By Fritz Edelstein
April 26, 2004

After months of debate and discussion between District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams, the D.C. council and community groups on the topic of who should control the city's public school system, the city council on April 20 rejected the mayor's plan. Williams has stated continuously that "the District's public education system is broken. We have a moral obligation to do something different." Williams has argued that giving him direct control over the schools would provide clearer lines of authority than currently exist. These are similar to the remarks Williams made at the Conference's Mayors' Education Summit last fall in Washington (DC).

Last month, Williams stated that if he were given oversight of the schools and did not meet certain measurable goals within a year, he would relinquish control and perhaps resign from office. Williams has argued vigorously that by having the mayor with direct control over the schools makes it clearer who is ultimately accountable for their performance. Also, he believes in DC that mayoral control would bring more rapid improvement to a system whose test scores are among the lowest in the nation. One could say when the next series of complaints are registered about the quality of the schools in the Nation's capital that one will not be able to blame or point the finger at Williams.

In the April 20 Washington Post, Chancellor of the New York City Schools Joel Klein had an op ed piece entitled Give the Schools to the Mayor. Klein admits that running an urban school system can be one of the toughest jobs in America. "The ability to transform a public education system begins with a concept central to any successful enterprise, public or private, — accountability." He believes that the school chancellor must have the full confidence and backing of the mayor, and be accountable to the mayor. He further stated that "if America's large city school systems are to deliver on the promise of educational equality, they will have to face the hardest challenge of all — the challenge to change."

Williams began his appeal for the leadership role to D.C. council members and the local citizenry beginning as far back as 2000 when he first asked that the mayor appoint the school board. He was trying to bring some stability to the chaos in the schools. A referendum passed enabling the mayor to appoint 4 members to the school board including its chair, and the public elects the other five members. The board's current chair did not support the mayor's plan.

The school system has been plagued by problems including numerous changes in leadership, budget cuts, lack of textbooks, crumbling infrastructure, low-test scores, high dropout rate, and a scandal within the local teachers union.

Williams' proposal was for the mayor to set policy for the 64,200'student school system including the budget with the council and select the school superintendent whose title would be changed to chancellor. The school board would return to an all elected panel, but would only have an advisory role. An alternative proposal was passed by the council to keep the current system in place until January 2006, and then return to a fully elected school board, thus reducing the mayor's role. A final vote on this issue is to be taken by the council on May 4. However, the mayor has threatened a possible veto of the alternative proposal if it passes the council.

Williams stated at a press conference after the council vote that he is still very much committed to helping find a strong schools chief. He recognizes that the selection is not a "silver bullet" and that the "right structure" needed to be in place.

Klein concludes his piece saying, "The political stakes are high when a mayor obtains control of and responsibility for a city school system. But it is the enlightened mayor who recognizes that the stakes are even higher for young people of the city, and who steps up to the challenge of creating and running the schools."