Elected school committee no prize
Diverse appointed body getting the job done
Earlier this month a few black community leaders concerned about underperforming schools in Boston and the racial tension in the high schools suggested that improvement in both areas would come sooner with a return to the elected School Committee. However, a review of the advantages of the appointed committee since 1992 would indicate that the Boston Public Schools and the parents and students served by them are far better served with the appointed committee.
The primary benefit of the appointed committee is that it holds one person accountable for Boston school performance — the mayor.
The fundamental flaw of the elected committee was that it did not ensure direct accountability. The mayor was required to raise the funds to support the system, but the School Committee decided how to spend the money. This division of duties contributed to a culture of mistrust and finger-pointing rather than the improved collaboration that exists today.
Politically, the mayor did not need to become directly invested in school performance as he must now.
With the elected committee, the priority of most members was to serve their voting constituents, causing them to focus more on day-to-day operations rather than broad educational policy.
The old system provided no incentive for the School Committee to control spending or any penalty if it did not. The elected committee incurred annual operating deficits in 11 out of 14 years prior to 1992, while the appointed committee has achieved operating surpluses every year since 1992.
The funding for the School Department has significantly benefitted under the appointed School Committee. For example, over the past five years (fiscal 2012 to fiscal 2017), school spending has increased more then any other city department. School Department operational spending, less health insurance (which is not included in any other departmental budgets) increased by 25 percent. Over this same period spending on public safety (police and fire) increased by 23 percent and the aggregate increase of all other departments was 16 percent.
What is noteworthy is that during this time, the city’s charter school tuition assessment increased by $82.7 million or 112 percent, and the city continued to support the school budget at 35 percent of the city’s total operational spending. The tuition assessment is the state education aid that follows the 10,000 Boston resident students attending charter schools.
A system that holds the mayor fully accountable for educational performance also ensures that more voters will be able to influence school improvement.
Prior to 1992, School Committee races lacked competition as well as votes. In 1989, incumbents in four out of nine district races ran unopposed. No district candidate in a competitive race received more than 16 percent of the vote.
The appointed committee has proven to be far more successful in creating real stability in the superintendent’s position and continuity of educational programs which are important for school reform. In stark contrast, 10 superintendents served in a 24-year period under the elected system. The first superintendent selected by the appointed committee, Tom Payzant, served for 11 years and Carol Johnson served for six years.
The appointed School Committee now brings together Bostonians from diverse backgrounds to work with the superintendent in developing school policy, which was not replicated with the elected committee. Today, of the seven-member Boston School Committee, three members are black, two are Latina and two are white. The continued benefit of the appointed board will require the mayor to appoint highly qualified individuals with appropriate experience to the committee.
Suggesting the return of a failed elected school committee structure only dilutes attention away from the focus on more important issues to improve the Boston school system.