Let's face it. Mayoral control is a done deal. A major reason we have it is that Randi Weingarten supported it in the first place, and never changed her tune. When the New York Post encourages you to give your last blessing to mayoral control before you pass on to the AFT presidency, you know you've sold out big time.
I've opposed mayoral control from the beginning, and I still do. I know that Randi initially supported it because she wanted a good contract and mistakenly thought she'd get someone like Bill Thompson in there who she might be able to manipulate. Mayor Moneybags, however, threw a monkey wrench in those plans when he decided that the will of the people who twice voted for term limits just didn't apply to rich fellows like him.
The point is, I am opposed to mayoral control, period. It doesn't matter whether it's Bloomie or Thompson or anyone else. No one should have that kind of power over the schools because if they mess it up even for one mayoral term, it will affect children for many, many years. When you get tyrannical screw-ups like Bloomberg and Klein running things, it's disastrous. Even Obama has to bow to checks and balances--it is the foundation of our society. But not in NY.
So, the question is, where are you on this issue? Are you opposed to mayoral control, or just to Bloomberg having it?
No comments:
Post a Comment