Borsuk: Everyone likes local control of schools, as long it’s local control they like

Alan J. Borsuk

Special to the Journal Sentinel

Everybody is in favor of local control of schools. U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos talks up local control. Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers talks up local control. And the two are pretty far apart on the spectrum of education politics.

Students work with teacher Angela Veternick at Howard Avenue Montessori School.

But saying that everybody is in favor of it isn’t the same as saying what local control means. That’s a hot subject at the moment. Local control means different things to different people. Sometimes it seems to mean different things to the same people at different times (which I suggest is one of the definitions of hypocrisy — like, I’m in favor of local control as long as the locals do what I tell them to do.)

Three examples of hot local control issues:

One: The new state budget means that the options local school districts in Wisconsin will have to put increased spending to referendum votes in their communities are going to be more limited going forward. Isn’t whether to have a referendum — and letting the side with the most votes win — an exercise in local control? Did we need state action, pushed by a handful of legislators, to protect local residents from themselves?

Two: Last week, Evers and the Department of Public Instruction he heads submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Wisconsin’s plan for implementing a new federal education law. Gov. Scott Walker refused to sign the plan (his signature wasn’t required) because he said the plan was too bureaucratic and not bold enough. Evers said it supported local control of schools, with the state taking a less assertive role. (Maybe they were both right.)

Three: More broadly, the tide that increased federal influence in education for decades is now ebbing. The No Child Left Behind law, in effect from 2002 until 2016, put the feds’ fingers in all sorts of things schools do (to no hugely positive effect). The new law, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act, reduces the federal role and, some supporters hope, even the role of states. Leave things to local control.

I have some qualms about all this. There are a lot of facets to the local schools concept, some more appealing than others. A few of those facets:

An ideal: Ultimately, every school is a local school. School comes down to the kids and the teachers, with parents and school leaders ideally as big allies of what happens. It’s hard to envision a great school where the term “school community” isn’t robust and positive, and it’s a very local matter.

A generally good reality: Kids and parents connect with a school much more than a school district. You hear a lot about school pride, not so much about “school district” pride. And there is a lot to be proud of at most schools. Most people, adults and kids, are happy with their schools. The concept of “our school” is working on a pretty broad basis.

An unhappy reality: At the same time, there are a lot of schools where the school community isn’t robust. Outside forces, inside forces, tight resources, social issues — a lot of schools are kind of worn and isolated. Even ones in big systems can seem like they are more put-upon than helped by the folks at higher levels of the pyramid. “Local schools” sometimes mean schools not getting the help their students and the school as a whole need.

A default position: One of the reasons for the turn back to emphasizing local schools is that big ideas (federal, state, central office) have so often been of little help (at best). Maybe “reform fatigue” is fueling the local control emphasis — we give up, just leave it to individual schools and communities to cope.

A cop-out: Who does local control help the most? People and communities whose schools are places marked by success. Federal education laws and a lot of state decrees were aimed at kids and schools with low rates of success. Will easing up on federal and states prodding to close gaps and raise achievement become another way of the “haves” saying, "we’ve got ours, we don’t want to worry much about those who don’t"?

A base for inequality: In the 1990s, Wisconsin locked itself into a school funding system in which some communities are limited to spending less per student than others. The system lives on, and Walker vetoed a provision in the new state budget that would have narrowed the gaps. This is using state control to make kids in some communities worth less than other kids. Does that seem fair? This is about control of locals, not local control.

A setting for greatness: I was part of a program a few days ago with 40 or so leaders of Milwaukee-area public school districts. One thing I said was that I didn’t see much bold action or big orders coming their way from Washington. And there wasn’t much big news in the state ESSA plan or the new state budget (special-education vouchers being one exception). I said if there’s going to be a rising tide of quality, it’s going to come from people such as them — from the local level.

And in some places, that is happening. Some particularly innovative and nationally recognized school leaders were in the room. You want names? This is not a full list, but I’d mention Menomonee Falls Superintendent Patricia Greco, Kettle Moraine Superintendent Patricia Deklotz and Brown Deer Superintendent Deb Kerr.

If all districts had great superintendents and all schools had great principals, a lot of things would be better.

But I worry about the big picture. We need strong local schools. We also need broad solutions. Ultimately, I suspect if we emphasize the former too much, the search for the latter will be de-emphasized too much. And a lot of children (dare I put it this way?) are going to continue to be left behind.

Alan J. Borsuk issenior fellow in law and public policy at Marquette Law School. Reach him at alan.borsuk@marquette.edu.