Not long ago, the idea of placing the Milwaukee Public Schools under control of the city’s mayor was getting considerable discussion. Then two things happened. The Public Policy Forum did a study of other cities, which found no clear-cut answers as to whether a governance change improved their school districts.
The Forum also convened a panel of community leaders to discuss this, and the feeling was unanimous that this would make no difference to the success of MPS. From teachers union head Dennis Oulahan to business leader Tim Sheehy, there was not “a great deal of support for a change in governance,” moderator Mike Gousha concluded.
That seems to have killed the idea. After all, if the experts agree it wouldn’t do anything, and the study is equivocal, it must be a bad idea, right?
Wrong. The idea has great merit, and nothing in the study – or the statements of experts – proves otherwise. A system in which, say, the mayor appoints the school board members, much as he appoints the Fire and Police Commission, could have many benefits, including:
More attention to the problem: School Board members are elected in low-turnout elections in which a minuscule percentage of city residents vote. Mayoral elections are high-interest affairs that would automatically elevate the issue of education, while making the city’s most important officeholder accountable for the schools. We vote for the mayor based on how he does on property taxes and crime, but not on education, which is just as important to the city’s success. Why put so little value on the schools?
A less parochial school board. The teachers union routinely gets candidates elected who readily vote for increases in salaries and benefits. The typical opponent of the union is the business community. The board has swung back and forth between these interests, as their respective candidates get elected. By contrast, the mayor is answerable to the full spectrum of voters. His choices for the board are likely to be more independent.
A better-managed budget. The biggest problem MPS faces is a huge and growing burden of employee benefits. All MPS employees were already eligible for the quite generous state pension system. Yet in the 1990s, the Milwaukee School Board passed a second, supplementary pension program paid for by Milwaukee taxpayers that gives retiring teachers an even sweeter deal. Had then-Mayor John Norquist appointed the school board, the idea would have been killed. Norquist would have also demanded the schools use the same, more fiscally responsible approach to health care coverage that the city adopted. Today, MPS would be in far better shape. Instead, it is approaching a financial meltdown.
Mayors are more likely to be held accountable for tax increases by the electorate, and therefore take seriously the idea of cutting spending. School Board elections are never won or lost based on the tax levy. So there’s less incentive to cut expenses.
Less spending on administration: The Public Policy Forum study found this was one result of a mayoral takeover of schools in other cities. This makes sense, because a superintendent has a built-in reason to protect his administration from cuts, while a mayor is more likely to demand economies. There may also be some city and school district functions that could be consolidated, the PPF study notes.
More coordinated lobbying: Does it make sense for the city and its school district to have separate lobbyists competing for state dollars? Why not combine and coordinate the strategy?
Better-performing schools: The PPF study references a book, The Education Mayor, which found that in districts where the mayor appointed a majority of the school board, there was some improvement in elementary reading and math scores. Why might that happen? If administrative cuts get more money into the classroom. If the mayor’s appointees make a better choice of school superintendent. Or if the board spends less time squabbling and more time addressing the quality of education.
The PPF study didn’t necessarily show that mayoral takeover was a bad idea, but that each city is unique and complicated and not necessarily analogous to Milwaukee. Indeed. The study noted the concern that mayors might direct more resources to high-performing schools to reduce the number of middle-class students leaving the system. That potential inequity may be a concern elsewhere, but MPS has so few middle-class students left, it’s not much of an issue here.
Opponents of the governance change have also defended the school board by noting the recent corruption cases against Common Council members. I don’t think we need debate which elective body is more effective. Instead, consider the mayors of the last 60 years: Frank Zeidler, Henry Maier, Norquist and Tom Barrett. Would you rather have officials of this caliber involved in deciding who the superintendent is, or the many questionable school board members who’ve served, from Charlene Hardin to Lawrence O’Neil to Tony Busalacchi?
Milwaukee’s elected school board has never been a particularly effective governing body and would be missed by few. Given the much-lamented quality of education at MPS, we’re not risking a lot in making a governance change.
Scott Walker’s Defense
In response to my column last week criticizing County Executive Scott Walker for his unwillingness to strategically use federal stimulus money, he wrote a long comment, as did some of his defenders, which you’ll find here. The most arresting metaphor came from a reader named Tom, who condemned “the irresponsibility of the people spending and lining up for this money, it’s like a mob mentality where someone has smashed the store front window and everyone else is in a mad dash to get their’s with no regard whatsoever of the future consequences.”
Walker says it would be better to use the federal money to lower taxes, as did his defenders. That was a reasonable argument before the stimulus package was passed, but once it became law and provided funding for projects, the smart states and localities began figuring out how to get the biggest share of the federal funding we are all paying for. That’s how federalism works.
Wisconsin has always ranked near the bottom of the 50 states in federal dollars received. The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance recently found we get $1,500 less per capita than the average state in federal money. The Walker approach assures that we fall even further behind.
The store we’re standing in front of doesn’t have broken windows, but a wide-open door for every state and local government in America. The smart ones will maximize the investment their citizens have already made by matching federal dollars and spending it on long-overdue infrastructure needs.
The Buzz
-GQ magazine will be doing a story on Anthony R. Stancl, the former New Berlin Eisenhower student accused of using Facebook to coerce male schoolmates into sexual encounters. The story will be written by Los Angeles-based freelancer Michael Joseph Gross.
–Spanish Journal Editor Robert Miranda, a staunch defender of former Milwaukee Area Technical College President Darnell Cole, smells hypocrisy in Cole’s firing. Cole was dumped after getting arrested for drunk driving, and his staunchest opponents were MATC board members Lauren Baker and Peter Earle. But Miranda checked the Wisconsin Circuit Court records and found Earle received citations for speeding four times in the last four years and Baker two times in 2004. (I guess we should all be careful driving near MATC officials.) “Speeding is just as dangerous as drunk driving,” says Miranda, so Baker and Earle, he contends, should resign from the board.
-Word has it that Sen. Herb Kohl wanted all the credit for finally getting $91.5 million in transit money for Milwaukee to go to Democratic U.S. Rep. David Obey. The portion of the money designated for a Downtown rail line was certain to get criticized by conservative talk radio, which has considerable impact in this metro area. Perhaps Kohl didn’t relish such attacks. If this was his strategy, it failed; in fact, Kohl’s name came first and Obey’s second in most media accounts.
-Last week’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story on Supreme Court candidate Randy Koschnick noted that that while he had criticized incumbent Shirley Abrahamson for not recusing herself in cases involving lawyers who donated to her campaign, Koschnick had done the same thing. The story was inspired by research done by the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, which found Koschnick had heard 1,830 cases from 19 lawyers who had donated $1,345, or 13 percent of the campaign dollars, when he ran for Jefferson County Circuit Court. The JS story, though, used everything from One Wisconsin except the most damning statistic, the 1,830 cases, which demonstrate how often the judge didn’t recuse himself.
-Abrahamson has a huge advantage over Koschnick in campaign money raised, yet that won’t mean anything if a heavily funded conservative third-party group goes after her, as happened in the last two elections. “All of the usual suspects claim they aren’t doing anything,” one veteran political consultant notes. “But it could be some new group we’ve never heard of. I’d try to do it stealthily, and place the ads at the last minute after lulling all the liberals to sleep.” The ads would have to start by at least next week to have enough time to work, the consultant notes. Let’s all synchronize our watches and wait.
-And the Sports Nut knows just how MU and Wisconsin will do in the NCAA Tournament.
