Over the last year the media have featured one or more major stories each month dealing with school problems. One might even call these problems minor scandals. There have been charges of waste, incompetence, principals without schools to manage, and millions of available dollars unspent while services were being reduced.

This is not the first time in the history of our schools that such a "scandal" - ridden atmosphere has existed. It has happened many times before. For example, in 1961 a number of school "scandals" made the front pages of our newspapers. There was a building repair scandal - repair jobs which had been paid for but not done. There was a photo displayed prominently in the papers of the Mayor watching a rat come out of a classroom closet in P. S. 119 in Harlem. There was the story about the Superintendent of Schools having vocational high school students build a boat for him. And there were other stories.

Today, looking back at all that happened, it would be hard to say whether these incidents justified a change in the Board of Education. But at the time these stories broke, there was a big outcry about the need for change - for reform. The Governor called the legislature into a special session. The "old" board went. A new procedure for selecting school board members was legislated: From then on, the Mayor would have to make his selections from a list of candidates drawn up by a "screening panel."

"New" Board -- And A Few Changes

The "new" Board did away with individual limousines and chauffeurs for Board members (it later instituted a limousine pool). The "new" Board announced that it would put an end to the old patronage system. Board members would no longer appoint professional "secretaries" as assistants. (But in due time the Board members, discovering that without adequate staff they could not properly function, did employ staff assistants.)

In 1969, after many new appointments to the Board, there was again a demand for change. Decentralization of the schools followed. The existing Board was ousted, and a new central Board was created in a new selection procedure.

Whenever a new Board is installed, it feels it must demonstrate that it is different from all the Boards that preceded it, that it is the vehicle of real change. This time the new Board decided that it would not have a permanent set of officers. It adopted a procedure whereby the presidency and vice-presidency were "rotated" as a sign of shared leadership, collective responsibility and participatory democracy.

Last week the New York City Board of Education elected a new president, Stephen Aiello, and a new vice-president, Joseph Barkan. While both bring considerable experience to their new posts, they will need a large measure of public and staff support during this most difficult period. Yet this is as good a time as any to question the practice of "rotation" of leadership for these positions. The Board operates a school system with a budget of $2. 8 billion. Can anyone point to a single corporation, trade union, or non-profit institution which automatically rotates its leadership every year? (One could argue that every high school class has a new president each year. But the president of a high school class is not expected to set policy for the school or make weighty financial decisions each year.)

Confidence In Our Schools Must Be Restored

It is time the Board of Education realized that what the schools of our city need is a leadership that goes far beyond the narrow concept of leadership in which fresh new guidance is provided by a rotated presidency and vice-presidency. The leadership called for must be an enduring, dedicated, creative leadership. Our city is in trouble, but it can survive, and a major key to its survival is the restoration of confidence in our schools. 

Many changes must be made before that goal can be reached. But first the Board must understand, and adopt as policy, that our schools must have lasting, not round-robin, revolving door leadership. Unless the Board acts on that issue, its own survival is questionable.

There is a lesson here for those who again are crying for "reform" and shouting, "Throw out the Board." If there are to be changes, they should not be repeats of the past. We don't need change for the sake of change, as in the past. If there is to be an overhaul of our schools, let's make sure it will mean improvement, not just reshuffling.