Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog.
Yesterday, Van Schoales of Education Reform Now published a piece in EdNews Colorado imploring local candidates for mayor to consider “bold” ideas like mayoral control of DPS.
Mayoral control is particularly challenging for Denver because of the Colorado constitution but it seems worth more of a public discussion given the increasing dysfunction of the Denver school board, which is likely to get worse, and the ever-increasing need for more quality public education in Denver…
One possible step for the next Denver mayor to consider, short of controlling DPS, might be to charter schools in collaboration with the Charter School Institute, a local university, or doing it independently. Obviously this would take legislative action but it is worth considering given the dire state of education in Denver.
Now, I agree that there are problems on Denver’s school board. Some school board members seem not to understand their role vis-à-vis the school district, and rather than listening to all of their constituents, considering all of the facts at hand before making momentous decisions, or performing any meaningful oversight of district activities, they’ve decided it’s their job to help district officials push their specific “reform” agenda.
But the solution to this is more democracy, not less. I applaud efforts to increase school board member accountability through the electoral process, as well as other signs that the people most affected by their decisions are beginning to mobilize. If too few people vote in school board elections or pay attention to what they do, then we need to engage and energize the electorate– not silence them further!
Anyway, I see two main problems with mayoral control. First, there’s no strong evidence (repeated assertions, yes, but little evidence) that it has been successful. In some of the highest-profile experiments, it’s actually been quite problematic. For instance, in New York City, the much-hyped test score increases used to justify Bloomberg and Klein’s contentious approach to leadership were mostly the result ofsteadily declining standards for what constituted proficiency. Once the bar was raised again, proficiency rates plummeted. The city’s performance on the NAEP hasn’t changed at all– and none of that even considers broader questions about students’ growth as critical thinkers or citizens, or the impact of constant school turmoil on the social and emotional health of the students, teachers, and parents subjected to this punitive style of “reform.” Similar statements can also be made about Chicago, where test score increases coincided with lowered standards and turnarounds merely shuffled kids around different schools instead of meaningfully improving their prospects or the schools themselves. (Others who’d like to pile on examples for other cities, please be my guest. Where my DCfolks at?)
The second problem is much larger. Even if there were an unequivocally strong track record of successful school turnarounds under mayoral control, legally eliminating checks and balances is a dangerous thing to do. Just as mayoral control might make it easier to make positive changes in the system, mayoral control would also make it easier to make negative changes in the system. Are we truly silly enough to believe that each and every politician who comes to office is virtuous enough to deserve such absolute control over schools? Do we seriously believe that any single person and their small group of advisors are so perfect, and so knowledgeable of every single issue that affects their constituents, that they should be empowered to make sweeping unilateral decisions? We know politicians can be swayed by powerful, well-financed people and organizations whose interests don’t align with the public good. (Financial deregulation and Wall Street fraud, anyone?) Why make it even harder for everyday citizens to overcome that influence?
Yes, it might be bold to radically increase executive power, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. No individual or group is perfect. We need to constantly engage with each other, and disagree, and be willing to see where we might be wrong or right in order to generate good, sustainable plans for progress.
Here’s my message to those considering mayoral control in Denver or anywhere else: If your ideas cannot bear the weight of fair, open, and vigorous discussion amongst all stakeholders, they have no business becoming policy.
And if you cannot listen, consider, question, reason, and collaborate with the people charged with carrying out important policies, you have no business being in charge of anything.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Preach, sister-friend.
Very well said!!!
I worked as a teacher in Chicago Public Schools and you understate the sad reality by a lot. I’ll never forget listening to Arne Duncan talking on the radio about how a majority of CPS students’ ACT scores went up an “entire quartrile.” I did some research and later learned that what he was talking about really meant that average CPS students’ ACT score went up from 13 to 14….
Way to Go! Coherent and logical. Thanks.
Sabrina, I generally enjoy your blogging but this seems a bit over-the-top. There is some evidence, from a couple of recent books, one co-authored by Ken Wong, that mayoral control has some positive impacts in big cities. It is hardly conclusive, but should not simply be dismissed blithely either.
More generally, there is a fundamental accountability question here. No elected mayor is a dictator. They would be held accountable to the entire city electorate for their education policies and outcomes. It was a “progressive reform” era decision to diffuse power and accountability to groups like schools boards, in urban areas, in part because many big citier were, at the time, dominated by corrupt urban political machines. Whatever we might say about governance in Denver, I don’t see a corrupt urban political machine in 2010.
The other side of the argument is that when you have a Board of 7 or more people, none if them is truly accountable in an individual sense, and what does joint Board accountability really mean, especially with a sharply divided Board?
These are tradeoffs, of course, and reasonable people can disagree about how to make them. However, since education is the most expensive local public service, and perhaps the most important today, compared to roads, public safety, parks and recreation, libraries, there is a erasonable argument to make that Mayors should have at least some power, perhaps complete power, over that function, with the ensuing accountability implied.
Thanks Professor for helping us return to reality.
Paul, there is a lot going on in your response that I can’t adequately address in the limited time I have today or the space in this little box. I think it’s important, though, so I’ll be writing a fuller response as soon as I can.
In the meantime, regarding accountability and mayoral control, Diane Ravitch has some interesting things to say:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/ravitch-mayoral-control-means.html
Van– why do you feel you and Paul are more attuned to “reality” than I am? What makes you so sure that the way you see things is the truest way, or the right way? Yours (and his) are but *one* perspective on the way things are.
(Hello, privilege.)
Sabrina, my first instinct was also to reject mayoral control as undemocratic. But when I checked out some summaries of the Kenneth Wong book mentioned by Paul Teske, I did find some interesting arguments in favor of mayoral control. (The best summary that I found was in Edweek but you have to be subscriber so I’ll link to this: http://wpt2.org/npa/han821_wong.cfm )
In a study of five years’-worth of test scores from 100 urban districts, Wong found that test scores improved, on average, in districts with mayoral control. But he also made some other points that go more directly to the democracy issues you were discussing:
* More people vote in mayoral elections than in school board elections, which means the mayor is elected by a broader and (hopefully) more representative chunk of the population.
*With mayoral control, the political issues are focused on the mayor, which frees up school personnel to focus on education.
*Mayoral control encourages city-school district cooperation. I think this is a good thing, especially when it comes to sharing resources such as school buildings, libraries and rec centers. For instance, it would be great if more school buildings could become rec centers in the evening, with community access to libraries and city-school district programs for kids and teens. On an administrative level, functions such as payroll or even custodial services might be more efficient if city-school district departments merged.
I found some of Wong’s other arguments less persuasive. For instance, he suggests that mayors bring in education outsiders to help run the districts and that this is beneficial. I don’t see why someone with no experience in a field would do a better job than someone who knows the field. While certainly you can point to individual examples of outsiders bringing a fresh perspective, too often time gets wasted as outsiders get up to speed on basics that someone with ed experience would already know.
Also, as Diane Ravitch notes in your link, I don’t think mayoral control is any sort of panacea. At its heart, it is an administrative change and not an instructional reform. Real change has to happen at the classroom level, with teachers and kids. So, while I don’t personally believe that mayoral control can be dismissed outright, it is no silver bullet that demands universal support from everyone in touch with “reality!”
Looking at the issue from the mayor’s perspective, there’s no way to “build a great city” without having control over city schools. The public is confused about the failure of school districts and municipalities to work together, and this hurts the mayor in office more than the (semi-anonymous and unpaid) board members.
However, I still feel it’s the failure to implement the state constitution that is the essential flaw: superintendents are to be paid AND elected, not one or the other as we presently have going on.
Sabrina….the “hello privilege” comment is fairly bizarre coming from you given a degree from Swarthmore and i think graduation? an elite public suburban high school not to mention your very limited experience working in public education (2 years?). I don’t think any of that matters in terms of what you say, it’s just strange that you’d try to undermine me or others with such mindless statements given your background. Let’s keep to facts, evidence and ideas here and stay away from name calling.
By the way, Holly did a nice job of summarizing the Wong book.
Wow, Van. Just…wow.
1. Privilege affects perspective, which affects how facts & evidence are interpreted. You, and many others on this site, repeatedly make statements (and probably take actions) that reflect significant blindness to relevant information that might lead you to make very different choices. It’s very relevant, and hardly qualifies as “name-calling.” Identity is central to this issue.
2. What do you know about my background? Scanning my LinkedIn profile does not tell you who I am. In addition to working my *** off to get into a really great school, thanks to parents who worked theirs off to break the cycle of poverty, I’m a first-generation college student who has viewed life from a number of different perspectives.
Life at the intersections of racial, gender, and class oppression/privilege, as well as direct experience with those who willfully abuse their power (and others who do so unwittingly) has made me very sensitive to those moments when people, despite their good intentions, end up making very hurtful and destructive decisions on behalf of those they’re trying to help.
If you’re going to take part in “the Civil Rights issue of our time” and attempt to ally with people from whom you differ so significantly, these are issues you need to honestly and seriously confront.
Let us summarize the tasks facing the Denver School District, now. First, Colorado has legislated a new teacher employment program to replace tenure. The system will have two categories: probationary and non-probationary. The probationary status will kick in when a teacher has the first unsatisfactory rating on an evaluation system which has yet to be designed. The second unsatisfactory rating in a row (?) will result in termination. Next, the CSAP tests are being eliminated by a new statewide test yet to be designed and normed(?). However the yet to be determined test results will figure heavily in the yet to be determined aforementioned teacher evaluation system. Also, the state is facing draconian budget cuts which will impact K12 DPS in ways which are still being determined. DPS will need to re-negotiate the controversial “swaps” in the Spring. A major segment of the North East sector of the District is undergoing a controversial “turnaround” with various experimental programs. Some of these programs mirror previous failed “reforms” in Denver.
This is simply a great time to introduce school politics into the mayoral race. If not now, when? If not us, who?
If you were a parent with any options,, would you choose DPS? If you were a teacher with any other career options, would you choose public schools in Denver or Colorado? The DPS middle school fiasco of the early 90s rejuvenated the parochial school system. I suspect that even with a failing economy and a dubious record at protecting children, that parochial school and vouchers advocates will be running to support this new and exciting level in the violent video game called public education in Denver.
Sabrina,
As an employee of Education Reform Now and a co-worker of Van’s, I am surprised at how we both have so much in common!
I won’t get into how we both come from minority backgrounds, both are first generation college grads of elite schools, both worked our ***‘s off getting into these colleges and both have broken the cycle of poverty among our respective minority groups.
The most substantive idea that we agree on is the fact that we both believe “the solution to this is more democracy, not less”.
Since we both believe this is true, will you collaborate with me in support of a Colorado “parent trigger” law? http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-compton-school-20101208,0,1038265.story
As we have seen in LA, parents whose children attend the poorest performing schools should have the right to change the way that school operates and when given the opportunity, will in fact “pull the trigger”. http://www.laweekly.com/content/printVersion/1139361/
As a passionate believer in more democracy, I think you are the perfect partner to advocate with me on behalf of parents and children in Colorado.
Let me know when you would like to start planning.