Table Of ContentFIELD HEARING ON THE OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT
[OERI]
Y 4, ED 8/1:103-18
Field Hearing on the Office of Educ...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION
AND CIVIL RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
HEARING HELD IN NEW YORK, NY, MARCH 8, 1993
Serial No. 103-18
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
OC
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-651±5 WASHINGTON 1993
:
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington.DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041296-X
FIELD HEARING ON THE OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT
[OERI]
Y 4. ED 8/1:103-18
Field Hearin§ on the Office of Educ. . .
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION
AND CIVIL RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
HEARING HELD IN NEW YORK, NY, MARCH 8, 1993
Serial No. 103-18
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Cr
'• ', ,
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-651±5 WASHINGTON : 1993
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041296-X
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan, Chairman
WGIELOLRIGAEMM(IBLILLELRI,CLCAaYli,foMrinsisaouri TWIHLOLMIAASMEF..PGEOTORDI,LIWNiGs,conPseinnnsylvania
AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey SUSAN MOLINARI, New York
JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California
JACK REED, Rhode Island PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan
TIM ROEMER, Indiana HOWARD "BUCK" McKEON, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DAN MILLER, Florida
XAVIER BECERRA, California
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
GENE GREEN, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO,
Puerto Rico
RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
RENOINFD.EH.LFUGAOL,EOVMirAgVinAEIsGlAan,ds ' '. ^
American Samoa
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
Patricia F. Rissler, StaffDirector
Jay Eagen, Minority StaffDirector
Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York, Chairman
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearingheld in New York, NY, March 8, 1993 1
Statement of:
Connell, Noreen, Executive Director ofEducational Priorities Panel, New
NY
York, 26
HoNltYzman, Hon. Elizabeth, Comptroller, City of New York; New York,
13
JohBnosaornd,ofArEgdiuecatKi.o,n,DeBpruootkylyCnh,anNcYellor of Instruction, New York City 45
Law, Bob, Director, Respect YourselfYouth Organization, Member ofthe
Board, Education ofPeople ofAfrican Ancestry, NewYork, NY 62
LitBoowa,rdStoafnEldeuycaSt.i,onD,epBruotoyklCyhna,ncNeYllor for Operations, New York City 4
Sanford, Adelaide, New York State Regents, New York State Board of
NY
Regents, Albany, 69
StaSncchioko,lEDdi,stSripcetc,iaNleCwomYmoirsks,iNonYerofInvestigation forthe New York City 22
Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera:
Connell, Noreen, Executive Director ofEducational Priorities Panel, New
York, NY, prepared statement of 31
Holtzman, Hon. Elizabeth, Comptroller, City of New York; New York,
NY, prepared statement of 17
Johnson, Argie K., Deputy Chancellor of Instruction, New York City
Board ofEducation, Brooklyn, NY, prepared statement of 49
Law, Bob, Director, Respect YourselfYouth Organization, Member ofthe
Board, Education of People of African Ancestry, New York, NY, pre-
pared statement of 66
Owens, Hon. Major R., a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, prepared statement of 3
Payne, Hon. Donald M., a Representative in Congress from the State of
NewJersey, prepared statement of 8
Stancik, Edward F. Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New
York City School District, prepared statement of 25
(III)
<9
FIELD HEARING ON THE OFFICE OF EDUCA-
TIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT
[OERI]
MONDAY. MARCH 8, 1993
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights,
Committee on Education and Labor,
New York, NY.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., Room 305A-
B-C, Federal Building Courthouse, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,
New York, Hon. Major R. Owens, Chairman, presiding.
Members present: Representatives Owens and Payne.
Staff present: Maria Cuprill, Wanser Green, Laurence Peters.
Chairman Owens. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Select
Education and Civil Rights will come to order.
Today we are here to examine two recurring problems in the
New York City school system.
Education, like all other functions in our complex modern socie-
ty, can greatly benefit from the scientific approach to problem-solv-
ing. Research and development for the purpose of improving educa-
tion, which is under the oversight responsibility of this committee,
is as vital as research and development in the areas of defense, ag-
riculture, commerce or health. Systematic investigation and study,
along with controlled experimentation and adequate funding for
demonstration projects, is both appropriate and highly desirable for
the resolution ofany problem related to education.
This hearing will focus on two widespread, recurring problems
which could greatly benefit from increased Federal attention and
resources. Problem one: Mismanagement, corruption and waste in
non-instructional educational services results from failures in gov-
ernance and management. When governors, mayors and school
boards fail to use their policymaking and their oversight powers or
when they misapply or squander these powers, they victimize the
children and teachers in the classrooms.
In New York City, for several decades, there has been wide-
spread discussion of abuses related to the custodian contracts, the
bus transportation services and the purchasing practices author-
ized by the Board of Education. To date, no governmental body has
acted decisively to eliminate this systematic stealing from the chil-
dren of New York City.
Legislation proposed by this Subcommittee on Select Education
and Civil Rights advocates the creation of an Institute for Govern-
ance and Management within the Office of Educational Research
(1)
and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. This Insti-
tute would provide Federal assistance to school boards, chancellors,
superintendents, parent bodies and others concerned with educa-
tional policymaking and management as it relates to schools and
school systems. One clear goal of the Institute would be the provi-
sion of Federal assistance for those seeking to eliminate practices
which drain resources from the all important instructional compo-
nent of local education agencies.
Problem number two which will be the subject for the second
panel is: Incompetence and blundering in curriculum development.
This is related to the agenda proposed for an Institute for the Edu-
cation ofAt-Risk Students.
Among the activities authorized for this Institute would be Fed-
eral support for curriculum development which improves student
performance and eliminates high drop-out rates in inner city
schools. Large numbers of African-American educators and other
leaders are advocating a curriculum of inclusion or a multicultural
curriculum or ethnocentric curriculum to combat the problems of
low self-esteem and low sense of self-worth among failing students.
It is generally recognized that motivation constitutes more than
half of the educational process. It is also universally recognized
that students with deficiencies in perceptions of their self-worth
are seldom motivated to learn.
If these truths are self-evident, then the questions which cry out
loudly for an answer are: Why have educators been so reluctant to
develop such motivating curricula? What are the obstacles? Has
racism among educators created an insurmountable barrier? Is the
slowness in the development ofsuch curricula due to a lack oftech-
nical competence? Is a curriculum of inclusion considered a frill, a
luxury or is it a vital necessity? Does the absence of a curriculum
of inclusion constitute miseducation or gross negligence? In order
to overcome some of the obstacles to more creative curriculum de-
velopment, is there a role for the Federal Government?
These are a few of the questions which an Institute for the Edu-
cation of At-Risk Students will seek to answer. Across the Nation
from Portland, Oregon to Omaha, Nebraska and the entire State of
California there are examples of attempts to grapple with these
questions.
In New York City, the Rainbow Curriculum has generated a tre-
mendous amount of heat over the past few months. For the benefit
of all concerned, and in order to refine the proposed legislation, the
New York City curriculum development process should be closely
examined. Local newspapers have charged that there was a consid-
erable amount of incompetence and blundering in the production of
the Rainbow Curriculum.
Of still greater importance is the question of delay and tardiness.
Why has the school system serving the largest number of African
American students in the Nation and also serving the most diverse
student body in the Nation taken so long to issue its first multicul-
tural curriculum guideline?
The mission statement of the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement clearly indicates that its primary concern is the edu-
cation of poor students like the majority ofthe students who attend
New York City schools. Today's hearing in the City of New York
will greatly enhance the efforts ofthe Subcommittee on Select Edu-
cation and Civil Rights to strengthen the operations of this vital
component ofthe U.S. Department of Education.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Major R. Owens follows:]
Statement of Hon. Major R. Owens, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York
Education, like all other functions in our complex modern society, can greatly
benefit from the scientific approach to problem-solving. Research and development
for the purpose of improving education is as vital as research and development in
the areas of defense, agriculture, commerce and health. Systematic investigation
and study along with controlled experimentation and adequate funding for demon-
stration projects is both appropriate and highly desirable for the resolution of any
problem related to education.
This hearing will focus on two widespread, recurring problems which could great-
ly benefit from increased Federal attention and resources. Problem one: Mismanage-
ment, corruption and waste in non-instructional educational services results from
failures in governance and management. When governors, mayors and school boards
fail to use their policymaking and their oversight powers; or when they misapply or
squander these powers they victimize the children and teachers in the classrooms.
In New York City, for several decades, there has been widespread discussion of
abuses related to the custodian contracts, the bus transportation services and the
purchasing practices authorized by the Board ofEducation. To date, no governmen-
tal body has acted decisively to eliminate this systematic stealing from the children
ofNew York City.
Legislation proposed by this Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights
advocates the creation of an Institute for Governance and Management within the
Office ofEducational Research and Improvement ofthe U.S. Department ofEduca-
tion. This Institute would provide Federal assistance to school boards, chancellors,
superintendents, parent bodies and others concerned with educational policymaking
and management as it relates to schools and school systems. One clear goal ofthe
Institute would be the provision ofFederal assistance for those seeking to eliminate
practices which drain resources from the all important instructional components of
local education agencies.
Problem number two: Incompetence and blundering in curriculum development is
related to the agenda proposed for an Institute for the Education of At-Risk Stu-
dents. Among the activities authorized for this Institute would be Federal support
for curriculum development which improves student performance and eliminates
high drop-out rates in inner city schools. Large numbers ofAfrican-American educa-
tors and other leaders are advocating a curriculum of inclusion or a multicultural
curriculum or an ethnic-centric curriculum to combat the problems of low self-
esteem and a low sense of self-worth among failing students. It is generally recog-
nized that motivation constitutes more than half of the educational process. It is
also universally recognized that students with deficiencies in perceptions of their
self-worth are seldom motivated to learn.
If these truths are self-evident, then the question which cries out loudly for an
answer is: Why have educators been so reluctant to develop such motivating curric-
ula? What are the obstacles? Has racism among educators created an insurmount-
able barrier? Is the slowness in the development ofsuch curricula due to a lack of
technical competence? Is a curriculum ofinclusion considered a frill, a luxury or is
it a vital necessity? Does the absence ofa curriculum ofinclusion constitute misedu-
cation or gross negligence? In order to overcome some ofthe obstacles to more cre-
ative curriculum development, is there a role forthe Federal Government?
These are a few ofthe questions which an Institute for the Education ofAt-Risk
Students will seek to answer. Across the Nation from Portland, Oregon to Omaha,
Nebraska and the entire State ofCalifornia there are examples ofattempts to grap-
ple with these questions. In New York City, the "Rainbow Curriculum" hasgenerat-
ed a tremendous amount of heat over the past few months. For the benefit of all
concerned, and in order to refine the proposed legislation, the New York City cur-
riculum development process should be closely examined. Local newspapers have
charged that there was a considerable amount of incompetence and blundering in
the production of the "Rainbow Curriculum." Of still greater importance is the
question ofdelay and tardiness.
Why has the school system serving the largest number of African-American stu-
dents in the Nation, and also serving the most diverse student body in the Nation,
taken so longto issue its first multicultural curriculum guideline?
The mission statement of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
clearly indicates that its primary concern is the education ofpoor students like the
majority ofthe students who attend New York City schools. Today's hearing in the
City of New York will greatly enhance the efforts of the Subcommittee on Select
Education and Civil Rights to strengthen the operations of this vital component of
the U.S. Department ofEducation.
Chairman Owens. For our opening panel, I'm pleased to welcome
Mr. Stanley Litow, the Deputy Chancellor for the New York City
Board of Education. Since Mr. Litow has a time problem, we'll take
his testimony first.
In addition to Mr. Litow, other witnesses for this panel include
Mr. Ed Stancik, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the
New York City School District.
Mr. Litow, we will take your testimony and ask you a few ques-
tions ifyou have time. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY S. LITOW, DEPUTY CHANCELLOR FOR
OPERATIONS, NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BROOK-
LYN, NEW YORK
Mr. Litow. Thank you very much, Congressman Owens. Thank
you for giving us this opportunity to discuss the management and
operations of the New York City public schools.
I've had an opportunity to review the draft of the legislation and
it certainly would go a long way toward providing information and
dissemination of good practice around the school systems of this
country.
New York City's public school system is by far the largest public
school system in America. We are 300,000 students; larger than
number two, Los Angeles. We have 1,000,000 pupils. We have
125,000 staff. We have 1,000 buildings.
To give you some sense of size, scope and problems, we have over
150,000 youngsters in the New York City public schools who are
limited English proficient and 50,000 of them are limited English
proficient in other than Spanish. We have received 125,000 new im-
migrant students in the New York City public schools just over the
last 3 years and have not received one additional dollar in terms of
emergency immigration assistance from the Federal Government.
The $4.5 million that we have received this year and last year is
the exact same sum of money that we received the year before and
the year before that.
The structure that the Chancellor inherited when he got here in
1990 was developed for the Board of Education by the Economic
Development Council, a business group that presented that struc-
ture in the year 1974. It was far too top-down. It had too many
layers. It had 5,259 funded central head count positions and it had
an administrative structure that cushioned decision-makers from
the activities that took—place in the field.
We currently spend to give you a sense of how important it—is
to spend as little as possible administering the school system
$1,300 less than the statewide average to educate our children in
the New York City public schools. That means it would take $1,300
per pupil or $1.3 billion just for us to rank 350th in the State in
