Join the conversation

Voters for mayor are looking for someone to patch the potholes, issue important proclamations and appear in the city's dopey parade each year. Totally different from the "please run our schools" criteria.

I hope. :]

Ok, seriously, there are many levels to this argument, but granted that large cities have peculiar problems. Kansas City's superintendents like to quit at about 17-month intervals, and I guess having the same mayor for four years would be an improvement in theory.

I'm concerned, though, that if the mayor is too strong that other problems may emerge. DC Mayor Fenty is clearly anti-homeschooling and instead of focusing only on cleaning up the mess that passes for public education in that city, more restrictive homeschooling regulations were passed about a year ago. I guess he had nothing else to do but sic the Superintendent to work on seeing what sort of regulations would be "recommended" after some nutbrain killed her kids.

Um, and Benita Jacks wasn't even following the regulations that were in place in the first place when she did that!! So more regulations will have the effect of... what?

It was just a power grab IMO. And I fear that too much power in one place would make power grabs possible in too many other areas. For example, our town has had an horrific time dealing with eminent domain and greedy developers. Just imagine if the mayor were also in charge of locating schools...

Well, I could go on, but you get the idea. :]

Welcome back, Mrs. C!

I agree with you that undue concentration of power in a single person's hands can be dangerous. The benefits of mayoral control depend on the qualities of the mayor. While "command and control" can seem like a refreshing alternative to political division and community tension, it can also lead to big problems down the road.

I'm inclined to quote NSBA's Anne Bryant from the same collection of "National Journal" Blogs:

"In some cases, like in Chicago and Boston, some degree of mayoral control works. With the proper oversight and accountability, as well as the involvement of a highly functioning school board and an engaged community, these kinds of relationships can work."

There's a flip side to your worry about mayors overstepping their bounds and encroaching on individual freedoms or property rights. To quote Anne Bryant again: "Mayors can bring access – to public works, to the community, to city agencies – that school boards and school districts simply cannot command on their own. Not to mention the political muscle that mayors can wield. And it is up to our school boards to engage and enlist mayors so that they can be better governors of our schools."

Did we just agree on something? LOL

Interestingly enough, here in MO, school districts and cities are two very different things. For example, our district has parts of Kansas City. So lots of police officers and firefighters move their families here to satisfy residency requirements, but *hello* that is sooo not the same thing as moving downtown when you buy a cookiecutter in the 'burbs.

I do have to start wondering at our mindset when we moved out here to avoid all those *bad* schools in the KCMO school district, though. (D works downtown.) I guess the joke is on me, but it isn't really very funny. :p

This is what I find puzzling: Since K-12 teachers in California are required to undergo a fifth year, teacher credentialing program, pass a number of rigorous state exams, and be highly qualified, why, then, are the people in charge of education NOT required to be highly qualified? For instance, I find it beyond ironic that Arne Duncan's 'qualifications' are that he was a basketball player and holds a BA in Sociology. His tenure as CEO of Chicago Public Schools should be viewed as a rather alarming 'distinction'. Mayoral control of schools seems to be yet another bad idea of putting unqualified people in charge of education. There seems to be a prevailing belief among the 'unqualified' that if you can read a script, you can teach, and if you've gone to school (as a student), you're qualified to run a school district... or be Secretary of Education.

A mayor of any city will most likely not have the ability to run a school district effectively. This is why there are school superintendents. online casino

Mrs C.--

Did we just agree? Maybe, kinda sorta. It's still troubling that economic and social mobility can make such a difference in school quality. Less and less social capital gets invested in the schools that need it most. But that's an issue for public education advocates to come to terms with.

Tracey--

I agree with you that experience and expertise are often getting a bad rap these days. A background in education is often seen as a black mark in school reform discussions, and that's troubling. That said, I think there still is real room for outside perspectives on education. People coming from different backgrounds can offer very important insights and become excellent leaders. It depends on the person, after all.

Thompson--

Mayors might not have the ability to run school districts, but they can certainly join forces with top-flight superintendents to ensure that students have exposure to a host of academic, community and municipal resources. On this point, I defer to Anne Bryant, whom I quote in an earlier comment.

"It's still troubling that economic and social mobility can make such a difference in school quality."

Is it a shame? I'd think that would give a parent some hope that if they just move into the right community, and stick their kids next to a bunch of other children of similar demographics who do well on the all-important state tests, that they're somehow going to get a better education.

And I have to wonder if that isn't a big lie.

You see, to me, "school quality" has nothing to do with how everyone else's kid is going to score on a given test. It's all about how the school will be of value to *my* child.

The school serves the child. The child ought not serve the school. I think I made a grave mistake, moving into an area with good demographics but a poor ethos on its disabled student population. I think if I had to do it over again, I would look into the place that would teach my child to shake hands properly, use the phone and help him to advocate for himself.

The reading and writing is all very easy to teach a verbal child, and in fact my mother tells me I learned to read on my own at the age of four. I don't know that that's the norm, but I think most children have great potential, don't you? :]

Will have to deal with "social capital" another day. It's late! God bless ya.