Study Says Mayoral Control Of Schools Works
And what happens today? A study by researchers at Harvard and Brown indicates cities that give mayors control of their schools get better results than those who don't.
The L.A. Daily News reports, "It concludes that those districts showed greater improvement than traditionally run school systems because of greater accountability and higher public confidence in the education system."
Sounds like a good reason to support the mayor's takeover plan to me. Obviously, we'll want to read the study and learn more about the researchers themselves, but the preponderance of the evidence just shifted to mayor's side of this debate.
After all, if we don't base policy on objective, empirical study, we can't reasonably expect good results.
In an attempt to rebut the study, LAUSD Board Member David Tokofsky said: "When you hit rock bottom like Cleveland, Chicago, New York and other cities, you ought to be willing to try mayoral control, governor control, or even turning your schools over to the French government. But L.A. doesn't fit the prerequisites that justify that."
Yikes! Is he saying let's wait for things to get worse before we try something that researchers say works in other cities?!
Anyway, I, for one, am now leaning in favor of the mayor's takeover plan. And I've got to give him credit for pushing to make it happen.
How about you? Do you favor or oppose mayoral takeover? In answering, remember that he won't be the mayor forever. So even if you're not wild about him, what do you think about mayoral control of the schools in general?