Could Mayoral Control be the future of our City Schools?

(okay, that question may land me in hot water, but it's no secret that there are many in Wilmington who believe that their schools should be run locally, not by the Red Clay, Colonial, or the Christina School Districts.  Therefore, I believe, it deserves to be asked.)

Rochester, NY
Rochester, NY, Mayor Bob Duffy wants control of his cities schools, joining a growing cohort of urban leaders vying for education reform through mayoral control.  In Duffy's view, public safety, economic development and public education would all be better served under a consolidated government.  Though he appears to be gaining the support of both the NY Legislature and Governor Patterson,  the move is not without controversy and opponents, including the education union and some school board members who are mounting a fight.  (The School Board would cease to exist if the state's third largest district falls under Duffy's control.)

According to the http://www.democratandchronicle.com/, Duffy says, "This is about aligning systems that are critically important for the future health of our city and our children," He envisions a district that would integrate social service and nonprofit organizations to provide a comprehensive "kids zone."

By law, the city of Rochester pays $119 million to the school district annually. Savings would come through combining departments, while educational quality would improve in part through a more comprehensive social service net, Duffy said.

Mayoral Control
Arne Duncun has gone so far as to say, he would consider his time as education secretary a "failure" if more mayors didn't take over control of their city schools by the end of his tenure. 

Rochester isn't alone. as reported by Dakarai Aarons efforts "are under way in Detroit and Milwaukee to institute mayoral control, spurred by frustration over sometimes glacial academic progress.

"Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (who is running to replace Doyle) have been unsuccessful so far in their attempts to get the state legislature to pass a mayoral control bill, most recently in a special session two weeks ago. Barrett is still pushing forward, and the state senate's education committee is holding a hearing on the issue Jan. 5.

"In Detroit, Emergency Financial Manager Robert C. Bobb recently asked for academic control of the schools. He and others have expressed support for Mayor Dave Bing having a say in how the schools are run. The Michigan House will take up the issue in a series of hearings starting Jan. 14."

In October, reporter Lesli A. Maxwell produced an examination of Mayoral Control as education reform for the Wallace Foundation's, Leading for Learning Report.  Maxwell cites 18 cities who have explored the change in education leadership.  There are the heavy-hitters -- New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago -- as well as efforts in smaller cities like Harrisburg, PA; Yonkers, NY; Providence, R.I.; Trenton, NJ; and Hartford, Conn.

Even our neighbor, Philadelphia, developed a model of control in 2001when the school district reverted to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Currently, the Mayor appoints two members of the School Reform Commission and the Governor appoints three others. 

What mayoral control does present is a direct line of accountibility for school performance to one person, the mayor.  If voters don't like the direction of their public education, they have the ability to change leadership every four years.  When Mayor Bloomberg ran last fall in NYC, his education record was a central issue in the election.

"No mayor has exercised such unlimited power over the public schools as Mr. Bloomberg," Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at NYU, former assistant secretary of education and frequent critic of Bloomberg, has written.

In the eyes of some critics, this is simply going too far. "We still think there are reasons to keep mayoral control," United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in her introduction to the union's report on school governance. But she continued,"The experience of the last seven years points strongly to a need for a governance system that is more democratic, more accountable and more transparent."

In New Mexico,

The push for mayoral control reflects rising frustration and desperation over poor student achievement, crumbling buildings, bureaucratic wrangling among school officials and revolving-door superintendents.



The districts have standardized their curriculums, ended "social promotion" of kids who fall too far behind, opened new schools to give students more choice and brought in millions of dollars in corporate donations.


But education specialists continue to debate whether kids really get a better education under such arrangements, whether any academic gains will be permanent, and how much credit mayors should get for the successes.

Kenneth Wong, a Brown University education professor, examined test scores of the 100 largest school districts from 1999 to 2003. He found that students in mayor-controlled school systems often perform better than those in other urban systems. Test scores in mayor-run districts are rising "significantly," he says.


However, Wong says in his study that "there is still a long way to go before (mayor-controlled) districts achieve acceptable levels of achievement."

Delaware school boards by contrast are slow moving machines that levy power among seven unpaid individuals with rotating elections of one or two seats per year.  It takes a minimum of five years to replace a board in Delaware and often longer. 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to advocate my way out of a seat on the CSD BOE.  School Boards provide local accountibility representative of all parts of a district.  Candidates must reside in defined geographic nominating districts and are elected by all voters who choose to hit the polls on election day.  They are both accountible and accessible in ways that a mayor may not be.

In an April article for Edweek.com, former executive director for the New York Commission on School Governence, Joseph P. Viteritti found that:

Mayoral Control produces a mixed bag of results.  Mayoral control of public schools, now found in more than a dozen localities across the nation, has become part of the landscape of American urban education, even as the idea has played out differently from city to city.

Boston and Chicago are prototypes. In Boston, where the governance change was carried out in 1992, the mayor has worked closely with school professionals to implement new programs. In Chicago, where it was enacted in 1995, the mayor, at least initially, worked around school people. Detroit is a case study of mayoral control undone: The plan there went down in a 2005 referendum after six rocky years characterized by racial, partisan, and regional antagonism. The District of Columbia is a recent convert (2007); Los Angeles came close, but never quite got there. And talk about a move to mayoral control has been heard in such diverse places as Albuquerque, N.M.; Dallas; Memphis, Tenn.; Milwaukee; Minneapolis; Newark, N.J.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Seattle.

Veteritti further writes:

In New York City, our Commission on School Governance recommended that responsibility for the analysis and dissemination of performance data be turned over to the Independent Budget Office, which does not report to the mayor or rely on him for funding. Putting city hall in control of the schools increases the risk of politicizing education and the assessment of school performance. If a city is seriously considering mayoral control, education presumably is already a high political priority, so achievement data can be an irresistible temptation around election time.

So, returning to my question of mayoral control and the role it could play in the City of Wilmington:  The Jury is out on whether it works, though it is a favored model U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncun.  However, even in Duncun's home town, Chicago, longitudinal data seems to indicate that his own changes to education failed to spurr sustainable progress. 

I certainly don't have the answer.  But, it's a question worth asking ... and especially in light of regulation changes coming from DOE that could open the door for the elimination of local control in schools failing to make AYP.  You can check out those changes in detail at http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/delaware-regulation-changes-and-their-potential-impact/ thanks to a fellow blogger who's made that information easily accessible.

Time will tell.