(From The New York Times, January 7, 2010)
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday proposed a host of changes in state education law, including eliminating the cap on the number of charter schools, which he said would make the state more likely to receive $700 million in federal grant money.
The governor’s bill would also repeal a 2008 law that banned the use of standardized test scores in tenure decisions, as well as give the state the ability to pay for charter school construction and allow the state to take over low-performing schools.
The Obama administration has offered a total of $4 billion in so-called Race to the Top grants to states that show the most progress in education reform. Aides to the governor said that he had spoken with Education Secretary Arne Duncan in recent weeks and was convinced that the changes he proposed on Thursday were necessary to qualify for a slice of the fund. New York is estimated to be eligible for up to $700 million.
The current law caps charter schools, which are privately run but publicly funded, at 200, and officials expect to reach the cap in a matter of months. The law also limits the use of state money for charter school construction, forcing the schools to raise millions on their own.
The State Legislature has just days to pass the bill — the application for the first round of federal grants is due on Jan. 19, and the governor has said that the law would have to be passed five days earlier in order to be signed into law.
“Our children, our schools and the economy of the State of New York cannot afford to wait for the Legislature to implement these changes,” Mr. Paterson said in a statement. “The money received will benefit all of our children, not just those who attend charter schools.”
Many of the proposals are similar to those championed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and are seen as anathema by teachers’ unions. Most charter school teachers are not union members, and in New York City, where most charters are located, their growth has coincided with a decrease in the number of students attending regular public schools, whose teachers are union members. The unions have also fought the use of test scores in tenure decisions, saying they were an unfair gauge of ability and would turn classrooms into test-preparation mills.
Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, the city teachers’ union, said on Thursday that he would fight any increase in the cap on charter schools without other major changes to the law, including more oversight of school spending and charter school admissions policies.
His union has complained that charter schools draw away the most talented students, leaving the neediest ones for traditional public schools.
Malcolm A. Smith, a Democrat and president of the State Senate, said he would support many of the governor’s proposals, but Sheldon Silver, the leader of the Democratic-controlled Assembly, seemed far more tepid about the proposals; a spokeswoman said only that he would review them.
“We all recognize that this in an important issue of resources,” Mr. Smith said, adding that he was confident that the Senate would vote on legislation within the next week.
With the state facing a deep budget gap, money might prove to be a driving force. On Thursday, the city schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, announced that schools would lose 1 percent of their budget and that the central administrative office would cut 5 percent of its work force.
For the past several months, states have scrambled to make changes to their education laws in an effort to make them more likely to receive the money. Several observers have expressed skepticism that New York would be able to act swiftly and forcefully enough to win the competition early this spring. Another round of funding is expected to be distributed later in the year.
Joe Williams, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform, who has been critical of the state, said that it was an “important sign” that the governor had begun to make some changes, but added that many of them were what “we’ve always considered low-hanging fruit.”
“I think we’re at a time when the State Legislature can’t afford the possibility to overlook $700 million,” Mr. Williams said.