AND voter turnout can be very low. The 2016 board election turnout probably mirrored the general turnout, but knowledge of the candidates' positions was probably low. Off-cycle election turnout is usually not great. I'd love some solid numbers on this for Michigan's BOE election.

Dissolving the state board won't solve those problems, and it's not meant to. It's meant to make solutions easier to create and implement.

DeVos and spineless republican legislators who kowtowed to her bear some blame, but there's plenty to go around. The state's economic and social issues are factors too. The blame game is tough to play.

Kelly made the same argument against the Detroit Education Commission, a governance body supported by Detroit's mayor and a coalition of education leaders. It was an ideologically-driven position, not one derived from what would be best for students. While something needs to arrest the academic decline in Michigan, it's difficult to believe he's doing this for the state's students rather than as an opportunity to make government smaller.

The declining quality of Michigan's academic achievement requires swift and bold action and giving the governor more power to do that may be the answer. Governance models in US education have evolved over time. But changing the way a state governs its schools is a big deal and should be approached cautiously and in light of the outcomes one is striving for. I'm not convinced that this is just another ideologically-driven pursuit by Tim Kelly.

To be clear, this isn't a government takeover which is usually done based on predetermined criteria on a temporary basis. This is a change in the governance model.

Agreed.

I think this is a misread of their actions. Republicans don't want to control the board, they want to get rid of it to make a smaller government.

Beyond this, an elected board structure makes bold action very difficult. Governor Snyder knew this when he moved the state's school turnaround office to be under his direct control. After a bungled attempt to close poor performing schools, the office move back under the state board. So now you have elected officials in charge of making unpopular decisions.

This is a bit of an overstatement. First, the effects wouldn't be massive or immediate. Second, governance changes like this have happened throughout the history of American education.

I've never thought of it this way but it's in line with the "charters as laboratories" narrative. Taken to it's extreme, however, it becomes the "districts are backstops" narrative.

The phrase is unlikely to catch on, but I get the point. States are ultimately responsible for the provision of education within their boundaries. Most have chosen school districts as the vehicle for delivery. It also means that states can choose other ways to provide education and maintain accountability.

Important! Performance contracts are in place with individual schools not districts or CMOs where negative results can be masked by averages.

I feel like true portfolio management will be easier that the transition to it.

No problem! At least these are not super entrenched beliefs reinforced by the choices of privileged groups at the expense of poor people of color!

This depends on the district in question, of course, but most large urban districts don't operate in a way that gives principals hiring, curricular, and budgetary autonomy. If districts continued to operate as they currently do, we'd end up with principals being held accountable for the performance of their schools without full control over their conditions. Perhaps this would be a forcing mechanism for the districts to evolve.

The writing is on the wall for districts with a legacy of operating terrible schools though, right?

I like that local control through an electoral body is retained in this approach. Even though school boards aren't A+ mechanisms for district oversight and the democratic control they represent is usually overvalued, removing elected officials angers communities.

Autonomy is only enjoyable (and effective) when school leaders are prepared and adequately resourced to exercise it. Districts would have to be retooled too. They'd shift from a command and control position to a support one.

Pilots are a very good idea--a better alternative than trying for a massive legislative change. What might a phased in approach look like? Perhaps start with using predictive analytics to anticipate likely future scenarios and avoid foreseeable system failures. Then move to consequence free authorizing/monitoring for a few years before full implementation.

This is key. Of all the authorizer types (districts, IHE's, nonprofits, SEAs, etc.) independent authorizers best resemble successful regulators in other industries.