More By Author
January 31, 2011
February 02, 2011
I don’t dislike boards or board members. However, this whole governance structure—the local “district,” the elected board, the board-appointed superintendent, and so on—strikes me as archaic, an arrangement that made more sense in 1914 than in 2014, when most of the money comes from states and more and more of the decisions are (or should be) made at the state level, the building level, and the family level.
My discontent also stems from the fact that too many communities—especially those facing the greatest education challenges—now have boards consisting not of the ablest and most civic-minded people in town but, rather, of aspiring politicians, single-interest cause pushers, and disgruntled former employees of the system itself.
In my view, we're overdue for a comprehensive governance overhaul of American public education.
Nevertheless, I also recognize that the vast majority of U.S. kids today attend schools that remain under the purview of elected local school boards and their members. Call it reality.
That being the case, it does matter who ends up on these boards, where they come from, how they're chosen, how much they know, and what their priorities are. Indeed, it can matter a great deal—as our new Fordham analysis shows. This means that so long as school boards are in charge, we should take their members seriously, recognizing that children are more likely to learn in districts with board members who care about learning above all else, who accurately understand the present condition of their schools, and who represent the broad public interest, not some faction, interest group, or neighborhood.
In sum: I still favor a total makeover of education governance. Today, however, we had better get the most we can from the structures that we've got. This study helps us understand what that entails.