Mayoral Control Of Public Schools? What Would Pius XI Say?
By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
It was in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno that Pope Pius XI advanced the principle of subsidiarity, which instructed us that we should assign to higher levels of government only those issues that cannot be dealt with effectively by individual actions, private associations, and local and state governments.
But it should be noted that Pius’ point was not that lower levels of government are always to be preferred. It depends upon the issue in question. Sometimes higher levels of authority are necessary, as with, say, national defense and regulating international trade. Prudential judgement is needed in making these decisions; and there can be legitimate differences of opinion over what level of government works best for the commonweal.
New York City is providing us with an interesting case for applying prudential judgment regarding subsidiarity. On March 23, the City Journal, a publication of the Manhattan Institute, a think tank that analyzes and makes proposals for how to deal with urban issues from a free-market perspective, featured an article by Bob McManus that argued mayoral control of New York City’s schools is preferable to leaving decision-making authority in the hands of local school boards. His contention is that in this case local authority has proven to be not up to the task.
McManus points out that mayoral control was pushed by Rudy Giuliani back in the 1990s: “By the time Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor in 1993, New York’s schools were a national embarrassment and getting worse.
Giuliani was a strong proponent of mayoral control. He once suggested, semi-seriously, that the Board of Education’s headquarters be blown up.”
Yet McManus notes, “It wasn’t until Michael Bloomberg took office that mayoral control became achievable. By that time, the dysfunction in city schools had become so profound that it was impossible to make an honest defense of the status quo.”
McManus holds that the centralization of authority worked; that “city schools have made classroom progress” ever since. But that progress, McManus observes, is now under threat: “The reform effort met lots of predictable resistance, with the United Federation of Teachers, New York City’s teachers union, at the forefront. The UFT marshaled its Albany allies to hamper the mayor’s ability to close failing schools, create local charter schools, and effectively evaluate teachers.”
The UFT, McManus continues, “used the union’s multimillion-dollar political-action accounts to reinforce its influence in Albany and on the city council, while marshaling self-styled education activists and grass-roots groups to create an impression of widespread opposition to mayoral control.” The UFT is still pushing this position. McManus urges the people of New York City to resist the union demands.
Where should proponents of subsidiarity come down on this question? It has been my experience that when someone uses subsidiarity to make their case, they are usually calling for greater local control and for getting the heavy hand of big government out of our lives. But, at the risk of repeating myself, Pius XI’s position was that there were times when higher levels of authority are needed, cases where private associations and local levels of government are inadequate for the task.
Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg argued when they were mayors in New York City that corruption and inefficiency had become endemic in local boards of education; that reformers in the mayor’s office had to step in to straighten out the mess by centralizing authority over New York City’s schools.
First Teachers would welcome hearing from those in New York City with informed positions on this matter, including individuals with ties to the United Federation of Teachers who disagree with McManus. Fire away.
On another topic: W.W. writes to comment upon the topic raised in the May 19 edition of First Teachers: i.e., whether opposing President Obama’s policies reflects a racist attitude. The position we took in the column was that, while there are racist elements on the fringe of the American right, the case against the president made in responsible conservative publications has centered on his policies not his race; that the racist charge is ill-founded.
W.W. does not disagree with First Teachers, but adds, “As a collegiate product of the late sixties, I was present on campus when the left ascended to its present position of power. From then until now I have been flabbergasted at the total success of the left to dominate the language and therefore control the dialogue. have never understood why my side so readily and completely surrendered language and therefore dialogue to them.”
W.W. contends: “Traditionalists have agreed to be on defense!” He includes First Teachers in that category: “This hit me anew in reading your fine article. Even those examples you quote which correctly refute the charges of racism, are defensive. Progressives continue their tactic of ignoring our statements and continuing their assault. In turn, we comply by remaining defensive. After 40 plus years of this, why are we always surprised and flummoxed when liberal progressives consistently turn out to be . . . liberal progressives?
“But can you blame them when we consistently play defense? We never disappoint or surprise them. Their tactic works every time! By ‘works’ I mean on those not already committed. Those on the margin.
“Conservatives seem content to demonstrate — mainly to each other — that the arguments of the progressives have not won us over. We act as if that means their arguments fail. But we are not the ones in play. It is the vast, inattentive masses that are at stake. They are the ones the leftists seek to win over. If you have ever seen a ‘man on the street’ interview, they are the people I am talking about. And they tend to repeat left-wing talking points.”
W.W. concludes, “What I find inexplicable is that we never, ever go on offense. For example in all these years of giving African-Americans a free pass on anything they do, from 70 percent plus out of wedlock births, to gang violence etc., I have never heard anyone respond to a member of the media who advances the trumped-up charge of racism by asking if the questioner believes that a black person is incapable of being personally responsible for bad behavior.
“Think of the corner into which this question puts the liberal questioner. The person making the charge of racism against conservatives will never accept that blacks are incapable of being responsible for their behavior. It would be racist on its face to accept that proposition. Once we have secured that admission from the questioner, it will force the discussion to move onto the grounds of merit, not name-calling. This will produce the immediate result of making the progressive interviewer defensive for a change.”
W.W. is not confident that this tactic will change the views of progressives. He does not believe that most of them are “capable of introspection.” But he thinks dialogues “of this sort will begin to sink into the awareness of those who are not committed, unthinking leftists.”
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.
