Franklin, seeing Jefferson sulking because Congress had muddled the ideas and beautiful prose of his masterwork with its edits, shared with Jefferson a parable (you’ll have to indulge me forgive me, I was a history major):

"I have made a rule, whenever in my power, to avoid becoming the draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public body. I took my lesson from an incident which I will relate to you. When I was a journeyman printer, one of my companions, an apprentice hatter, having served out his time, was about to open shop for himself. His first concern was to have a handsome signboard, with a proper inscription. He composed it in these words, 'John Thompson, Hatter, makes and sells hats for ready money,' with a figure of a hat subjoined. But thought he would submit it to his friends for their amendments.
The first he showed it to thought the word 'Hatter' tautologous, because followed by the words 'makes hats,' which showed he was a hatter. It was struck out. The next observed that the word 'makes' might as well be omitted, because his customers would not care who made the hats. If good and to their mind, they would buy them, by whomsoever made. He struck it out. A third said he thought the words 'for ready money' were useless, as it was not the custom of the place to sell on credit. Every one who purchased expected to pay. They were parted with, and the inscription now stood, 'John Thompson sells hats.' 'Sells hats!' says the next friend. 'Why, nobody will expect you to give them away. What then is the use of that word?' It was stricken out, and 'hats' followed it, the rather as there was one painted on the board. So the inscription was reduced ultimately to 'John Thompson,' with the figure of a hat subjoined."

Though I doubt this story brought much comfort to Jefferson (he ended up writing out his original draft three more times (no small feat) to ensure its preservation in history), I do think it is instructive in the case of Mayor Villaraigosa and the LAUSD. As with the hatter whose sign was edited so many times it no longer made sense, so too with Villaraigosa's vision of increased accountability and decreased bureaucracy for LAUSD.

What Villaraigosa wanted was to have greater authority and decision making power in the district, especially when it came to the hiring and firing of the superintendent. That sounds great, but since LAUSD includes some 27 cities besides Los Angeles, what Villaraigosa ended up getting was a “Council of Mayors” that will have to approve of the hiring/firing of a superintendent. Granted Villaraigosa will have considerably more power in the council than the other mayors (he has a veto vote), but a perspective candidate must first get the school board’s OK, then need 90% approval from the council of mayors (Villaraigosa’s vote counts for 80%, the proportion that Los Angeles school children comprise of the entire district population). Now I was never particularly good at math and I only took one class in college on organizational theory, but how a council of mayors comprised of 32 people (27 city representatives and 5 country supervisors) is an improvement over a school board with 7 members when it comes to stream lining the decision making process and creating clearer accountability, considering that now both the school board and the council of mayors will be part of the decision making process is totally beyond my grasp.

Designating the mayor as the hero or fall guy for the district appears at first blush to be an improvement—it’s easier to vote out one mayor than a majority of school board members. But in my view, putting the mayor in charge actually decreases the ability of voters to cast an education vote that contains substance because now district policy will become just one plank in a whole mayoral platform, and just one stance that voters will have to weigh when determining their mayor. Do we really want district policy to become part of mayoral politics? Though I am dubious that this scheme will bring the people of Los Angeles (and the other cities in LAUSD) greater accountability, this accountability has been won at the cost of the ease of their ability to vote out the person accountable—a pyrrhic victory if there ever were one.

Villaraigosa’s take-over-by-legislative-fiat was obviously inspired by the actions of Mayor Daley in Chicago and Mayor Bloomberg in New York City, who each seized control over the local school system in order to create clearer accountability and accelerate the pace of reform efforts. But unlike mayors Daley and Bloomberg he will not have the power to renegotiate employee contracts, alter work rules, turn low-performing schools into charter schools, restructure or remove leadership teams a chronically under-performing schools, or even have clear authority (see above) over the school board (Bloomberg gets to appoint 7 of the 13 school board members).

My last concern is the rather “sketchy” way in which the legislation was passed. I don’t know why the mayor should be allowed to skirt local voters and appeal to the state legislature to increase his authority within his own city—this seems more like a matter for the city council than legislators from Eureka or Fresno. This concern is made more acute when you consider the string of events that led to the bill’s passage. When the bill was first called to vote, it did not have nearly enough votes to pass. But after intense lobbying from Mayor Villaraigosa of his former colleagues (he was a member of the California Assembly for six years, including a two year term as Assembly Speaker) the bill was passed. Despite voting in favor of the bill on the second go-round (they each abstained on the first vote), several members of the legislature expressed strong concerns about the legislation: “’There is a lot in the bill that I think is unconstitutional," Horton said. "I think it goes to the court and I think it gets overturned. But to stimulate the debate about school reform — it serves to do that purpose.”’ Assemblywoman Negrete-McLeod, who presents a district whose students do not attend LAUSD, told the LA Times: “’I still have some problems’ with the legislation. But she said ‘that it's only for five years and so if it doesn't work, we'll see that it doesn't work.’” It serves to stimulate debate and if it doesn’t work we can always undo it—that’s why you voted for it? Huh?! You can’t be serious.

The mayor’s plan needed 41 votes to pass and received 42, so you could say that Horton and Negrete-McLeod—with their strong convictions and support—cast the deciding votes. What all of this will mean in the end for the students of LAUSD is still unclear. The bill will first have to survive an imminent legal challenge. After that, who knows? But fear not, students of LAUSD, it’s like Assemblywoman Negrete-McLeod said: Lighten up. It’s only for five years.