Public not welcome at PA meetings, per Chancellor
Insideschools.org has learned about an overlooked bit of bureaucrat-ese that deserves wide exposure — and considerable challenge as well, especially given the Chancellor’s recent endorsement of parent involvement — see powertotheparents.org – and his administration’s long record of shutting down similar channels under the guise of school reform and restructuring.
Chancellor’s Regulation 660 prohibits ordinary public citizens, not to mention their elected representatives, members of the wider community, and advocates of every stripe, from attending Parent Association meetings unless express permission for their visit has been granted by a prior vote of the entire PA . That’s right: The whole parent association should approve any potential guests or speakers ahead of scheduled PA meetings. Here’s a snippet from the reg, and a link to a pdf of the whole text (see page 54, II D for the section below).
“Other than the principal or his/her designee, outside observers and speakers are prohibited from attending unless the PA bylaws specifically allow attendance by invitation of the association after the vote. A PA must vote to invite an outside speaker for a specific purpose at a particular meeting.”
What this would mean, in practice, is that attendance at PA meetings would be strictly and completely controlled by the PA itself, excluding any and all outside observers, including prospective parents, expert speakers, consultants and others interested in the city’s schools. It means that you, as a parent, can’t drop in on a PA meeting at a school you’re considering for your child, because you’re not yet part of that school community. Any guests or speakers must be approved by prior vote, after which an invitation may (or may not) be extended. This doesn’t seem, on face value, like a strategy that’s designed to increase parent participation. This seems the total opposite, a directive that’s designed to stifle communication and profoundly inhibit dialogue.
Whether the regulation violates state education law, Section 414(1)(c) which permits public access to school property that’s used for “social, civic, and recreational meetings” is, as the wonks say, above my pay grade. (But worry not, the NYCLU is learning more about the regulation, too. ) And whether Parent Associations will actually bar speakers and uninvited public from their meetings seems highly debatable. One activist PA president listed more than 25 guests and speakers who have enriched school meetings this year alone — and invited the Chancellor to fire him for violating the regulation.
The core question: What is the DOE trying to prevent, in this regulation? And following on that, if the DOE and Chancellor Klein actually intend to increase the voice of parent-stakeholders in school reform — as they say they do — how does shutting people out of public meetings achieve that purpose?
Subscribe to 
I think it is a good idea to have the flexibility of allowing guests and speakers at PA meetings without having to obtain special invitation or approval. Having special guest speakers on topics which are pertinent to a school’s community may motivate a greater number of parents to attend the PA meetings and become more informed and involved in their school matters. On another note, it is also important to have a better control system for PAs, where the PA Exec board should not have the liberty to infringe upon the rights of certain students and their parents in the school community without facing the consequences. A PA Exec board with the mindset that they are powerful enough to dictate the demographics and curriculum in their school serves to highlight their view of self importance, and this only creates a lot of division among the parents in the school and a poor social environment.
Comment by a parent — February 25, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
This is a step down a slippery slope and no way of getting up.
This would mean that even CEC members cannot attend PTA meetings w/o prior approval.
Comment by Dad — February 26, 2009 @ 10:11 am
The new Chancellor’s regulation A 660 governing PA and PTAs is typical of the Bloomberg administration’s attempt to marginalize parents and tightly script our role in the education of our children. The reg follows the heavily top-down approach typical of the administration with many ridiculous rules and unfunded mandates forced upon PTAs. This regulation should lay out a basic framework for how PTAs should function and how the principal and district superintendent should interact with PTAs. Instead we are provided and enless set of patronizing rules with OFEA (Office of Family Engagement and Advocacy) doing little advocacy and much policing.
Comment by Patrick J. Sullivan — February 28, 2009 @ 8:20 am
While precluding the appearance of local politicians (and even CEC members) may be a “fringe benefit”, the real point of the “model bylaw” is the exclusion of the press from PTA meetings - especially where parents might be critical of Tweed.
This is not merely hypothetical. I know of one instance where a reporter from the Courier-Life publications was barred by New York City Police from attending a PTA meeting in Red Hook a few years ago which was called to discuss the possible arrival of a charter school in the school building.
All of this is part of Tweed’s comprehensive campaign to control the message coming out of our public schools. It is fundamentally undemocratic and inimical to all principles of transparency. To paraphrase Ronald Regan, “Mr. Klein, tear down this wall!”
Comment by Jim Devor — February 28, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Does the reg bar teachers from that school without express permission of the PA?
Comment by Jonathan — February 28, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
To my best understanding, Jonathan, yes,the reg bars teachers unless they’ve received prior permission to attend (assuming the PA enforces the reg, which is debatable). Jim, the issue you raise re: the press is real and wholly pertinent - the regulation could be used to exclude press from PA meetings. Both you and Patrick (Sullivan) make legitimate points about top-down PR spin that seems, sadly, a DOE reflex — and as “Dad” says, a precarious step onto a very slippery slope.
Comment by Helen — March 2, 2009 @ 3:04 am