By J.D. LaRock
September 29, 2003

Affirming their commitment to improving America's public schools, more than two dozen mayors gathered in Washington (DC) September 23rd for the U.S. Conference of Mayors' 2003 Education Summit. The day-long summit, supported by the Broad Foundation, was the latest event in the Mayors' Initiative for Leadership in Education (MILE), the Conference of Mayors' ongoing effort to enhance mayoral leadership and involvement in public education.

In his opening remarks, Conference President Hempstead (NY) Mayor James A. Garner asserted that the health of cities is intimately connected to the quality of its public schools — and should be a major part of every mayor's sustainable development strategy. At the same time, he expressed frustration at the fact that while many cities provide substantial resources for public education, mayors typically find it difficult to influence school affairs. "In Hempstead, 66 cents on the dollar goes to school taxes," he said. "Yet, I have no control whatsoever."

In a wide-ranging series of panels, mayors explored the benefits and pitfalls of assuming a greater role in public education — as well as the strategies mayors are pursuing to exercise leadership in education. For instance, Washington (DC) Mayor Anthony Williams spoke about his current efforts to secure passage of a bill in Congress that would increase the District of Columbia's public school budget, expand funds for charter schools, and establish a scholarship fund that would use public money to send 2000 students to private and parochial schools. "I'm trying to expand the District of Columbia's population by 100,000 residents," he said. "I can't do it without improving education. And I can't be afraid to experiment."

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, meanwhile, recounted his campaign to elect a majority of candidates to a newly reconstituted school board. "The old board was dysfunctional, and our superintendent was unwilling to upset the apple cart," he said. "We have an unacceptably high dropout rate; the school system is not even fully accredited. So we ran a slate of candidates. We had to raise millions of dollars to do it. But in the end, each of them won by a margin of 60 percent or greater."

In both instances, the mayors' involvement in education has been viewed as bold and controversial. For example, after Slay discovered that the previous school board had left behind a $90 million deficit, his new board approved a plan to lay off 1400 school system employees and close sixteen underutilized schools. The move generated great concern in the affected communities, as well as a boycott led by Rev. Al Sharpton. But Slay was credited for putting the school district on better financial footing, and garnered the support of parent groups, labor organizations, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Similarly, Williams has been criticized by elected officials, organizations and citizens who oppose the use of taxpayer funds to support school vouchers. At the summit, however, his efforts received a respectful reception: Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys even called on the Conference to formally support Williams's proposal.

eys even called on the Conference to formally support Williams's proposal.

Using Existing Mayoral Power to Improve Schools

The summit, however, was by no means dominated by debates over hot-button issues. In fact, mayors were particularly interested in learning how they could use their existing authority to develop positive relationships with school officials. Irvington (NJ) Mayor Wayne Smith, for instance, described how his office now requires the local Little League and Pop Warner football league to follow a "pass'to-play" policy for students as a condition of receiving city funding. On a larger scale, San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales spoke of a program he established to help public school teachers secure low-cost mortgages. Gonzales noted, however, that the way school districts and other agencies are structured can impede a mayor's involvement. "I have nineteen independent school districts in my city, so communicating with them is not easy," he remarked. "Making the social service-education connection is also very difficult in California because the county provides those services."

very difficult in California because the county provides those services."

Despite similar limitations, several mayors stated they were able to promote policies that benefit school districts and students. "I would love to run my school system," said Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, "but there are too many districts. So we had to find a different way. In our case, we gradually took over functions that both of us were providing, like facilities management, auditing the books, and information technology services. I also supported universal pre-kindergarten programs and school resource officers. That all happened without control."

That strategy — assisting school districts with non-instructional matters while providing constructive support — was endorsed by Stanford University professor Michael Kirst, one of the experts who addressed the mayors at the summit. "The closer mayors get to the instructional core, the more resistance they will face," he said. "There's a lot to overcome, and it calls for a lot of conversations — not just with superintendents, but with school boards."

Kirst added that it may be time to reconsider the responsibilities of school boards, which emerged in America in the early 1900's and have not changed much since. "The school board's role is anything and everything, which makes its authority confusing. School boards come from rural America. Is this model useful now? Perhaps we should change school boards to educational policy boards — have state law changed so that school boards focus just on policy decisions."

New Directions for Public Education

Other experts suggested that traditional views of schools should be reexamined, especially in view of the social service needs of low-income students in cities. Martin Blank of the Coalition for Community Schools described the "community schools" model, in which all the services children need — such as health clinics, after'school programs, recreation opportunities, and public libraries — are housed within one school building. "Putting all the services in the same building creates an integrated continuum of care for children," said Blank. "But it requires changing the way people think about school buildings: that they are public space, to be used all throughout the day."

According to Blank, mayors are well positioned to promote the development of community schools because they usually have authority over the health, recreation, and other services these schools provide. "They represent the next level of mayoral involvement in education," he said. Several cities, though — including Washington (DC), Portland (OR), Providence and Indianapolis, have already embraced the concept. In Providence, Mayor David Cicilline's campaign included a pledge to bring community schools to that city — a pledge he is now making good with support from private foundations. "Community schools are an affirmation of the responsibility we have to produce healthy, productive children," said Cicilline. "They show that we recognize education is not just the superintendent's job, not just the teacher's job. They-re a natural extension of all the other things a mayor has to do."

Promoting Choices in Education

Several experts focused on the role mayors can play in developing choices in education. As Andrew Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute put it, "There are two core questions in education: who chooses schools, and who provides schools? Yet our policy solutions mainly focus on the demand side. Mayors need to focus on the supply side — providing schools. Focusing on the supply side is good for mayors because it provides accountability and control."

According to Rotherham, the rise of the charter school movement over the last decade provides mayors with a banner opportunity to get involved in the supply side of public education. Indeed, Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson spoke about how he has seized this opportunity wholeheartedly — becoming the first and only mayor in the country to receive the power to approve charter schools. Although the process took several years and involved political compromises with superintendents, state officials, and the local teachers' union, Peterson has overseen the creation of five new charter schools in his city, and may open five more by next September.

"I saw charter schools as a less divisive and more feasible way to gain reform," Peterson explained. "Mayoral control seemed an impossible goal to achieve. Vouchers meant war. Charter schools offer a third way. They give the mayor the authority to create a new system from the ground up."

"There must be choice in education," Peterson added. "People will make a choice if you do not offer them a choice — and too often, the choice is to move out of the city."

The Federal Government's Role

One area where mayors believe they do not have much choice, however, concerns the implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In a spirited discussion with officials from the U.S. Department of Education, the American Federation of Teachers, Public Education Fund and the Council of Great City Schools, mayors expressed serious concerns about the impact the law will have on the public schools in their cities — and about the federal government's commitment to funding the law appropriately.

Although mayors said they supported the law's goal — that all students must meet rigorous literacy and academic standards over the next 12 years — they took issue with the framework the law sets out to achieve that goal. Under NCLB, all schools and subgroups of students must make "adequate yearly progress" toward 100 percent literacy, as measured by their performance on statewide standardized tests. If a school fails to make adequate progress, it is labeled as "in need of improvement," and can be reorganized or closed if it continues over several years to fall short of the standard.

U.S. Department of Education Assistant Secretary Laurie Rich exhorted mayors to be supportive when school districts are forced to make such tough decisions, and encouraged them to "ask the tough questions" when schools fail to make enough progress. But several mayors disagreed, saying the law's standards were unreasonable, especially because the President and Congress have failed to fund it at authorized levels. While acknowledging that the current budget does provide increases in federal funding, especially for schools in low-income areas, Providence Mayor Cicilline called present funding levels "a broken promise." Manchester (NH) Mayor Robert Baines — a former high school principal — labeled the entire law "lunacy." Earlier this year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution calling on Congress and the President to "fully fund" NCLB.

Taking the Next Steps

After eight hours of continuous discussion, the mayors at Conference's Education Summit made two things clear: they are willing to tackle the tough questions facing America's schools — and that many questions remain. Mayors said they hoped further meetings, such as local and regional summits, would be organized to help them address some of the deeper issues in public education — such as funding equity, racial and cultural issues, and closing the achievement gap. As Broad Foundation founder Eli Broad observed, "May 2004 is the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, when this country declared we would no longer have unequal systems of education. We need to be faster in making improvements."

Mayors agree — and say they are up to and welcome the challenge.