E. Thomas McClanahan of the The Kansas City Star writes that the mayor’s plan to take over the city’s troubled school district is a non-starter. While I often agree with this columnist, he fails to explain why mayoral control of the district is less desirable than any of the current alternative scenarios. KC may have a weak mayor’s office by design, but has relative independence of the school board done anything for public education in the city?
Mayoral takeover is not a panacea. But the immediate practical alternatives would seem to be either state takeover or some continuation of the dismal status quo. To McClanahan and others who oppose a local takeover (perhaps State Senator Victor Callahan, etc.), what is your solution that will work better?
In school turn-around efforts nationally, mayoral control of city school districts has picked up steam in recent years. For communities mired in civic squabbles for decades, the idea of a strongman who can make decisions at will can seem attractive. It’s less democratic as McClanahan points out, but particularly at the local level, isn’t there still room for republican rather than participatory governance?
Kansas City schools need a major shakeup, and it’s hard to see how anything but a major solution can provide that. Again, I’m not saying mayoral takeover is ideal, but until another (politically feasible) answer presents itself, I don’t know what the city has to lose.
