| | Advanced Search


Trinity Rep to Debut Great Writers Series for 2014-2015 Season—Trinity Rep will present the Great Writers Series…

newportFILM To Present Last Two Outdoor Screenings of the Summer—newportFILM will host their last two outdoor screenings…

Narragansett Bay Ranked #5 as Best for Boaters in US—Providence has ranked as the #5 best region…

Chef Walter’s Flavors + Knowledge: Red Peppers and Potatoes Frittata—End of summer combination with red peppers and…

Rhode Island Ranked Third Worst in Nation for Online College Students—Rhode Island has ranked as the third worst…

Arrivals & Departures Highlight Emotional Day At Gillette Stadium—The New England Patriots and New England Revolution…

Block Calls Out Raimondo For Failing To Support 2010 Tax Reform—Republican candidate for Governor Ken Block has blasted…

Fung Blasts Block for Government Contract Extension and Refusal to Release Tax Returns—Republican candidate for Governor Allan Fung has called…

Saul Kaplan: 3 Simple Words to Revolutionize the World—How many people end business meetings with an…

Coming to Rhythm and Roots - Charles Bradley—Charles Bradley is experiencing a late life awakening.


Aaron Regunberg: Providence Needs an Elected School Board

Friday, May 18, 2012


Earlier this week the Providence Journal reported that only three of nine Providence School Board members showed up at the last board meeting, meaning there was no quorum and the board could not vote on any business matters. This was just a week after the board’s vote on a new superintendent, a meeting at which only five of nine members were present.

I think this is a problem. To be clear, I am not trying to call out individual members for missing a School Board meeting—there are numerous legitimate reasons one might have to skip out once in a while, particularly if the business for that meeting did not seem very worthwhile.

But that, in my opinion, is exactly the point we should be raising: why do we have a school board that is so inconsequential as to not seem worthwhile even to its own members?

Of course, that’s an overstatement; I think all of the board’s members are good and caring people, and I don’t believe any of them actually don’t care about fulfilling the offices of the School Board. What I do think, however, is that these absences serve as a telling symptom of a greater structural problem, which is an appointed board with little actual significance, no real independenceand no constituency to which and by which they can be held accountable.

The debate between elected and appointed school boards has been many years in the making. The idea of replacing elected boards with appointed ones—often referred to as mayoral control—started to gain attention as a trendy new reform strategy in the 1990s. The idea was that centralizing power in one official’s hands would increase accountability and efficiency and ultimately lead to improved academic achievement for students.

That’s a great claim. The problem is, after several decades of mayoral control in districts across the country, there is no convincing evidence to back this claim up, either here in Providence (which has had mayoral control since 1980) or in the growing body of academic research on this issue. Take, for example, a recent study by researchers at the Institute on Education Law and Policy at Rutgers University looking at the effects of mayoral control in nine major cities—Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.—which found that there is “no conclusive evidence that governance changes increase achievement.”

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago published another study in 2011 looking specifically at Chicago’s appointed school board which not only found that “there is compelling evidence that, for over 15 years, the Board’s policies have failed to improve the education of the vast majority of Chicago public school students,” but also that “Chicago’s appointed Board of Education is not responsive to the community it serves and not directly accountable to the public. The Board’s policies, processes, and structures virtually exclude genuine public participation and input in decisions. As a result, the knowledge and experience of educators and parents are largely excluded.”

This last part is really important. Right now, when parents or students have a concern—say, they don’t want their school to be closed—and want to make it heard, the only place they can really go is the School Board. But an appointed board, which has no institutional reason to take community input into account and no power to act on that input regardless, effectively closes off this arena for democratic discourse and public engagement in our schools. The reason we have an elected City Council is because it’s important to have someone representing your local community in city government, someone who is accessible, who can work on issues significant to each neighborhood, and who can be held democratically accountable by his or her constituents if he or she is not doing a good job of the above. All of these reasons for an elected council are just as important to the governance of our schools, so why allow for democracy in one and not the other?

Of course, there are drawbacks to elected school boards. One is the entrance of money; obviously whenever an official needs to fundraise to run for office,the door is left open for corruption and the disproportionate influence of moneyed interests. But in small districts like ours, money can get you only so far—candidates need to raise some funds, but there’s a sharp decrease in returns past a certain level, ensuring that spending is not an effective replacement for old-fashioned constituent contact.

One argument against elected school boards that I absolutely do not accept is that they subject public education to “politics.” Let’s be very clear—public education is political. The questions of what we should teach our children, how we should teach our children, and how we should allocate the resources to do the above are some of the most politically fraught issues imaginable. Appointing instead of electing a school board does not take the politics out of school governance; all it does it restrict the ability of parents, students, teachers and other community members to have a meaningful place in these inherently political decision-making processes.

Democracy can be messy, there’s no question about it. But there’s a reason we value public elections in this country. There’s a reason our constitution begins with the line “We the People,” and there’s a reason sovereignty resides in the public. I don’t see the sense in shunting aside those reasons for an issue as vitally important as education—particularly considering we’ve been doing just that in Providence since 1980 and have precious little to show for it. We should not be afraid of democracy; it may not be perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got, and I think it’s time we gave it a shot.


Related Articles


Enjoy this post? Share it with others.


What a great idea, because I don't see any possible drawbacks to the teacher's unions funding their candidates for the school board. It's not as if the public unions control any other part of the state or city government, right?

Comment #1 by Roger Williams on 2012 05 18

Spot on, Roger.

Comment #2 by Mike Govern on 2012 05 18

yes we need an elected school board!

Comment #3 by anthony sionni on 2012 05 18

Elected or appointed officials, it does not matter. Successive elected Providence mayors and city councils have destroyed the city financially, and then walked away without consequence.
In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where there is a tendency to take undue risks because the costs are not borne by the party taking the risk. Politicians take the risk; citizens are left with the wreckage.
What matters most is the quality and integrity of the people we choose to lead us. Sadly, the political system does not promote such people. Providence residents vote for liberal panderers, not fiscally responsible people because fiscal conservatives are usually social conservatives – fiscal and social conservatisms are inextricably linked. So many Providence residents worship the party of government – Democrats – that I don’t see anything changing until the financial markets force a change. But by then it will be too late.
And so you have it. Panderers are elected and continuously re-elected. Responsible candidates are defeated. Politicians are not constrained by moral hazard. Fiscal responsibility must be forced upon pandering politicians, but by then it is too late because the damage has already been done. The pandering politicians walk away unscathed. Alexis de Tocqueville words are instructive.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Comment #4 by Christopher Lee on 2012 05 18

the city of providence does not need a school board and neither do any other cities and towns in ri.

they no longer serve a purpose.

they spend what they want and dump the bill on the city council. no accontability.

you hire a superintendent that reports to the city council and mayor and he\she does his job or he\she out.

Comment #5 by jon paycheck on 2012 05 18

The school system should be operated like any other business. You have a president (superintendent) who reports to the CEO (the mayor) and the board of directors (the city council) has the final say. We have waayyyy too many elected officials in this state as it is and don't need anymore elected people for the special interests to buy their way into office.

The Providence school committee (and the ones in every other city and town) are completely unnecessary. The money to fund cities and towns comes from one main revenue source (resident and business taxpayers), and there should be one budget and one control point. No more control by labor, let the mayor put in a competent superintendent, and the superintendent can have an executive board (made up of the school administrators) to run the district.

UPS doesn't invite the truck drivers in to the board meetings to decide on key business strategies, and government entities shouldn't be doing the equivalent of the same thing with regard to schools - it's too expensive and inefficient.

Comment #6 by Russ Hryzan on 2012 05 19

An eleceted school board would certainly not have the same political ties as an appointed one. As an example, one can sit through numerous board meetings in CF & rarely does any board member go against the superintendent. There is a lack of independence among the board members. Another example is the President of the Board is a Director of RICAN which seeks to promote charter schools. It smacks of a conflict of interest when her focus should be on improving the public schools under her charge rather than promoting charters.

Comment #7 by barnaby morse on 2012 05 20

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.