What is it about California mayors ducking their city duties and wanting to run local schools districts? Fix the problems in your cities before taking on the schools.
It was a bad idea for Fresno Mayor Alan Autry wanting to gain control of the Fresno Unified School District by appointing its school board members and it’s a bad idea for Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wanting to take over L.A. Unified.
The best way to help the schools is to create economic opportunities for families. School test scores follow the poverty line. Part of the reason that the schools are having problems is that mayors haven't been doing their jobs in helping their citizens rise out of poverty.
Message to these far-reaching mayors: Improve the economic plight of your citizens and you’ll improve the performance of the schools in your communities.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is supporting Villaraigosa's school takeover bid. But political analysts say that may be more about the governor looking for political support in an election year than being in love with the idea. Such a plan is expected to be popular with voters, who are frustrated with the public schools.
Here's an idea: Fix the potholes in your city, pick up the garbage on time, reduce crime, control the gangs, build some parks and relieve traffic congestion. If you can do all that and no new problems spring up, think about solving the schools' problems.
It is beyond arrogance to stick your nose in someone else's business when you aren't keeping your own house in order. Tend to your knitting.
How about breaking large school districts into smaller ones? A lot is said in the media about the merits (or lack of) of failing district take overs, but how about whittling them down into manageable sizes? What are the pros and cons of large districts vs. smaller districts?