Parsing the mayoral control debate

While most of the New York City political world is transfixed by the scandals embroiling Mayor Bill de Blasio, there is an important debate happening at the state level that threatens to upend education policy for city public school students – whether to grant de Blasio an extension of mayoral control over district schools.

The initial hearing that de Blasio attended in Albany before the Senate’s Education Committee was not so much a comprehensive evaluation of the policy as it was a grandstanding opportunity for Senate Republicans to grill the mayor about the investigations into his campaign finance activities. The mayor responded by refusing to attend Thursday’s follow-up hearing in Albany, sending Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña in his stead.

While mayoral control seems to be a perennial debate in New York, it frequently seems to boil down to the length of the extension rather than the efficacy of the policy. For instance, charter school advocates had no issue with mayoral control when the charter-friendly Michael Bloomberg was running the show, but have used the looming expiration of mayoral control to lambast de Blasio, who has been less accommodating to their needs.

In an attempt to cut through the pitched rhetoric for or against mayoral control and get a sense of where things stand, I reached out to Chalkbeat reporter Monica Disare, who has been following the debate extensively.

Check out our discussion below.

Nick Powell: Much of the discussion around mayoral control today seems to be more focused on Mayor de Blasio’s absence from the second hearing on the topic on Thursday than the overall efficacy of the policy. Does de Blasio skipping this hearing really matter in the grand scheme of the debate, especially with Carmen Fariña in attendance?

Monica Disare: Most people argue that mayoral control will be renewed for some length of time but how long is still up in the air. De Blasio wants a three-year extension and last year was only granted one. Could lawmakers choose to renew it for only one year again? Yes, they could. Could his absence today nudge lawmakers in that direction? It's possible.

NP: As you’ve reported on the mayoral control debate, what have you found to be the most prevalent criticism against renewing it? Conversely, what is the prevailing argument in its favor?

MD: Generally, critics are not against mayoral control as a governing structure. Instead they question de Blasio's education record and wonder whether he is the right person to be in charge of city schools. The main argument in favor is that mayoral control makes it possible to spearhead big, citywide education projects.

NP: How much does de Blasio approaching an election year in 2017 factor into the length of a mayoral control extension? Is there a sense that state lawmakers would not want to guarantee mayoral control beyond one or two years because there is a chance he won’t be re-elected?

MD: Some lawmakers have asked whether it makes sense to renew mayoral control for a long time with an election coming up. But more often they are evaluating de Blasio's job running the school system, which signals to me the decision has more to do with de Blasio's record than concerns he won't be re-elected.

NP: Has anybody on the state level presented an alternative to mayoral control? Seems like even Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan is wary of going back to a board governing structure, so would they rather leave it in the hands of Fariña or another bureaucrat?

MD: You're right, even Flanagan has said he's wary of going back to a board governing structure. I'm not aware of anyone at the state level who has presented a viable alternative to mayoral control. It's the main reason most people think there's very little chance the legislature won't renew it for some period of time.