The former IBM CEO gets no support for his proposal to eliminate the nation's 15,000 school boards from Fordham trustee Diane Ravitch in this Forbes.com piece.
I can see why a former CEO would like to get rid of school boards, but that would be like saying that corporations should not have a board of directors, an audit committee or any other oversight. That would leave executives free to make decisions without having to be burdened with questions, discussions or conflicts.Certainly, decisions about education could be quickly made and imposed if there were no local school boards. And we would surely have a more efficient--if less democratic--government if there were only an executive branch, with no Congress and no Supreme Court. In political science classes, we call that dictatorship or autocracy.
Wham! No doubt, Ravitch has a certain autocrat in mind. Then she really gives it to the Wall Street crowd (in Forbes.com no less!):
Given the current woeful state of America's businesses and our financial system, it would seem that our business leaders should be a bit more reticent in trying to impose their model on the schools. Indeed, as jobs disappear and stock values evaporate, perhaps it is time for educators to start teaching American business leaders about the values of community, collaboration and compassion.
Ravitch is certainly right that the public has a right to be involved in decisions around public education, and electing a mayor every four years probably doesn't cut it. But she's too kind to school boards. They don't just slow down decisions, they often block promising reforms because they are owned by adult interest groups like teachers unions and wealthy parents. Here's the challenge: creating a political environment where the public as a whole has a say, particularly the school system's clients (the parents and their children), but where the workers in the system aren't the only ones calling the shots.
