Comments on: Give “Hizzoner” the Schools http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/09/give_hizzoner_the_schools.html Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:36:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: JACK WILL ANNA http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/09/give_hizzoner_the_schools.html#comment-309 JACK WILL ANNA Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:34:16 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/09/give_hizzoner_the_schools.html#comment-309 Hi Abdul we found you again! Please contact us soon!(call lisa early in the morning!) Hi Abdul we found you again! Please contact us soon!(call lisa early in the morning!)

]]> By: John M http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/09/give_hizzoner_the_schools.html#comment-308 John M Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:41:51 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/09/give_hizzoner_the_schools.html#comment-308 I’m not sure I understand. As you note, IPS and most other school districts are operated by an elected school board, which hires/fires the superintendent, makes (or at least has an up-down vote) on a multitude of other decisions, large and small, such as personnel, curriculum, expenses, budgets, etc. School boards are comprised of private citizens who have “day jobs” and who don’t derive much income from their position on the board, but if you know anyone who has been on a school board, you know that it is an involved, time consuming activity. So what would be the result of the shift? It seems unlikely that in addition to what is already a more-than-full-time job, Bart Peterson and his successors would personally assume all of the duties currently executed by nine people or however many IPS board members there are. What would probably happen is that Peterson would appoint one or more school commissioners to handle the day-to-day approval of contracts and personnel decisions that are currently the province of the elected school board. Or, he would pick the superintendent and empower him or her to make all the decisions with the mayor serving as a rubber stamp. Essentially, we would end up with an appointed school board instead of an elected school board, or a superintendent who isn’t really accountable to anyone on a day to day basis. Sure, there would be direct accountability of the mayor to the voters. But unlike a school board, the performance of IPS would be only one of a bundle of issues and duties that might turn an election. As you note, the results in other cities are “mixed.” That’s probably a fair assessment of IPS in recent decades. Some decline, some improvement in some areas, overall decline, whatever. In addition, it would move the school evaluation process directly into the political process. Regardless of what is happening in the schools, an incumbent mayor will feel the need to talk up IPS and the challenger will rip IPS, regardless of the situation on the ground. Maybe a compromise position would be to allow the mayor to appoint, say, 3 of 9 school board members, which would give him an opportunity to influence IPS but would also allow the influence of direct democracy. It seems to me that you are speaking in platitudes. If we just think about it “for a second,” it will be obvious that adding IPS to the mayor’s already substantial list of duties will make IPS a substantially better school system than it is under the direction of 9 fairly anonymous but directly elected board members. Why is this so obvious? It's pretty obvious to me that a change in the hierarchy will not result in the mayor in Indianapolis personally performing all of the tasks now performed by the school board. P.S. It's also worth noting that the IPS district boundaries are not the same as the boundaries of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis. The majority of people eligible to vote in our mayoral elections do not live in the IPS district. Particularly if the mayor's office were to return to the Republicans, actual IPS stakeholders, even if overwhelmingly dissatisified with the mayor's operation of the schools, would not, on their own, have the power to vote the mayor out of office. That makes it a different equation than cities like Chicago and NYC, where the district boundaries are essentially the same as the city boundaries. I’m not sure I understand. As you note, IPS and most other school districts are operated by an elected school board, which hires/fires the superintendent, makes (or at least has an up-down vote) on a multitude of other decisions, large and small, such as personnel, curriculum, expenses, budgets, etc. School boards are comprised of private citizens who have “day jobs” and who don’t derive much income from their position on the board, but if you know anyone who has been on a school board, you know that it is an involved, time consuming activity.

So what would be the result of the shift? It seems unlikely that in addition to what is already a more-than-full-time job, Bart Peterson and his successors would personally assume all of the duties currently executed by nine people or however many IPS board members there are. What would probably happen is that Peterson would appoint one or more school commissioners to handle the day-to-day approval of contracts and personnel decisions that are currently the province of the elected school board. Or, he would pick the superintendent and empower him or her to make all the decisions with the mayor serving as a rubber stamp. Essentially, we would end up with an appointed school board instead of an elected school board, or a superintendent who isn’t really accountable to anyone on a day to day basis. Sure, there would be direct accountability of the mayor to the voters. But unlike a school board, the performance of IPS would be only one of a bundle of issues and duties that might turn an election. As you note, the results in other cities are “mixed.” That’s probably a fair assessment of IPS in recent decades. Some decline, some improvement in some areas, overall decline, whatever. In addition, it would move the school evaluation process directly into the political process. Regardless of what is happening in the schools, an incumbent mayor will feel the need to talk up IPS and the challenger will rip IPS, regardless of the situation on the ground.

Maybe a compromise position would be to allow the mayor to appoint, say, 3 of 9 school board members, which would give him an opportunity to influence IPS but would also allow the influence of direct democracy.

It seems to me that you are speaking in platitudes. If we just think about it “for a second,” it will be obvious that adding IPS to the mayor’s already substantial list of duties will make IPS a substantially better school system than it is under the direction of 9 fairly anonymous but directly elected board members. Why is this so obvious? It’s pretty obvious to me that a change in the hierarchy will not result in the mayor in Indianapolis personally performing all of the tasks now performed by the school board.

P.S. It’s also worth noting that the IPS district boundaries are not the same as the boundaries of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis. The majority of people eligible to vote in our mayoral elections do not live in the IPS district. Particularly if the mayor’s office were to return to the Republicans, actual IPS stakeholders, even if overwhelmingly dissatisified with the mayor’s operation of the schools, would not, on their own, have the power to vote the mayor out of office. That makes it a different equation than cities like Chicago and NYC, where the district boundaries are essentially the same as the city boundaries.

]]>