A Case Study in Policy Change: Mayoral Control in New York City's Schools

During the 33 years New York City schools were controlled primarily by community school boards, the city's mayors posited that greater mayoral influence was the cure for the ills afflicting the city's schools. This paper applies theories of policy change to the 30-year battle for control of New York's schools while highlighting the role of the city's teachers union and the state government in obstructing a mayoral takeover. Ultimately, a confluence of economic instability and political quid pro quo in 2002 created a milieu conducive to Mayor Michael Bloomberg winning control of the city's schools. Keywords: education policyeducation reformmayorspolicy changeteachers unionsurban schools The author would like to thank Jessica Lavariega Monforti, Scott Basinger, Matt Lebo, Paul Teske, Paru Shah, four anonymous reviewers, and a member of the JSC editorial board for their helpful comments. Notes 1. While several urban districts have mayoral control, there is wide variance in the levels and structures of mayoral power and influence. However, those differences do not play a crucial role in the issue at hand, because any type of mayoral control will represent a significant departure from the status quo of elected school boards, thus qualifying it as a major policy change. As my focus is understanding how major change in the form of mayoral control occurred in New York, the details of other cities' policies are peripheral to the focus of this work. 2. Site-based management refers to increasing the decision making capacity of relevant stakeholders such as parents and teachers at individual schools in an effort to increase student achievement (CitationDavid, 2005/2006). 3. Overall, the UFT had a lot to lose with mayoral control. First, as mentioned, the low-salience nature of school board elections allowed for the UFT to get members elected sympathetic to their position (CitationRavitch, 2000). As well, the UFT could theoretically enjoy a stronger bargaining position with a chancellor hired by a divided school board as compared to a single, high-profile actor such as the mayor who would be a much more formidable opponent in negotiating salaries, workload, and debating curriculum issues. Therefore, it makes sense that they wouldn't support the policy. 4. Interestingly, one of the few cities that like New York did not have a significant racially charged controversy over mayoral control was Cleveland. In Cleveland, a series of grassroots summits attended by thousands of school activists in which Mayor Michael White was involved "laid the groundwork for an image of mayoral control that was non-threatening" (CitationChambers, 2006, p. 77). While this diluted the racial overtones in the debate over mayoral control, some controversy was still present, however, as the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) did file a federal lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the bill granting the mayor control over the schools. 5. Negotiations over this issue presented another problem as abolition of the community boards would require the U.S. Justice Department's approval because Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx fell under the purview of the 1965 Voting Rights Act meaning any action that could dilute minority representation must be sanctioned by the Justice Department.