Should Urban Mayors Control School Boards?
Stuart Nachbar
February 09, 2009
This past weekend the New York Times reported that New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein opposed changes in state laws that would weaken mayoral control of schools. The story is at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/education/07klein.html?ref=nyregion.
New York is not the only city where mayors have tried to change school boards from publicly elected officials to mayoral appointees, but it is one of the cities where the mayor has been successful and remains a popular public official, so popular that his city council has voted to allow him to run for a third term as an independent candidate.
Which goes to the main ingredient for successful mayoral control: the mayor must be overwhelmingly popular with the voters. More likely, he will have already faced one successful re-election campaign, so he'll believe, and rightfully so, that he has the public trust. He'll also believe that he is ready to take on new risks, including the possibility that he can be blamed for the failures of the schools.
There are some advantages to mayoral control, the two most important being that the mayor has control over the schools budget and, that he is more likely to have connections with key contacts in the state legislature and Washington D.C. than his superintendent of schools. He can also consolidate non-educational services, such as transportation, building maintenance and security into the budgets of other city agencies. Not to mention, a mayor negotiates many labor contracts.And if the voters are dissatisfied with the schools, they have a more visible target to blame. They can vote the mayor out of office or demand a recall, if election laws permit it.
There are disadvantages, of course. First, mayors are usually term-limited. Michael Bloomburg will get another shot in New York, but other cities will limit a mayor to two terms. A popular mayor can be succeeded by someone who wants to undo his agenda--and that certainly includes schools. A new mayor not only means a new school board, but also a new superintendent, whether the voters wanted it or not. School board appointees from the previous administration are likely to be dismissed for purely political reasons, even if they are popular with the public.
Another issue is academics: mayors are usually not educators. They might be aware of desires for academic standards, including testing, and might even be ardent supporters. But they are putting their careers at risk when they choose an aggressive superintendent. A secure mayor like Bloomburg does not have this problem, but an insecure one may lean towards a superintendent who might be a fine educator, but is more likely to be a weak public figure or a "yes man."
The last concern is accountability for the individual child. In a suburban community, parents can go to the school board when they have an issue involving their children that cannot be resolved at the school level.
For example, it is not uncommon for parents to ask school boards to pay for special education at a private school when they, in consultation with an expert, believe that the public schools offer an inadequate learning environment. School board members who are subject to the whims of the voters could go on the side of fiscal stability--it will break the budget if we send every unhappy parent's child to a private school--or sympathy.
A school board member who is a political appointee is more likely to be swayed by neither, but he will be less empowered. Unless the smart mayor realizes the importance of customer service in his school system.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on thought and fiction in education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com
New York is not the only city where mayors have tried to change school boards from publicly elected officials to mayoral appointees, but it is one of the cities where the mayor has been successful and remains a popular public official, so popular that his city council has voted to allow him to run for a third term as an independent candidate.
Which goes to the main ingredient for successful mayoral control: the mayor must be overwhelmingly popular with the voters. More likely, he will have already faced one successful re-election campaign, so he'll believe, and rightfully so, that he has the public trust. He'll also believe that he is ready to take on new risks, including the possibility that he can be blamed for the failures of the schools.
There are some advantages to mayoral control, the two most important being that the mayor has control over the schools budget and, that he is more likely to have connections with key contacts in the state legislature and Washington D.C. than his superintendent of schools. He can also consolidate non-educational services, such as transportation, building maintenance and security into the budgets of other city agencies. Not to mention, a mayor negotiates many labor contracts.And if the voters are dissatisfied with the schools, they have a more visible target to blame. They can vote the mayor out of office or demand a recall, if election laws permit it.
There are disadvantages, of course. First, mayors are usually term-limited. Michael Bloomburg will get another shot in New York, but other cities will limit a mayor to two terms. A popular mayor can be succeeded by someone who wants to undo his agenda--and that certainly includes schools. A new mayor not only means a new school board, but also a new superintendent, whether the voters wanted it or not. School board appointees from the previous administration are likely to be dismissed for purely political reasons, even if they are popular with the public.
Another issue is academics: mayors are usually not educators. They might be aware of desires for academic standards, including testing, and might even be ardent supporters. But they are putting their careers at risk when they choose an aggressive superintendent. A secure mayor like Bloomburg does not have this problem, but an insecure one may lean towards a superintendent who might be a fine educator, but is more likely to be a weak public figure or a "yes man."
The last concern is accountability for the individual child. In a suburban community, parents can go to the school board when they have an issue involving their children that cannot be resolved at the school level.
For example, it is not uncommon for parents to ask school boards to pay for special education at a private school when they, in consultation with an expert, believe that the public schools offer an inadequate learning environment. School board members who are subject to the whims of the voters could go on the side of fiscal stability--it will break the budget if we send every unhappy parent's child to a private school--or sympathy.
A school board member who is a political appointee is more likely to be swayed by neither, but he will be less empowered. Unless the smart mayor realizes the importance of customer service in his school system.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on thought and fiction in education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com
Print
Email
