After more than a year of the pandemic, when Congress and President Biden have passed the American Rescue Plan to help vulnerable Americans and their public schools, Massachusetts Education Commissioner Jeff Riley has threatened to go to the Richard Nixon playbook and withhold funding authorized by Congress. This has drawn the attention of Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren.
from the Boston Herald:
Members of the Massachusetts delegation are pressing state Education Commissioner Jeff Riley not to freeze federal funding to Boston Public Schools, which he threatened to do this week, causing an uproar.
“We fully expect Commissioner Riley to act consistent with Congressional intent and allow this funding to be distributed to Boston Public Schools without delay,” read a Friday joint statement from Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey.
Riley during a Tuesday virtual meeting said he was “extremely concerned” about the Boston School Committee in wake of four resignations in less than a year.
Riley said he is “exploring the possibility” of temporarily freezing about $400 million in Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding that is earmarked for Boston Public Schools.
Boston Public Schools serve a student population that is very diverse, and BPS has long been shorted on the funding its children deserves. The Federal budget, through ESSER funding, is making a positive step to help children in a school system that has long been starved through history. But Gov. Baker’s appointee wants to take steps backwards.
Don’t forget, Jeff Riley works for a Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, with a member who should resign due to bias.
Public schools have an important function beyond mere knowledge about reading and math. They are an important part of creating a citizenry for democracy. Schools can teach students how to participate in civic events, how to register to vote, how to engage in debate. When we see Republicans in other states moving to restrict democracy through onerous new laws to suppress voters (especially voters of color), we should also be vigilant about Republicans in the executive branch of Massachusetts restricting important funding to school districts that serve the children of voters of color. Riley’s threat to starve a majority-minority school district could have long term negative effects for Boston and its democracy. Because, for many families, the public school is primary interaction point with the government, and if children grow up seeing their schools starved for funding, they can get the impression that the government will not respond to their needs and their voices, and cynicism can set in, reducing participation (which is what conservatives want.)
We have a Congressional delegation who are doing the right thing today, letting Riley know he’s going too far. But our Commonwealth, especially in communities like Boston, Holyoke, and Lawrence, needs a better governor than the conservative Charles Baker. A governor whose handpicked appointees will not threaten but support the schools in communities of color.
Hat tip to Tracy Novick on Twitter for finding the article. Follow her on Twitter.
(Post was edited because the Commissioner works for the Board, and does not preside over it.)
Am I missing something (maybe two things)? Why does federal money go through him at all? What is his real beef with the schools? Punishing children because he doesn’t like some of the school board members seems quite the leap of logic.
Some of the money does go through DESE.
The Boston Herald piece cited above is behind a paywall.
I don’t see anything in the thread-starter that summarizes the reasons Mr. Riley cites for holding back federal funding. I see no references to this apparently recent move in any of the other links on the page.
I don’t feel that I have enough information about his role in this issue to form an opinion about it.
So, the most I can tell from it is that a few BPS School Committee members have resigned (and they are appointed by the Mayor, not elected.) Here’s the rest of the info from Herald story:
I agree with Koocher in the article:
“But Koocher said it’s unlikely that Riley will actually do it.
“I can’t imagine that he would withhold federal funds from the Boston school department because of texting concerns on the school committee .. .I saw that as show time,” Koocher said.”
My take is Rielly fired a warning shot at the upper levels of the Boston political scene (Mayor Janey) saying get your act in order. Appoint a full board with members who can act like adults.
So when I see Riley comments compared to the actions Richard Nixon and tied to racist policies, it’s a bit too much for me to buy.
This wouldn’t be an issue if Boston voters had the same sway over their schools that the other 403 school committees in the Conmonwealth have. It’s too bad Glenn didn’t mention that in his otherwise astute analysis of the situation. Even if it’s a bluff, the fact that Reilly can make it is the problem.
Actually, the fact that Boston School Committee is not an elected body just demonstrate how long the committee was dysfunctional. For decades the elected board was so dysfunctional, that everyone agreed to make it appointed. Now, here we are again, a dysfunctional appointed school committee board that can be reformed by reverting back to an elected board. What is it the say about the definition of insanity…?
The cure for democracy is more democracy. The dysfunctional appointed school committee did not cure whatever was wrong with the old school committee.
And a link from Boston.com:
https://www.boston.com/news/education/2021/06/23/mass-education-commissioner-is-extremely-concerned-about-the-boston-school-committee-he-says/
Reilly has also never spent a day in the classroom as an educator and has no idea what we went through. A lot of the pandemic mandates made little sense and prevented districts from having the flexibility to negotiate with their unions on fair reopening strategies.
Revere is 15k per pupil, Cambridge is 32k per pupil, and BPS is 7.5k per pupil. Boston desperately need this money to close those gaps and it pays not just for more teachers and smaller classes but for so many wrap around services that kids need, especially now.
I might my district is on a hiring spree with the money secured by Rep. Clark and President Biden and those vacancies are already starting to get filled. Playing games with BPS’ money interferes with their admins ability to plan and staff for any of the new initiatives they want to pursue with federal funding they were already promised.
Sorry but the “XXX has also never spent a day in the XXX as an XXX and has no idea what we went through” is just a tired canard that should be retired to the junk heap of 20th Century excuses. Recently we’ve all heard that canard from law enforcement, as they are fighting against civilian oversight of police conduct. I know you’re not one of “them” who makes excuses and reject accountability. I’m just trying to keep it real.
I disagree vehemently in this context. I think any administrator worth their salt has actually spent some time as a teacher. It’s a very difficult job and one few outsiders understand how to do. What the ebbs and flows are.
In my ultimate view, I trust that the voters of Boston are wise enough to elect a school committee and maybe we should stop empowering Mayors to appoint hacks to the role to solve this problem. Allowing an unelected appointee to hold BPS, it’s teachers, and the elected mayor hostage is not my idea of accountability. At least democratic accountability.
And race and class do factor into this. A Brookline, Masco, or Cambridge would never have an appointed school committee in the first place and I don’t think Reilly would dare play games with their state funding. This is about the powerful bullying the powerless.
Wow, you made many leaps there. From the post about Rielly to the appointed school committee to racism. I believe you teach history. If not, I know you know the importance of history. I think you should find out why they went from an elected to a appointed (in the late 80’s / early 90’s maybe…I’m a bit foggy on the dates). As I said above, it was dysfunctional at least from the 1960’s. As for making the board appointed as being racist, you need to be reminded that this elected board was used as spring board to racist like Louise Day Hicks and others to further their aims.
I mentioned that in my remarks below. I doubt someone like that could get elected today. It’s also important to note the Bollings and other candidates of color were starting to break through at the same time she got elected. The issue then was not democracy not functioning, but the racial backlash to court mandated busing.
It did not help the cause of integration that the white progressive judges and politicians who favored busing tended to live in all white affluent school districts or send their kids to private schools unaffected by the decision. I favor controlled choice which has worked in my home town of Cambridge and Louisville, and would do a lot to ameliorate inequities between schools in Boston, but this busing alternative has been supported sustained by voters in those communities. This is a big part of the reason they were successfully implemented while Boston’s schools are more segregated today than they were in the 1970’s.
I see no evidence so far that anybody is playing games with BPS money (at least more than they ever do).
I fear I’m still confused about this.
Has Mr. Riley himself claimed that the makeup of the school committee is his reason for threatening to hold back the funding? Has Mr. Riley himself made these threats? Has Mr. Riley himself offered any elaboration of his concerns?
I have to say that so far this strikes me as another of those internal squabbles among political players who are each calling on their personal media sources to spin up a “story” where there isn’t one.
I see nothing here so far that asserts anything more than vague “concerns”. In addition to an absence of rationale, I also see no mention of specific dollar amounts or school systems. I am left with the impression that all this is a media strategy being pursued by various factions within the professional education community to influence future decision making. There’s nothing wrong with that — it’s just not something that strikes me as having any immediate effect one way or the other.
I’m inclined to wait and see what actually happens.
The real inequity in my view is that Reilly wouldn’t even have a stick to wield in any other district. Boston should have an elected school committee like every other city and town in the Commonwealth. Then it falls on the voters to appoint or fire competent people. Bullying the interim mayor to appoint people Reilly wants is the definition of a power grab, one he couldn’t wield in any other district. Our most diverse district serving our poorest students just happens to lack any elected school committee.
I get it was originally a Menino move approved by voters to keep the likes of Louise Day Hicks off the school committee, but the current city council is a diverse and well informed body. I’m sure the elected school committee would be similarly composed if voters were given a chance to weigh in. Marty’s hackish appointments in other departments have been an albatross around the neck of his successor and apparently the schools are no different.
I’m fine with moving back to an elected school committee.
More from dotnews and SHNS:
So, Tom, since Riley is floating the idea of withholding funds to Boston Public Schools, I think it is worth trying to shoot down the idea. The BPS is an arm of the government that, on a daily basis, provides services to one of the most diverse parts of the Commonwealth after a year of pandemic… simply put, the people of color who trust their children with BPS do not need to hear an unelected white guy (nor an elected white guy) threatening to defund their key service.