Mayoral Takeover of Seattle Schools

Update: I checked with OSPI about one reader's claim that there was a grand plan from OSPI and the feds to take over the district.

From OSPI:

There are no laws that allow for OSPI to take over a district. We can, in some circumstances (see Question 5), withhold funds from districts. But we can’t simply take over the district’s day-to-day duties. That’s what local control is all about.

On whether OSPI would be part of any legislative action to take over the district:

State Superintendent Dorn would have his position to influence legislators to vote one way or another.

Has OSPI been supporting/advocating for this direction for SPS?

No one that I know of at OSPI is doing that kind of work. If someone is doing that work, it’s not been sanctioned by State Superintendent Dorn.

Would you know under what circumstances OSPI can withhold funds from a district? 

Noncompliance of state law (RCWs) or agency regulations (WACs). Audit findings also can result in a district repaying money.

Generally speaking, OSPI prefers to be the benevolent older sibling in its relationships with districts: We prefer to assist and aid, rather than cajole or threaten.


I'm not even going to ask the Feds because the whole idea is ridiculous.

End of update.

Something in the water?  The start of Fall?  Who knows but there was Joel Connelly this morning in the PI with a column about Mayor Murray's budget:

Murray is creating a cabinet-level Department of Education and Early Learning to work with “our diverse communities” and Seattle Public Schools to “close our city’s opportunity gap.” It will have the ability to go around the not-very-functional Seattle School Board and widely disliked bureaucracy of the school district.Someone help me out - I think I missed the part that said if the Mayor's plan for the Department of Education and Early Learning (DEEL) gets created that it can "go around" the Board and the district. 

(Update:  I DID ask the Mayor's office and they said, "the Mayor characterized the new Department as one that will work with, not around, SPS."  Thank you, Mr. Mayor.)

I'll ask the Mayor's office but no, I don't think that's true.  What I DO think is true is that the powers that be have decided that now is the time and the memo went out.  (Naturally, these people are a little smarter than that so it's more like smoke signals or the secret handshake.)

Here's what I wrote to the Board:
Now, to understand, this has to be done legislatively.  I reached out to my reps but only heard back from one (I'll be following up with the other two).  The one I heard back from was Senator Jamie Pedersen (who was Murray's replacement in the Senate).  He says they have a close relationship but that he would not support this idea, mainly because while he might like/trust Mayor Murray, he might not feel that way about the next mayor.  And he's right. 

If the Mayor even tried to get the ability to appoint a majority of Board members, he would effectively have control of the district.  Why?  Because then "his" majority would pick the superintendent. 

It might be worthwhile to make a statement that you ARE duly elected and will answer to voters.  Otherwise, voters (and parents) might get one of two ideas. 

One, that you don't mind being man-handled in the press.

Two, that you are toothless and won't stand up for yourself and the group you are part of. 

I note that Director Martin-Morris mentioned the "irony" that the group he is vice-chair of (CUBE) will have a white paper on this topic of mayoral takeover.  Well, I checked and there is a very good research paper from the Center for Public Education from June 2014 that was linked at CUBE. 

You can read the whole thing (and I urge you to do so) but what is interesting is that there is good and bad to it and I note that groups that have reviewed it seem to take what THEY want from it.

 Given the paper's title, "Toward collaboration, not a coup" What the research says about mayoral involvement in urban schools,"  that gives you a hint right there what the authors found.

Benefits:
- - Michael Usdan writes: “It is becoming increasingly apparent that public schools cannot unilaterally resolve the complex and interrelated issues confronting growing numbers of children and their families. Schools as institutions simply do not have the organization- al mandate, staff capacity, or financial resources to handle such a welter of problems”My take is that schools - in and by themselves - cannot solve all the ills of society that come to their door via students.

- Because of their central position, mayors are well situated to facilitate better coordination and integration of child and family services with school programs (Usdan, 2006; Kirst, 2006). The editors of the Harvard Educational Review commended the mayors in Nashville, Tenn., and Long Beach and San Jose, Calif., for “securing more funds for their cities’ public schools, promoting innovative programs to assist families and teachers, and using their high profiles to raise the status of education as an issue of community concern”

- Wong and Shen’s analyses show that mayors have been able to successfully manage school finances, and they credit mayors with steering more dollars toward instruction while spending less on central offices

- Several researchers suggest that mayors’ bully pulpit can bring more visibility to educational issues and gain the “attention and commitment” of the public to its schools, which often resulted in more public and private funds for education

Interestingly, these benefits were documented in cities with low mayoral involvement, such as Long Beach and Nashville, as well as in high involvement cities like New York and Chicago. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, mayors can have a meaningful impact on public schools in multiple ways, even when existing governance structures, including school boards, remain in place. They wrote: “By using their authority over public safety, health and social service agencies, parks and recreation facilities, and a host of other resources, mayors can make a direct impact on the lives of children—and improve their educational outcomes—without becoming directly involved in the governance of the school system” (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2006).

Student Achievement improvement?
According to the authors, the jury is still out on that one.

Moscovitch and her team found that student achievement, in general, had increased in districts under some form of mayoral control, but the study’s authors “were not able to establish conclusively that the change in governance had any causal relationship to improved performance, or that, using nationally-normed test data, [mayor-involved] cities had greater improvements than anywhere else.” Nonetheless, the fact that they found statistically significant achievement scores “at some levels and in some areas” argues, in their view, that “mayoral involvement, if not control” could be part of a district improvement strategy (Moscovitch, 2010).

Both mayors and elected urban school boards saw academic gains over the last decade; neither model outperformed the other .

Risks

Nearly every study reviewed for this report recognized a risk associated with mayoral take- overs: that is, they find that eliminating elected school boards can also disenfranchise different groups and individuals from participating in decisions about their schools. Of these groups, minority and low-income communities seem to be affected the most.

The very groups where you seek to close the achievement gap.

They also argue that because mayor-appointed boards are not subject to election campaigns, they are less susceptible to the influence of special interests, especially teachers’ unions. On the other hand, they find that mayoral-controlled boards inhibit community engagement in public school issues, reduce transparency in the decision making process, and marginalize minority voices (Hess & Meeks, 2013).

Yes, the people appointed by a Mayor ARE less susceptible to influence from special interests since they are not elected.  But what about the Mayor?  the City Council? 

And that last sentence?  Again, flies in the face of the Strategic Plan.

The finding that mayoral control leaves parents and community groups out of the decision making process is a recurring theme in the literature (Taylor, 2001; Chambers, 2006; Fruchter & McAlister, 2008; Moscovitch et al, 2010).

His analysis showed that business and state leaders were more likely to favor takeovers while the local African American community was often “openly resistant.” He wrote that “unions, community-based organizations, and parent groups that had channels of access to elected school boards are concerned that mayoral control leaves them more marginalized” (Henig, 2009). Similarly, an analysis of referendums in Cleveland and Boston found that support for mayoral control overwhelmingly came from middle-class and wealthy voters, while the opposition of low-income and non-white voters was often hidden (Shen, 2011). Although the potential to silence voices is a problem in itself, other researchers have further suggested that the lack of minority representation in school governance can have a negative effect on the achievement of minority youth (Land, 2002; Taylor, 2001).

An Annenberg report recognized continuing improvement in math and reading test scores in New York City after Mayor Bloomberg took charge. But the authors also asserted that the gains came at the expense of time spent in other subjects like social studies, science and the arts; provided “too little consideration” in support for English language learners and other special needs students; and undercut democratic engagement in school governance. Ultimately, the authors concluded that “the Bloomberg-Klein regime’s eclipse of student, parent and citizen participation has terminated any public role in what is arguably the city’s most important public sector service” (Furchter & McAlister, 2008).

The entire study is worthy reading.

I will say to you again - if any one of you believes this is the right thing, then your duty is to speak out now.  Have the courage of your convictions or, later on, it may look like you are currying favor with the powers that be if you come out for this idea at the last minute.

I am not for this.  I will fight it.  I think there is no real hunger for this (not in parents) in Seattle. 

But you only hurt your elected institution when you allow staff to repeatedly push back, delay, obfuscate or otherwise hoodwink you (see that transfer of rental/lease dollars to the General Fund).  Be the strong individuals that got elected in the first place.

Sincerely,
Melissa Westbrook
Seattle Schools Community Forum