Mayoral Control — A Work In Progress

[Editor's note: This "What Matters Most" column appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, Feb. 8.]

In New York City, we are set to begin the debate over whether or not to continue a form of school governance — mayoral control — that was first instituted here in 2002 and is gaining much attention across the country. New Yorkers are passionate about public schools, so the debate is bound to be fierce on all sides as the state legislature weighs the arguments and decides whether to keep mayoral control as it is, modify it or repeal it entirely.

Many proponents of mayoral control see it as a magic bullet, but those who know public education best are hesitant to paint a black-and-white picture of such a complex issue. First, systems of mayoral control vary from city to city, with some — like Chicago and Boston — having a longer experience, allowing them to evolve to meet the needs of the communities they serve. And second, assessing mayoral control is not a simple exercise. Much of the research is inconclusive, and there is no consensus about its effectiveness in raising student achievement — which is, after all, education’s bottom line.

So we must proceed cautiously and carefully and listen closely to those who have experienced this system of school governance up close.

Mayoral control in New York has brought additional funding and credibility to the public schools, and the fact that the mayor was willing to take responsibility for what goes on in the schools was a major breakthrough. We supported it in 2001 and still believe there are important reasons for keeping mayoral control, but with some checks and balances.

The experience of the last seven years points to a need for a system that is more accountable, more transparent and more democratic. Schools are not businesses — to work, they require shared accountability, including a voice for parents and for educators. Further, public schools are public institutions, serving not only students, but also the larger community. Responsibility for this public trust cannot sit solely with one person elected every four years, no matter how talented that person might be.

We are seeing the drawbacks of such a highly centralized power structure play out in the city’s current budget struggles. In the midst of an economic downturn, the mayor is proposing massive layoffs. Shockingly, the proposal would cut 15 thousand teachers, thus putting 75 percent of the burden on the shoulders of schools. Regardless of whether this is the state or city’s fault, that many layoffs would mean firing all city teachers with three or fewer years of experience. The result would be chaos, instability and long-term damage to our kids’ education.

Mayoral control replaced the central Board of Education with a Panel for Education Policy. But unfortunately, the current panel, composed mainly of mayoral appointees, has become a rubber stamp for the mayor’s policies with no real power to effect change or force debate over critical issues. If we were to adopt a system that is more balanced — a more independent, broadbased board with fixed terms — we might see an entirely different response to the budget crisis. A more robust panel would provide an institutional vehicle for debating the least damaging way to reduce education spending during tough times. Parents and educators should not have to take to the streets to protest when schools are being threatened, or when the mayor seeks to impose potentially harmful education policies without public input or debate.

There is a lot to like about mayoral control, but any law can benefit from a thorough examination so it can better meet its purpose. The coming debate may sometimes be rancorous, but it is necessary if we are to continue to find ways to better serve our students.

Tagged: mayoral control, What Matters Most

 Print