
huge black cloud is hanging over the district, and it may taint everything that
happens in the coming months.
This
week, Cliff Janey’s tenure in the City School District comes to an end. A week
ago, we might have thought we could turn our attention away from the embattled
superintendent and move on to other matters. Now we know that’s not the case.
Tuesday
afternoon, Mayor Bill Johnson held a press conference urging legal action
against the school district for its separation agreement with Janey. And he
said he wants some of the seven School Board members removed. He encouraged
citizens to petition the state Education Department to remove the board
members. And, he said, if no one steps forward, “I will be that citizen.”
This
past school year was a troubling, sad one for the school district. But that may
be mild compared to what we face this year. The past year’s conflicts — Cliff
Janey’s future, the district’s budget screw-ups, the district’s
early-retirement program — will continue to be in the news. Big time.
Meantime,
the School Board must find a new superintendent. The district must train a slew
of new principals and new teachers. And while the district managed to squeak
through its budget crisis this past spring, it’ll soon face another one. You
can count on it.
On
top of this, the board itself is seriously divided. The antagonism among some
board members is so sharp it could start a forest fire. Ditto the antagonism
between the mayor and some board members.
Make
no mistake: The budget screw-ups are not responsible for all of the district’s
budget problems, but they were significant. They caused great damage to the
district’s credibility. And part of the agreement under which Janey leaves is,
in my humble opinion, bizarre.
Future
employers wanting information must speak only to former president Bolgen
Vargas. Vargas is to respond only by sending a lengthy reference letter that
the board has approved. That letter outlines Janey’s accomplishments — which,
in fact, are numerous — but it says nothing about the controversies over the
budget, the early retirement program, and Janey’s appointments.
School
Board members are deeply divided over those issues, and their opinions have
been quoted in the media. Prospective employers will want to hear both sides.
And it seems to me that Janey’s better off if employers hear those opinions in
person, instead of relying on the media reports. The gag agreement is likely to
do more harm than good — to Janey, and to the school district.
But sadly, all of
this is a side issue. The district’s principal problem — the City of
Rochester’s principal problem — is concentration of poverty.
Poverty
is not the school district’s fault. And the district cannot overcome it, not
with the magnitude and concentration that Rochester experiences.
Yes,
yes, yes: Poor children can learn — in the right academic and peer climate,
and with the right parental support. But when a child lives in a neighborhood
that is almost entirely poor, and attends a school where nearly every other
child is poor, and where a high percentage of parents are poorly educated and
under high stress, the odds against academic success are overwhelming.
This
community is asking the Rochester school district to do an impossible job.
Cliff Janey’s exit will not change the academic outcome in the city’s schools.
Those
schools must have more money. And the metropolitan area’s disastrous system of
segregated schools must be broken up.
The
community — the metropolitan community — could rally behind the district, and think boldly. It could recognize
its responsibility to its poorest children. It could create regional magnet schools. It could join
with other urban regions in New York State and insist on adequate funding for
urban districts.
But
that will not happen in my lifetime. Meantime, the people who should be
Rochester children’s strongest advocates are at each other’s throats. And that
makes me very sad indeed.
This article appears in Aug 28 – Sep 3, 2002.
