All over America, mayors are looking to get more directly involved in the nitty-gritty of public education in their cities. Over the past several years, mayors in Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Newark, New York and Washington, D.C. have weighed in on the school reform issue. Citizens looking for real change also are relying more on mayors and local legislators to fix our schools. In response thereto, mayoral involvement in public education is a quantum leap different from what it was 10 years ago.
In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley used his Renaissance 2010 schools reform proposal as a means to energize the local Chicago business community to become personally involved in changing public education. In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa campaigned hard for a slate of school board candidates dedicated to his reform efforts. In Newark, Mayor Cory Booker has promoted a reform agenda driven largely by city council change agents and choice supporters led by Councilmember Dana Rone. In Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty recently received approval from the D.C. Council to take control of the entire Washington, D.C. public school system. Mayor Fenty has said that this is his administration’s top priority. In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has worked side by side with schools Chancellor Joel Klein to institute major reforms in the New York school system. They have fostered a strong mix of charters and traditional schools along with a renewed focus on leadership development with their groundbreaking principal’s academy.
In Indianapolis, Mayor Bart Peterson became the first Mayor in America to become a charter school authorizer. He has now authorized some of the best schools in the state. What is more interesting is that a couple of school districts that adjoin the center school district of Indianapolis have asked to become charter districts under Mayor Peterson. St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay is actively trying to get authority similar to that of Mayor Peterson from the Missouri legislature.
All in all, these mayors are using different approaches based on the practical and political realities of their respective cities. But, does a stronger mayoral role really force the change constituents are clamoring for? Or is it just another political shell game?
The answer lies in the substance associated with the mayoral involvement and the depths of the commitment to see it through. In that vein, similar to the unique approaches used to educate our children, innovation and creativity are critical to successful mayoral forays into the public school reform area.
Mayoral involvement cannot be lukewarm or tepid. It must be real and tangible. Such involvement has to be respectful of the local political and historical nuances of the city. Moreover, the mayor’s vision must be aligned with realistic goals and expectations that will ultimately lead to better educational opportunities for our children. Mayors also have the ability to shepherd local resources together to work collaboratively for children.
Yes, it clearly would do more harm than good if mayoral education reform plans get tied up in naïve political agendas that are unrealistic and not kids focused. Mayors do need to understand that their role in leading public school reform initiatives is not about the coalescing of political power, but rather to serve to align education offerings with better accountability and management.
These mayors must offer to parents something different from what they are now getting from their public school.
Kevin P. Chavous is a national school reform leader and former Washington, DC City Council member. He is also a distinguished fellow at the Center for Education Reform.
