To find out what reform models are currently
being tested in DCPS, see http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/reform/reform_frame.htm.
It appears that they are experimenting with 13 models in some 70 DC schools. Perhaps
somebody can offer an informed perspective on this. Who put these models in place, how
long ago, preliminary results. How would returning power to the elected board affect
current reforms? (Is the fear of giving authority back to the elected Board related to the
fear of the Board not keeping current reforms underway?)
Steve Diner’s 1982 study
entitled “The Governance of Education in the District of Columbia: A Historical
Analysis of Current Issues” shows that changing the structure of the system in DC has
been a 200-year past-time, with few improvements. A key source of the problem has been
divided authority. The Board (elected or appointed) has been kept separate from the
Executive/central control (elected or appointed) to reduce political appointments, but the
Executive/central control has been in charge of the budget. Authority for appointing the
Board was moved from the Commissioners to the Judges to reduce politicization, but
eventually the Judges begged Congress to remove that responsibility. Methods to reduce
conflict (structural design, defined roles and responsibilities) are key. Yet, no group
will always agree to where policy ends and administration begins. A system with a strong
Superintendent who is in place for awhile is very important, perhaps key. Diner says
“structures are easiest thing to change… and the most remote from the
children.”
I asked Katrina A. Kelley, Director of the Council of Urban Boards of Education at the
National School Boards Association (in Alexandria, VA) about the advantages and
disadvantages of appointed vs. elected boards. She said, “we can certainly note that
among our members, over the last several years, there has been a slight increase in the
number of appointed boards (which may imply a trend or maybe just a fad), but we have no
research speaking to your interests.” She also said that “Ultimately it really
is about the caliber of the board member — bottom line. The question is how do we
change the candidate running for school boards, or even an applicant in the selection
process for an appointed board, so that the right ‘mix‘ of members is present in
terms of experience in key areas of governance important to the board and community,
community representation, etc. Another question is how do we change the public attitude so
they understand that it is about the caliber of the person being elected and so they
better understand the role of the school board and ultimately so they elect the right
‘mix’ of members.ö NSBA has many resources available to assist board members:
see http://www.nsba.org/bookreports/bookreports.htm.
Chicago schools crumbled under an appointed system, not an elected one. The reform in
Chicago was, according to Wayne Sampson, Executive Director of the Illinois Assoc. of
School Boards, “to marry the authority with the responsibility in Chicago. Under the
earlier plan, the Mayor appointed the board from recommendations received from various
geographic areas in the city. Under the new law, he appoints a five member board directly,
without input from the geographic areas. The relationship between the board and the Mayor
was made very clear. The board serves at his discretion. While this was the case earlier,
the Mayor distanced himself from the board because he could not exercise the amount of
control he believed needed for him to assume the political risk that came with the city
schools. Now he is directly involved and has taken the risk because he more directly
controls the appointments. He appointed two people out of city government to key spots on
the board that he knew and trusted. Whether there has been significant improvement in
student achievement in Chicago because of the change is still unknown.” The IASB has
some nice resources: http://www.iasb.com/files/issue1.htm.
The founding legislation which changed the Boston school board from elected to
appointed in 1991 is at: http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/schcom/ch108.asp.
I would like to know more from parents in that school system, now that they’ve had
more time to test drive their experiment.
Reform isn’t limited to US — take a look at what’s going on in Canada: “The
role of locally-elected school trustees is in question across the country. The need for
short, concise arguments in favour of locally elected trustees was identified by the CSBA
Board of Directors.” See for the list: http://www.cdnsba.org/govern/trustees.htm.
While you’re there, have a look at “The Future of School Boards: The Canadian
Experience,” http://www.cdnsba.org/govern/NSBA_Quebec_Workshop1998.asp.
The Boston Review has an interesting article entitled “Educating a
Democracy: Standards and the Future of Public Education,” and responses, at http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR24.6/meier.html.
This places the reform movement into a larger discussion about the role of education and
the big experiment underway in US public education.
DC specific report: The Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) and The McKenzie
Group, Inc. did a report for the Superintendent and Control Board and published it at http://www.cgcs.org/ under Reports and Data:
“Rebuilding D.C. Schools, the final report of the D.C. Public Schools External
Transition Project” (Dec. 98). See Findings and Issues — Governance. Indicates
transition back to elected board could undo reforms initiated by Ackerman, suggests Newark
for a phase-in model. Says barrier to effective operations is DC’s 2-in-1 board which acts
as a state educational agency and local school system, and Superintendent’s 2-in-1 role as
chief state school officer and school superintendent — suggests Hawaii as a model for an
organizational structure. Says “The problems faced by the DCPS in designing effective
educational services are compounded by the fact that some operations of the school system
are handled through the Mayor’s office, while others are handled through the DCPS. The
placement of finance, procurement and payroll, for instance, under the Mayor’s office is
unusual even among urban school systems — among them, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston,
and New York City — that are financially or politically dependent on city hall. No other
major city fragments its school operations in the same way the District of Columbia
does…” Note: This is same key point Steve Diner made in his review of DC’s school
governance history.
The Education Commission of the States (ECS) http://www.ecs.org
has a report titled “Comprehensive School Reform: Five Lessons From the Field”
(December 99) and one titled “Governing America’s Schools: Changing the Rules”
(Nov. 99).