The Education Mayor: Improving America's Schools

8. The Political Dynamics of Building Public Support for Education

161 C H A P TE R EIGHT The Political Dynamics of Building Public Support for Education IN ADDITION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY AND MANAGEMENT improvements that we have discussed over the course of the last four chapters , education mayors have the potential to build public confidence in their cities’ school systems by raising public awareness about reform efforts and improving public opinion about city schools. Achieving this goal of increased public confidence requires a mix of institutional reform and personal leadership from the mayor. In this chapter, we explore both of these dimensions. There are theoretical arguments on both sides of the mayoral leadership debate. On one hand, the integrated governance perspective posits that mayoral leadership will emerge due to the electoral benefits now tied to strong school district performance. On the other hand, it has been argued that, theoretically , mayors do not need to produce actual school improvement but need only to “spin the schools” to make it appear as if the schools are improving. Such a position is consistent with the work of Kent Weaver (1986), who finds that politicians seek blame avoidance (e.g., “The school district’s problems are the result of the entrenched interests”) and credit claiming (e.g., “I am the one who is responsible for rising test scores”). When politically motivated leaders enter the realm of school leadership in this way, questions can be raised about the democratic nature of integrated governance. Should we expect city residents to have more or less voice in a mayoral led school system? In discussing these competing views, we draw on theories of leadership in promoting a citywide interest (Shen 2003). To evaluate both these theories, we explore public opinion data about mayoral control. Although we do not have comparable data across districts, our synthesis of existing public opinion data suggests that the public may be 162 CHAPTER EIGHT split on its support for mayoral control. We also see a significant split along racial lines as to the desirability of the reform. Drawing on Jeffrey Henig’s analysis (2004), we suggest that these splits reflect concerns from the African American professional community about ceding control of a system in which they have exercised considerable leadership. We examine how city governments relate formally to their city school districts . We study our sample of 104 cities and identify formal linkages that exist. We also examine the websites of each city to see how, if at all, they link themselves to the city school district. We find that the traditional separation of city services from school district services remains the norm in the vast majority of cities. Finally, we analyze the public stance that mayors take regarding their cities’ school districts. Using the most recently available State of the City speech for the sample districts, we perform qualitative content analysis. To guide this analysis, we develop a coding scheme to track the ways in which the schools are mentioned in the speeches. THEORIES OF MAYORAL LEADERSHIP AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS We begin the chapter by examining the role of the mayor in American cities. We consider the institutional constraints and political incentives facing the mayor. This general discussion of the mayor’s political roles is important because it is the backdrop against which the mayor’s educational leadership occurs. The Office of the Mayor In the United States, the duties attached to the mayor’s office vary significantly . In smaller towns and cities, the mayor’s office may be more ceremonial than substantive. In a small town in Michigan, for example, a high school senior won the mayor’s post in 2005. When cities are governed by city managers , mayors may also have less responsibility. But even in city manager districts , mayors can play a role in developing policy. In the context of large, urban, mayor–council cities, mayors play their greatest role. They lead the city in developing economic and social policy (Associated Press 2005; Svara 1987; Morgan and Watson 1992; and Wikstrom 1979). There is a scholarly debate over the impact that mayors can have. Political scientist Paul Peterson introduced the theory that “city limits” prevent local governments from acting as if they were an independent nation-state in addressing redistributive needs. In the Peterson framework, economic determinants are the dominant factors influencing the formation of city The Political Dynamics of Building Public Support for Education 163 policy. Peterson’s theory was modified by Wong (1990), placing...