Ms. Alioto-Pier's Bad Idea

Back in March, District 2 Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier floated a Charter Amendment that would change how Commissioners to San Francisco's Board of Education would be elected. Among other things, the Amendment would create districts for BOE members, and impose term limits for serving on the BOE.

No way around it, Ms. Alioto-Pier's trial balloon is just a bad idea and it would make terrible policy if it actually becomes a reality. Lots of parents seem to have told her this after she made the proposal, but she is apparently going ahead with it -- the Charter Amendment is scheduled for discussion by the Rules Committee of the Board of Supervisors next week (conveniently scheduled for the last day of school for SFUSD, when many parents will be distracted and occupied with school events). Here's what I wrote about the proposal on the sfschools list back in March, and as far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed:

The huge issue I see is unclear accountability. Yes, it's fine to say I should "promote" candidates in other districts and "respect" parents from other districts who want to promote a candidate in my district. But winning elections ultimately comes down to politics and votes, so who do you think each BOE candidate is truly going to be accountable to? The parents whose children attend school in their district or the parents who vote in that district? Clearly, it is the latter.

I also don't see how "familiarity" with the home district is going to encourage good policy for the district as a whole. Instead, what it would encourage is more factionalism and confusion about who really represents whom. Just imagine the back-room deals that would occur in closely-watched debates like school closures. How can "I won't vote to close your school if you don't vote to close mine" possibly lead to fair and informed decision-making that benefits all children?

Term limits for the BOE is another terrible idea. Education policy and funding is incredibly complex and arcane (and that's just GENERAL Ed, which makes Special Ed look like a cakewalk). How do term limits give a Commissioner the incentive to stick around and try to master it all? It seems more likely to me that someone will use the BOE as a stepping stone to higher office.

Clearly, Ms. Alioto-Pier is worried that there is not enough geographic or ethnic diversity on our BOE. Still, district elections are not the solution to this problem. Instead, members of the Board of Supervisors should cultivate and encourage people from their own districts to run for the Board of Education. Really, it shouldn't be that difficult for Supervisors to identify people in their districts who are engaged with the community and interested in setting good education policy. Furthermore, if the City more fully compensated members of the BOE for the time it takes to do the job right -- $500 a month doesn't even come close -- it might go a long way toward encouraging more candidates to run. Finally, there is a long learning curve to overseeing a school district. Some states and counties already require that their school board members get training in the legal, financial and policy intricacies that the job requires, and this training is readily available from the California School Boards Association. San Francisco could easily introduce the requirement that new BOE Commissioners complete this training within a year of taking office.