School decentralization theory, and the reform it prompted, turned out to be wrong.
Americans are trying to fix their schools. There are many proposals for how to do this and movement in different directions, but one of the most popular directions now is decentralization. The theory is that school district bureaucracies are largely to blame for our education problems; they issue rules and regulations that, together with the rules in union contracts, hinder school reform.
Rules force all schools to be the same, the theory goes. They make flexibility difficult, if not impossible. In bureaucracies, employees are rewarded for complying with rules rather than for educating students. And rules, the theory continues, are made to make life easier for officials rather than to make schools more effective for students. Also, children are all different, as are their teachers, so if we're to have good schools, they will each have to be as different as our students and teachers.
Seems reasonable, doesn't it? A similar theory was advanced 25 years ago in the New York City school decentralization battle. It said, "Central officials don't care about students and don't really know what's going on in the system's 1,000 schools. And the central bureaucracy is not representative of the diverse groups in the city. If the system is broken up so that each community elects its own board, hires its own principals, chooses its own appropriate curriculum, and holds teachers accountable, we'll turn the schools and student achievement around. Parents will go all out in electing school boards -- and we know that parental involvement improves student achievement. Parents will hold board members accountable through elections, just like in the suburbs. And if suburban communities can do a good job managing their schools, the communities in our city can, too. Besides, nothing can be worse than what we have now. And if it doesn't work, the legislature can change it again." That, too, sounded reasonable, and the New York State legislature created 32 school districts in New York City.
What's the evidence after 25 years? Was the decentralization theory correct? For starters, student achievement has not soared as predicted. Also, the community boards have been frequently involved in scandals. Community board members have been caught selling jobs for money, drugs, and sex, and some have stolen funds. And there is little political accountability, since only about I0 percent of community members bother to vote in school board elections.
Last May 30th, we got a good, down-to-earth look at the condition of community school boards -- and the decentralization theory in real life -- from the New York Daily News. "Shocking Report on District School Boards," the headline read; "Exclusive Poll Every Parent Must Read." The News interviewed 236 of the 288 school board members and found that:
• 56 percent did not know the number of students in their district.
• 80 percent did not know the percentage of students in their district who could read at grade level.
• 78 percent did not know the percentage of students who were at grade level in math.
• 67 percent did not know the occupancy rate in their district schools, and 74 percent did not know how many schools in their district were over I00 percent occupied.
• 79 percent did not know the amount of their district budgets, even though they had voted on their budgets just a few weeks earlier.
The decentralization theory -- and the reform it prompted -- was wrong. Instead of knowledgeable and committed school boards, New York City got boards that the News called "Dumb and Dumber." Instead of better governance, the city got a system of mass patronage. And instead of a greater focus on student achievement, the city got schools that were almost actively encouraged to have less. Things couldn't get worse, they said 25 years ago, but they did. Now almost everyone wants a change, but since local school boards use their little patronage machines to support other politicians, that would be a heavy lift.
Does all this mean we should oppose recent proposals for even more decentralization? Like having each school on its own, apart from any central system? Like having parents, businesses or community groups run individual schools? Like creating more and more charter schools? Not necessarily. But we should be aware that things don't always work out the way our theories and hopes tell us -- and that things can get worse.
Above all, we need to question and debate a hidden assumption behind these decentralization proposals: that changing the way schools are governed will change -- that is, improve -- teaching and student achievement. Only changes focuses on teaching and student learning can do that. So far, we can confidently say that changing school governance will change things, but the assumption that it will be for the better is not proven.