A recent headline in Education Week suggested that mayoral control is a “fading school reform.” The piece noted the impending transition to an elected school board in Chicago, as well as efforts in Boston to wrest control from its mayor. The idea of mayoral control does seem to be greeted with more skepticism these days than in the early 2000s when education reformers—observing the troubles of elected boards—were encouraging this alternative governance structure.
But mayoral control shouldn’t be quickly cast aside, judging from the past decade of reform in Cleveland. Led by a reform-minded mayor and savvy district leader, the city’s public school system has made progress after many decades of mismanagement and political backbiting under an elected board. Academic performance is still far from satisfactory, but improvements are evident, more high-quality public school options are available to families, and the district is now in decent financial condition.
As a quick rewind, the Cleveland school district was in complete disarray prior to start of mayoral control in 1997. During the previous two decades, it had a staggering twelve superintendents—one of whom tragically took his own life, citing “petty politics.” Finances were a mess, leading the state to declare a fiscal emergency. Less than half of students graduated high school, and state test scores were abysmal. In 1995, a federal judge ordered state supervision of the district because of its governance, fiscal, and academic woes.
The crisis also precipitated the legislative action that brought mayoral control to Cleveland. Under state law, the mayor appoints a nine-member board of education, each of whom are first nominated by an eleven-member panel. That panel, which include appointees and representatives of various stakeholders, nominates a slate of candidates for each board vacancy from which the mayor may choose. The appointed board hires the district CEO—akin to superintendent—but it must do so with mayoral concurrence (which is also required to fire a CEO).
While the first decade of mayoral control in Cleveland (1998–2010) has received mixed reviews, the model has worked to stabilize district leadership over the past decade, something that has been highlighted in national profiles of recently departed CEO Eric Gordon. With backing from longtime mayor Frank Jackson, the Gordon era lasted twelve years—double the tenure of the average large-district superintendent. Shortly after the 2021 election of Justin Bibb as the new mayor, Gordon chose to resign and the board selected Warren Morgan as his successor.
Gordon’s longevity alone wouldn’t warrant many accolades but his accomplishments during this time were many. They include implementing reforms via the Cleveland Plan (more on it below), building confidence in city schools as evidenced by passage of three levies, and forging partnerships with community leaders as well as high-quality public charter schools. I can’t prove it but it’s doubtful that any of these steps forward would have occurred under an elected school board. Consider the following:
- Stabilizing leadership: Mayor Jackson and CEO Gordon presented a unified vision for Cleveland schools. School board politics seemed mostly tame during this period, and while there were likely some naysayers, no widely known attempts were made to oust Gordon during his tenure. Contrast this with the turbulent politics of district reform efforts in nearby Youngstown and Lorain via academic distress commissions, another whole-district turnaround model that Ohio has tried. That initiative left intact the elected boards, while at the same time creating a state-led commission to oversee the district and to appoint a CEO who’s empowered to implement an aggressive reform plan. Unfortunately, the elected boards have undercut the CEOs tasked with improving the districts. In the end, the influence of the elected boards helped to quash reform efforts, destabilize leadership, and swiftly dislodge the CEOs.
- Implementing the Cleveland Plan: Mayoral control encourages a city’s top official to engage in K–12 education, rather than just sit on the sidelines. And that’s what Jackson did. He understood the city’s urgent need for better schools, so he rolled up his sleeves and initiated the Cleveland Plan. This package of reforms, which state lawmakers facilitated with legislation in 2012, aimed to grow high-performing schools, cut bureaucratic red tape, increase parental engagement, and reward effective teachers. It quickly became clear that Gordon was Jackson’s right-hand man for carrying out the plan. And for more than a decade, he strove to implement—and make updates to—the plan under the mayor’s watch. It’s doubtful that the Cleveland Plan (or something like it) could have been developed under a fractured elected board. On the other hand, the unified vision of the mayor, appointed board, and CEO was instrumental in developing and executing the Cleveland Plan.
- Passing levies: After failed levy attempts in 2004 and 2005, the district passed property tax levies in 2012, 2016, and 2020. The support of Mayor Jackson may have helped turn the tide in the district’s levy fortunes. Of course, it’s certainly possible that these would’ve passed without mayoral support. Other big-city districts pass levies, too, and the earlier Cleveland failures also happened when under mayoral control (though pre-Jackson). But having a popular mayor, who was heavily invested in the city’s schools and leading a bold reform plan, could have nudged some voters to say yes to the levy requests.
- Partnering with quality charters: Speaking of levies, Cleveland is the only district in Ohio that shares a portion of local tax revenue with public charter schools located within its borders. This is an element of the Cleveland Plan, and helps support the growth of high-performing charters. Today, the district partners with sixteen charter schools that meet certain qualifications. The unique partnership probably couldn’t happen with an elected board. Mayors, with their broader constituencies and responsibilities, likely think more comprehensively about solving problems in their community. As such, the mayor may have been more open-minded about charters than an elected board, which tends to be protective of district interests. Bottom line: Cleveland families and students have benefitted from a more holistic strategy to grow excellent schools.
Governance revamps alone can’t solve all that ails public schools, including those in Cleveland. But they do impact the leadership of a district, its political climate, and the opportunities for reform. Elected boards can easily get embroiled in political food fights—just look around the country right now—and they can also be captured by special interest groups like the teachers’ unions. While not immune to these pressures (or mayors that are hostile to reform), mayoral control can help a district rise above these squabbles, allowing for stronger and more coherent leadership that focuses on what’s best for families and students.
With reform-minded leadership in place, Cleveland’s version of mayoral control has helped right a once-sinking ship. It also gives us reason for optimism as Mayor Bibb and CEO Morgan take the reins and work to put their stamp on education in Cleveland. (Here’s a few ideas on how.) Far from being a fading reform, mayoral control might just be the governance structure that more cities and towns need to improve their schools.
