It’s interesting that quite a few heavyweight critics think that many educational problems would be solved if only we could get rid of local school boards. On December 1 Louis V. Gerstner, ex-CEO of IBM, maintained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the nation’s 15,000 school districts should be replaced by about 70 districts – one for each state and one for each of our 20 or so largest cities. Earlier in 2008 Matt Miller, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a “progressive” think tank founded by President Clinton’s former chief of staff, argued in the January-February issue of the Atlantic Monthly for nationalizing the public education system altogether.

Both Gerstner and Miller believe in national standards – as do I. (It’s idiotic to have “proficiency” in math and English measured by different yardsticks, depending on the state doing the measuring.) But Gerstner never even mentions teacher unions, which gives his whole article an other-worldly tone. Miller says that unions run roughshod over local boards at the bargaining table – not just on money but on a wide range of educational issues. He then implies – without explaining why — that unions will have less influence at the national level.

Miller also writes: “…federal aid could be offered to raise teachers’ salaries in poor schools, provided that states or districts take measures such as linking pay to performance and deferring or eliminating tenure.” I’m willing to believe that he believes that merit pay and limits on tenure are good ideas. I’m happy if he can convince his readers to think of them as “progressive,” instead of dismissing them as “conservative.” However, rather than waiting for Congress to take issues like this seriously, I can’t think of a better way to stimulate informed debate than by opening up proposed contracts for local public discussion.

Just as energy conservation is more cost-effective and environmentally benign than subsidizing “alternative” energy sources, transparency will be more cost-effective and educationally innovative than shifting power away from local consumers. Reduce the ability of unions to drag out negotiations for months until they’re ready to launch a public-relations blitz, backed by threats of strikes, and you’ll find local school boards making wiser decisions.

I have no philosophical problem with countywide units of local governance. But Rhone’s confidence that consolidation will save tax money strikes me as politically naïve. He gives reasons why consolidation ought to save money, and I don’t question his logic. I just doubt that the savings he expects will materialize. In fact, without more transparency on board-union contracts, consolidation might well make matters worse.

Several of Rhone’s suggestions – like bulk purchasing and cross-district health trusts – are sensible (and can occur now). It’s even possible that some of the administrative savings he expects might materialize. But the notion that creating larger administrative units will significantly reduce the actual number of administrators runs counter to experience. It won’t help that some superintendents becomes “assistant superintendents” if everybody involved expects raises.

Rhone addresses the single largest school cost item (about half of every district budget) in one sentence: “Teacher compensation and benefits would be standardized over the county.” That sentence undercuts his main thesis. Does anyone believe that salaries will be “standardized” at any level lower than the highest then prevailing in the county?

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that hoped-for administrative cost savings materialize — say, at 20% of current cost levels. (Higher savings are easy to imagine and describe in detail, but so are unicorns.) That would be 20% of about 10% of most budgets – or 2% of a district’s total budget. Good, but I’d guess that “standardization” would also boost average instructional staff salaries and benefits by at least 5%. (Rhone acknowledges that consolidation is unlikely to reduce union political power.) That’d be 5% of 50% of most district’s budgets — about 2.5% of total costs.

Frankly, I doubt that real-world expenses would come even this close to a wash. Salaries and benefits at state agencies and “intermediate units” hardly suggest to me that negotiators for larger entities will do any better than smaller local boards now do — as long as everyone bargains behind closed doors. I don’t know exactly how much PSEA collects annually in dues, but it must be around $70 million. And that doesn’t count the urban AFT affiliates. Even if I’m off by several millions, that kind of money buys a lot influence in Harrisburg.

Does this mean that county-wide school districts (or other plans for district consolidations) are a bad idea? Not at all. But as long as school board directors at any level can negotiate contracts in secret and rush them to vote without any chance for public comment, it hardly matters whether dubious deals for taxpayers are negotiated piecemeal by guys like me or by boards who can cut similarly dubious deals on a larger scale.