Howard Eagle's Comments at the Rochester School Budget Hearings

Public Hearing on the Rochester City School District's 2004-05 Budget (April 22, 2004) Comments by Howard J. Eagle <!--break--> <P>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. </p><P> (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). </p><P> 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!!!</p>

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