I recently expressed skepticism whether a proposal to reduce the number of school districts in Pennsylvania would save as much money as its proponents expect.
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.
