Why have school boards at all? asked Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt in a provocative op-ed this week. We don't elect our city police chief or our county health commissioner, yet nobody sees this as a denial of democracy. Why not let our elected mayors and city or county councils-the people who make the budgets-take similar responsibility for public schools? Hiatt quotes Michael Usdan, who argues that today's separation of school boards from the rest of local government impedes the cooperation needed to deal with complex, diverse populations in cities and inner suburbs. After recounting the antics of some dysfunctional school boards, Hiatt describes efforts of mayors, governors, and legislatures to take control of troubled school systems in some urban areas, but reminds us that the challenges facing these schools are enormous and will not be solved merely by reshuffling the folks at the top. He remains hopeful, however, that boards appointed by political leaders "can deliver something that was beyond the capacity of the elected panels they're replacing: a qualified superintendent who sticks around for a while and a school board that lets the superintendent do his or her job. Such stability isn't sufficient to guarantee progress, but it certainly is a prerequisite." See "What's so sacred about a school board?" by Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post, May 6, 2002.
