Recent from talks
Mayoral control of schools
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Mayoral control of schools
Mayoral control of schools is governance over American schools based on the business model, in which the mayor of a city replaces an elected board of education (school board) with an appointed board. The mayor may also directly appoint the head of the school system, called the CEO, superintendent or chancellor. Also known as integrated governance, mayoral control of schools is in contrast to the structure it replaces: an elected board that governs schools independently from the formal influence of the mayor.
Mayors govern the school districts in two of the United States' three largest cities: Chicago (since 1995) and New York City (since 2002). Mayors also control various other medium-to-large districts as well, including District of Columbia Public Schools. According to a survey of school board members compiled for the National School Board Association, 96 percent of respondents report that membership on their board is determined by election. As of October 2011, evidence of existing or attempted mayoral control was found in about 20 major districts around the United States. Perhaps the most high-profile case of mayoral control is New York City where Michael Bloomberg won the right to appoint the head of schools in June 2002.
Despite limited reach, there are a plethora of mayoral controlled governance structures. In Chicago, the mayor appoints the CEO (superintendent) as well as the entire school board. In Washington, DC, the mayor has power to directly select the chancellor, who must be confirmed by the city council. All D.C. state board of education members are elected but the state board of education acts in a largely advisory capacity to the district education agency. New York’s mayor also has the power to select the head of schools, in addition to appointing eight of thirteen school board members. In Boston, the mayor’s powers extend only to appointing a committee from a list of nominees. It is this appointed board that is entrusted with the job of selecting a superintendent of schools.
According to scholar Deborah Land of Johns Hopkins University, the origins of a system in which lay individuals were given the authority to govern their local schools dates back more than 200 years. From the inception of school boards, there was skepticism about the ability of distant politicians to see and meet the needs of local neighborhoods when it came to education. As a result, boards of education were morphed over time to ensure maximum local control of schools. It was believed that separating governance of schools from state and local elected officials was the best way to realize the Progressive Era vision of schools protected from politics. The trend toward mayoral control represents a reversal of this trend, with arguments for and against discussed in a later section.
While mayoral control in some cities such as Jackson, Mississippi, has existed since the mid-20th century, most shifts from elected to appointed school boards took place after 1990. Starting in the 1990s, mayoral control was viewed by its supporters as a way to address the chronic underperformance and jumpstart reforms in medium to large urban districts. The first major urban district to move toward mayoral control of schools was Boston, where, in 1991, the Massachusetts governor and legislature approved a petition allowing the mayor to appoint a seven-member board, which then appointed a superintendent of schools. The latest high-profile urban district to move under mayoral control was Washington, DC, where Mayor Adrian Fenty won the right to select the chancellor of schools in 2007. The table below shows the school districts that are now under the governance of mayor-appointed boards and, in some cases, mayor-appointed heads of schools.
Other locations have varying degrees of mayoral control over schools: in Oakland, California, three of the 10 members of the Oakland Unified School District board members are appointed by the mayor, and the other seven are elected. Mayoral control proposals have also been made in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Seattle.
Notably, not all attempts at achieving mayoral control have been successful. Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa sought to bring the Los Angeles Unified School District under his management, but before the plan could be brought into effect in 2007, a court ruled that it violated the California Constitution. In Detroit in the late 1990s, a reform board appointed by the mayor and governor replaced the elected board of education in response to allegations of mismanagement. This reform was reversed in city referendum in 2005 which reinstated an elected school board.
Proponents of mayoral control point to two major reasons for shifting from an elected to appointed governance structure: the benefits of a single point of accountability and the power of sustained, aligned leadership. On the point of accountability, supporters of mayoral control point to the extremely low turnout for often off-cycle school board elections as evidence of the lack of school board accountability and relevance. Expounding on this point, Finn and Keegan point out that in districts under mayoral control, "there is now a single, publicly accountable official in charge, rather than nine wannabe mayors immobilizing the school system with their petty squabbles, power grabs, and turf protecting. If citizens are unhappy with the schools, they can now vote the mayor out of office. This does not eliminate democratic control over the schools; it rechannels—and strengthens—it". Former appointed CEO of the mayoral controlled Chicago Public Schools and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has made his support for mayoral control of schools clear, offering his help to mayors who push to gain sole leadership of the schools within their cities. His support is also rooted in a belief that one point of accountability—the mayor—is far more effective than accountability spread across an elected board of education model.
Hub AI
Mayoral control of schools AI simulator
(@Mayoral control of schools_simulator)
Mayoral control of schools
Mayoral control of schools is governance over American schools based on the business model, in which the mayor of a city replaces an elected board of education (school board) with an appointed board. The mayor may also directly appoint the head of the school system, called the CEO, superintendent or chancellor. Also known as integrated governance, mayoral control of schools is in contrast to the structure it replaces: an elected board that governs schools independently from the formal influence of the mayor.
Mayors govern the school districts in two of the United States' three largest cities: Chicago (since 1995) and New York City (since 2002). Mayors also control various other medium-to-large districts as well, including District of Columbia Public Schools. According to a survey of school board members compiled for the National School Board Association, 96 percent of respondents report that membership on their board is determined by election. As of October 2011, evidence of existing or attempted mayoral control was found in about 20 major districts around the United States. Perhaps the most high-profile case of mayoral control is New York City where Michael Bloomberg won the right to appoint the head of schools in June 2002.
Despite limited reach, there are a plethora of mayoral controlled governance structures. In Chicago, the mayor appoints the CEO (superintendent) as well as the entire school board. In Washington, DC, the mayor has power to directly select the chancellor, who must be confirmed by the city council. All D.C. state board of education members are elected but the state board of education acts in a largely advisory capacity to the district education agency. New York’s mayor also has the power to select the head of schools, in addition to appointing eight of thirteen school board members. In Boston, the mayor’s powers extend only to appointing a committee from a list of nominees. It is this appointed board that is entrusted with the job of selecting a superintendent of schools.
According to scholar Deborah Land of Johns Hopkins University, the origins of a system in which lay individuals were given the authority to govern their local schools dates back more than 200 years. From the inception of school boards, there was skepticism about the ability of distant politicians to see and meet the needs of local neighborhoods when it came to education. As a result, boards of education were morphed over time to ensure maximum local control of schools. It was believed that separating governance of schools from state and local elected officials was the best way to realize the Progressive Era vision of schools protected from politics. The trend toward mayoral control represents a reversal of this trend, with arguments for and against discussed in a later section.
While mayoral control in some cities such as Jackson, Mississippi, has existed since the mid-20th century, most shifts from elected to appointed school boards took place after 1990. Starting in the 1990s, mayoral control was viewed by its supporters as a way to address the chronic underperformance and jumpstart reforms in medium to large urban districts. The first major urban district to move toward mayoral control of schools was Boston, where, in 1991, the Massachusetts governor and legislature approved a petition allowing the mayor to appoint a seven-member board, which then appointed a superintendent of schools. The latest high-profile urban district to move under mayoral control was Washington, DC, where Mayor Adrian Fenty won the right to select the chancellor of schools in 2007. The table below shows the school districts that are now under the governance of mayor-appointed boards and, in some cases, mayor-appointed heads of schools.
Other locations have varying degrees of mayoral control over schools: in Oakland, California, three of the 10 members of the Oakland Unified School District board members are appointed by the mayor, and the other seven are elected. Mayoral control proposals have also been made in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Seattle.
Notably, not all attempts at achieving mayoral control have been successful. Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa sought to bring the Los Angeles Unified School District under his management, but before the plan could be brought into effect in 2007, a court ruled that it violated the California Constitution. In Detroit in the late 1990s, a reform board appointed by the mayor and governor replaced the elected board of education in response to allegations of mismanagement. This reform was reversed in city referendum in 2005 which reinstated an elected school board.
Proponents of mayoral control point to two major reasons for shifting from an elected to appointed governance structure: the benefits of a single point of accountability and the power of sustained, aligned leadership. On the point of accountability, supporters of mayoral control point to the extremely low turnout for often off-cycle school board elections as evidence of the lack of school board accountability and relevance. Expounding on this point, Finn and Keegan point out that in districts under mayoral control, "there is now a single, publicly accountable official in charge, rather than nine wannabe mayors immobilizing the school system with their petty squabbles, power grabs, and turf protecting. If citizens are unhappy with the schools, they can now vote the mayor out of office. This does not eliminate democratic control over the schools; it rechannels—and strengthens—it". Former appointed CEO of the mayoral controlled Chicago Public Schools and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has made his support for mayoral control of schools clear, offering his help to mayors who push to gain sole leadership of the schools within their cities. His support is also rooted in a belief that one point of accountability—the mayor—is far more effective than accountability spread across an elected board of education model.