It might seem like an easy fix for achievement-challenged urban school districts: Put the mayor in charge of the schools so that voters and taxpayers have a single person they can blame, or credit, for student performance. If only it were that simple.
Fewer than two dozen large cities across the country have increased mayoral involvement or have put mayors directly in charge of their schools, typically in response to governance problems, poor results or both.
The mayoral-control push began in the 1990s, and now a group of GOP legislators wants to bring that model to Minnesota. They propose that the mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis appoint their school superintendents and several board members.
Research is mixed on mayoral control of public schools. Some have reported increased test scores, but the same kinds of improvements have been made in similarly situated districts with elected boards.
Community input and careful analysis of individual districts should drive decisions this critical. In other cities, school board or administration corruption, or gross incompetence, prompted mayoral control. Although they face challenges today, Minneapolis and St. Paul have much healthier districts.
An oft-cited 2010 Rutgers University study examined several school districts -- including those in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C. -- and concluded that mayoral control is no "magic bullet" for urban school reform, in part because the process leaves too many parents and community groups feeling left out of the policymaking process.
The researchers also found that mayoral involvement could bring stability, attention and increased public and private funding to schools.
"Mayoral involvement, if not control, should at the very least be considered as part of an overall district improvement strategy," the report said.
