Who Controls Urban Schools?

In many urban districts with high minority and low-income populations, especially those facing decreasing public confidence in the management and outcomes of their public schools, politicians are staking their claim on public education. Although the past 15 years are rife with examples of this at both the state and city level, it is still unclear what the long-term ramifications actually are.

Should states have the last word on how to improve urban schools because they are responsible for a growing share of the money funding local school districts? Are mayors actually in the best position to overcome the barriers to successful school reform by acting as a centralized authority accountable to the public? The answers to these questions are far from clear, but we do know that a change in governance is not a panacea for all the ills facing many urban districts.

Limited Success of State Takeovers

Of the 24 states where school district takeover is allowed, 18 states and the District of Columbia have implemented this approach as a way of improving consistently low-performing districts. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) also includes options for state takeover after schools fail to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) for multiple years. State takeovers have been less successful overall than mayoral takeovers. Given that running a school district can be challenging even for those familiar with the local context and situated close to the schools, managing operations from the state capital has proved impossible in most cases. Local officials and community members also often perceive intervention by the state as an unfair usurpation of local power.

The recent political debacle over a state takeover of Baltimore’s public schools is but one example of how even the prospect of state takeover can quickly prompt a contentious power struggle among stakeholders. As schools continue to miss AYP, some schools and districts face the threat of the more severe sanctions present in NCLB, such as reconstitution by the state. Many more states may be forced to consider dramatic interventions for consistently low-performing schools.

Holding Mayors Accountable

Mayoral control has proved to be a more promising change in governance than state takeover. In cities such as Boston, Massachusetts and Chicago, Illinois mayoral control has proved relatively successful and students have shown at least temporary gains in achievement scores. The mayors of these cities and others realized that they were being held accountable for the state of their public schools as middle-class families made choices about where to live based on the state of neighborhood schools and businesses made decisions about where to locate depending on the availability of capable employees. Once granted official responsibility for the city’s schools, the theory behind mayoral control contends that mayors can be held accountable through the electoral process, while also attempting to make dramatic changes to the status quo.

By using political clout to make changes at a rapid pace, mayors have been able to create a more efficient district infrastructure and introduce innovations to schools. That said, changes to district management, while important, do not necessarily mean equally as impressive changes to the teaching and learning that take place in the classroom. In New York City, for instance, three years of control by Mayor Bloomberg and School Chancellor Joel Klein has prompted them to rethink their centralized approach and devolve responsibility for daily operations back to the schools.

Seeking Control over LAUSD

In Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa is actively seeking control over the challenging Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), second only to New York City in size. Oversight of the district, which includes 27 cities and some incorporated areas, would be the responsibility of a council of mayors with votes apportioned based on population (giving Mayor Villaraigosa 80 percent of the votes) and an appointed superintendent. The district would still maintain an elected Board of Education, but with greatly reduced powers.

Mayor Villaraigosa’s lengthy draft district takeover proposal, “Taking Back Our Schools—Improving Opportunities for the Children and Families of Los Angeles,” outlines a collection of ideas enormous in their breadth. Proposed reforms range from downsizing central staff and selling the downtown headquarters to extending the school year and linking teacher pay to level of responsibility rather than seniority. These ideas mirror those implemented by mayors in other cities, such as New York City, Chicago, and Boston with varying levels of success.

Views on mayoral takeover in Los Angeles, unsurprisingly, are mixed. While the proposal has been backed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republicans in the legislature are opposing the plan. Community members from wealthy neighborhoods with higher-performing schools are unconvinced of the necessity for such a radical change in governance when the schools are perceived as fairly well functioning. In addition, teachers unions are expressing hostility towards the mayor’s plan for fear of losing control and influence over public schools. The situation is different in lower-income communities facing high dropout rates and consistently low test scores. In those communities, the prospect of holding someone accountable, at least to some degree, for the state of their schools has appeal.

With the average term of an urban superintendent hovering around merely two and a half years, the presence of a somewhat stable governance figure and the promise of accountability can prove to be compelling arguments for mayoral control. No matter what level of government controls the schools, resources will be allocated in a way that protects some interests while denying others. While by no means a magic bullet, if mayoral control is able to bring more transparency to this process, it might be a useful tool for overcoming issues of race and class embedded in urban schools. Additional research into its long-term outcomes is an important step in determining whether this might be the case.

Prepared by Elisabeth Thurston, April 26, 2006