Howard Eagle's Comments at the Rochester School Budget Hearings
Primary tabs
Public Hearing on the Rochester City School District's 2004-05 Budget (April 22, 2004)
Comments by Howard J. Eagle
First, I would like to make it clear that I am not here this evening in the
capacity of a Rochester City School District employee. Indeed, I am speaking
as a tax paying, concerned parent, and community activist. It has been years
since I've bothered to speak at this type of event, or really, spectacle. The
whole process makes public mockery of the idea of meaningful input from
students, parents, and community members. We know that this is just a matter
of going through the motions --- because the law dictates that you must do so,
but apparently, after all these years, you still don't care about genuinely
attempting to develop a process that at least has some semblance of integrity.
How could anyone be expected to comment in an intelligent fashion regarding a
budget that they are not even privileged to see --- much less study? Even
Board members, who presumably are studying the budget --- don't understand
much of that which has been presented to them. This point was made crystal
clear by observing the Budget Finance Committee's so-called deliberations this
past Tuesday evening. Some of the questions that Board members asked during
the so-called deliberations were remarkable, and some of the answers that were
given, were even more remarkable. One outstanding example of this was reported
in the newspaper the next morning. One Board member had asked, if there is an
alternative plan in the event that the district receives more than enough
money to close the current, reportedly $29.1 million budget hole, which is
referred to as a "gap." The response that came forth was that there might be a
need to close another school or two, and cut back on plans to expand some
programs.
(Ben's note: Here Eagle's time expired and he was asked to stop. At this point Eagle asked the crowd - who he referred to as the School Boards bosses - if he could be allowed to finish his speech. Despite being cheered on, he was not allowed to continue).
Now clearly, one does not have to be an English major or even a critical or
analytical thinker --- to understand that the response is not an answer to the
question that was asked. Yet the question was just left hanging --- no
follow-up question; no further explanation, and I guess that, those of us who
were sitting there listening, including the newspaper reporter, were not
supposed to pick up on that. There were many other unanswered and
half-answered questions during the almost comical, so-called, budget
deliberations. In fact, so many questions were left unanswered that the
Chairperson of the Committee made a unilateral decision that the answers could
be submitted by way of written explanations. We can only assume that such
written explanations will be produced, and will somehow help to inform the
decision-making process of the Board, but like this ghostly budget, those are
explanations that apparently, you and I will never see --- at least not until
after the fact --- that is, after the Board votes on the ghostly budget.
Speaking of ghost, there is a conscious, illusionary attempt being made to
convince the community that parents have had meaningful input as it relates to
shaping this evasive budget. However, I have spoken with at least two parents
who supposedly participated in an advisory capacity, and they clearly
expressed beliefs that there is no concrete evidence that anyone has taken
their budgetary advice seriously. Of course they can't really be certain ---
because like the overwhelming majority of the community, as the news paper
pointed out this morning, your bosses --- they also haven't seen the
mysterious, evasive, ghostly, $575.8 million budgetary document. The way that
parents are being treated in this totally illegitimate, potentially corrupt
process --- reminds me of a speech by Malcolm X, in which he pointed out that
if a person is invited to dinner, but when the person arrives for dinner,
there is nothing on their plate --- then just because he or she is sitting at
the table with an empty plate --- this doesn't make the person a diner. So, if
such a person was hungry when they arrived for dinner, and during dinner they
are given nothing but an empty plate, and not allowed to dine --- then they
will also be hungry when they leave. Another way of viewing this is that if I
have no electricity in my home, and you have promised me light --- so you
bring a lamp to my home; plug it in and turn on the switch --- I am still in
the dark --- because there is no electricity. Yet, you would be able to make
the distorted claim that you have provided light. There seems to be a real
possibility that you have invited parents to dinner and given them an empty
plate; that you have indeed promised parents light, but left them in the dark.
Other outstanding and amazing contradictions include the fact that, even after
proposing a $23.3 million cut in services to students --- there is reportedly
a $29.1 million budget gap --- yet Administration has been able to settle
Contractual Negotiations and Agreements with all five district employee
unions. This means that even in the face of more than $23 million in cuts and
a nearly $30 million budget gap --- if the proposed budget is adopted by the
Board --- over the next two years, every employee in the RCSD will receive
raises (with of course the exception of, according to media reports, the 187
persons or positions --- most of which are reportedly Para-professionals, but
also about 40 teaching positions). Yet, we are supposed to believe (because
apparently someone has a "voodoo" budgetary "mojo" working) that under these
conditions and circumstances --- class-sizes are going to be kept low or
reduced even lower than they currently are. It's not necessary for a person to
possess expertise in budgetary science or budgetary policy in order to
understand that something is seriously wrong with these types of calculations.
Some community members are left wondering if perhaps Mr. Marini and others at
Central Office are utilizing the same type of so-called "new math" approach
that's being experimented with in classrooms. If so, and if it allows you to
do the kind of numerical magic that has been reported by the media --- then we
probably should abandon that particular approach. Otherwise, there's a strong
possibility that our students will graduate with a grandiose idea that they
can use the "new-math" approach to balance their household budgets, and surely
they will find themselves in a lot of financial trouble --- just as this
school district is in, and has been in for decades. It is also important for
you to understand that many community members are not buying the
unsubstantiated theory, which is being advanced regarding so-called declining
enrollment --- mysterious, out-of-the-clear-blue-sky projections of the loss
of 3,000 to 5,000 students over the next 5 years, or the loss of 10,000
students over the next 10 years. Again, many of us are wondering if these
mysterious numbers are a result of the "new-math" approach. The numbers just
don't square with the reality that we see within the community. An important
part of what we see is that people within our community seem to be producing
more children than ever before --- in fact, at younger and younger ages.
Surely, most of those children won't be attending private, parochial or
suburban schools. Some of us would love to have a community conversation with
you about your projections regarding so-called declining enrollment. Lastly,
as it relates to the rationale underlying proposed school closings --- there
are some very serious and outstanding contradictions. I have already mentioned
one such contradiction --- that is, the potential myth and/or miscalculations
regarding declining enrollment. It has been reported by the media that in
addition to so-called declining numbers and smaller populations, part of the
reasoning behind proposals to close schools and programs such as #36, Lofton
and the Clinton Avenue Learning Center is the idea that such schools and
programs are inefficient and too costly. It is very important for you to
realize that because a school or educational environment is small and/or
costly --- does not necessarily mean that it is inefficient. When you consider
the worth or efficiency of small school settings or environments, it is
critical to look at so-called "soft" data, a term, by the way, which the
social science professor on the Board directed you last Tuesday evening to
stop using. He mentioned to you that use of the terms "qualitative data" is
much more appropriate than the use of so-called "soft" data, but no matter
what you call it --- it's truly amazing how in some cases you place such great
emphasis on this particular type of data, and in other cases --- you have a
tendency to ignore it altogether. For example, it is most interesting that
students, parents and community members who came before you pleading, and in
some cases, literally crying during the last so-called Public Hearing --- in
attempts to convince you not to close down schools and programs, which
directly impact their educational lives --- were using terms to refer to their
schools and programs such as "close-knit, family, supportive" etc. Certainly,
these are terms associated with soft or qualitative data. In addition to this,
we know that, if not Board members (other than the social science professor),
surely the Superintendent is aware of the absolute fact that mounds of both
qualitative and quantitative data clearly shows that smaller, more intimate,
more personal school settings and environments generally have much greater
academic success than huge, sprawling, overcrowded settings, especially where
1st through 12th grades are concerned, and particularly as it relates to urban
settings. One does not have to be a social scientist to know and understand
this. However, there is literally an enormous body of conclusive research that
supports this reality. In fact, the first time that the current Superintendent
held the same position that he holds now --- development of smaller school
units, and schools within schools --- seemed to be one of his fundamental
goals. Now, about 10 years later --- we are moving in the opposite direction
--- moving against the grain of clear research, and as usual, Board members
seem to be following blindly --- instead of leading. This is just one example of the reason why the RCSD is in dire need of new, visionary, bold, uncontrolled, knowledgeable leadership!!!