In favor of elected school board members

Here is an article from the Sun last week that discusses the General Assembly looking to possibly introduce the concept of elected school board members to Baltimore County and Baltimore City, which are apparently (much to my surprise) the last two jurisdictions in the state without elected members on their school boards.

I truly feel that the executive of the jurisdiction and the governor appointing all the members of the school board is an insult to the intelligence and talents of the people of Baltimore City and Baltimore County.  Appointed positions equate to political patronage and while patronage is not entirely a bad thing-- it can be a way to ensure that points of view that couldn't come to the forefront through an elected process can be heard-- it's also less transparent to the citizens.

Elected school board positions allow an opportunity for contrary and/or innovate ideas in education to come to the forefront.  This enriches the debate and allows for a better product to come forth-- in this case, the education of schoolchildren.

I would encourage legislators to at the very least, allow for both jurisdictions' boards to be a hybrid entity-- part appointed, part elected-- for a period of time.  The best thing is for both jurisdictions to experiment with school board democracy, and see if they like it.  See who steps forth-- I am sure that there will be some noble candidates in both jurisdictions who do.  Frankly, what is there to lose?

Comments

[Frank Hecker]

"Appointed positions equate to political patronage" But one could also argue that elected positions equate to political pandering and special-interest tinkering. (For example, witness the various instances of right-wing school board members trying to introduce "intelligent design" into biology classes, or analogous behavior on the left-wing side.)

"Elected school board positions allow an opportunity for contrary and/or innovate ideas in education to come to the forefront." By this logic we should elect every key county position -- chiefs of police and fire departments, heads of public works and parks and recreation, and so on -- in order to "allow an opportunity for contrary and/or innovate ideas ... to come to the forefront" with respect to policing, fire prevention, recycling, parks, and so on.

But that way lies madness. The fact is that we as taxpayers are paying taxes to fund an overall set of county services, and I think it makes sense to have a single point of accountability (in the form of the county executive) for making sure those funds are spent wisely and effectively. Most voters, including me, do not have the time, energy, or background to make an informed decision on each and every elected position, which means that in practice the more secondary elected positions like school board will end up being decided by a minority of voters that is not necessarily representative of voters as a whole.

I think we should be doing away with elected school board members in Maryland counties, not moving in the other direction.

[Frank Hecker]

One more point: If we want innovation in education, then I suspect a more realistic approach is to put in place an overall framework by which decentralized innovation can occur at the level of individual schools, e.g., through magnet schools within the traditional public system, charter schools outside the public system, or even at the level of individual students, e.g., homeschooling options, online options (like Florida Virtual School), etc.

I think the chances of a good framework for innovation being put into place are better if it's attempted by a single elected official with an overall mandate (again, the county executive) rather than by a multi-person school board that is vulnerable to being overly-politicized, split between uncooperative factions, and micro-managing the school superintendent.