After nearly two decades of mayoral control in Chicago, it is clear that it doesn’t improve schools.
The board is appointed by the mayor, and the public has nothing to say about who sits on the board and no way to contest its actions.
As in New York City, mayoral control means that the public has no role in public education.
Under this system, Mayor Daley started Renaissance 2010 (run by one Arne Duncan) and the results have been barely noticeable.
One thing for sure: Renaissance 2010 did not produce a renaissance; 2010 has come and gone.
Chicago is still in trouble.
People are beginning to wonder whether an elected board could be any worse than one-man rule.
They wonder whether an elected board might be willing to listen to parents and community members.
And they are gathering petitions to put the question on the ballot.
This must frighten the mayor. Can he rally the public to disenfranchise themselves again?
Can he persuade the public to believe that all these years of stagnation is progress?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Good info! Thanks for sharing.
Under Tucker’s plan, we’d have NO school boards. While many have become rubber stamps for an anti-knowledge education establishment, I’d still prefer to take my chances on those elected from the local community.
LikeLike
In my state there are no appointed local school boards. On the SDOE there are seats appointed by the governor. However, with this last legislative session, new laws were passed to limit some of once were their responsibilities. Most of those changes have been involvement in personnel decisions. There are some who would like to see school boards completely abolished. Let’s see, wonder where that would lead?
LikeLike