A ‘Lone Ranger’ or a Leader?
The big question in Los Angeles now is whether the selection of former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer as superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District was a wise move. To a great extent that’s going to depend on how well Romer listens to voices other than his own.
Roy Rudolf Romer is an exceedingly bright and absolutely driven man. He takes on every major challenge with the energy and enthusiasm of a zealot. Cutting against the grain of popular public opinion, Romer really believes that government ought to be big enough and well-funded enough to tackle the tough problems it faces. At the same time, his business background has given the self-made millionaire a pragmatic, bottom-line approach that is often at odds with bureaucratic thinking.
Although every bit the politician, Romer is direct and blunt. As governor, it was not uncommon for Romer to coach someone about how to be successful with him: “Let me tell you what’s on this governor’s mind and on what basis I’m going to make a decision on this matter,” he would say. Many of us learned that, by then, he had already made up his mind on the matter.
I had to chuckle at a recent news report that suggested Romer’s primary responsibilities at the LAUSD would be to build public support for the district and to lobby in Sacramento and Washington for funding and respect for the district, and that other district officials would actually deliver public education. Anyone who believes that is in for a rude awakening. Make no mistake: Romer will get involved in every aspect of the organization and every major decision.
When it comes to public education, Romer is no lightweight. As Colorado governor, he twice successfully interjected himself into teacher strikes in Denver, forcing the adoption of a “collaborative decision-making” process that gave teachers and parents unprecedented influence in school decisions. For much of his 12 years in office, Romer pleaded with the Colorado Legislature for major funding increases for education and the enactment of school reforms. His batting average wasn’t terrific--several tepid “reform” measures passed, such as eliminating the term “tenure” from state law books (which had little impact on poor teaching). And, despite his great efforts, the Legislature, which in Colorado controls the state budget, never met his funding expectations. (Along the way, Romer threw out “smaller” ideas, such as giving the best teacher in every school a $1,000 bonus, an idea even the teachers’ union couldn’t support because nobody knew how to select the winners.)
In 1992, discouraged by the lack of legislative action, Romer took the issue of education funding directly to Colorado voters through a ballot initiative that would have raised an additional $320 million per year for public schools--real money in Colorado--and would have instituted somewhat higher levels of accountability. In one of the most stinging rebukes of his career, voters rejected Romer’s personal and dramatic appeal and defeated the initiative.
That painful election is a good illustration of the enormous strengths and crucial weaknesses of your new superintendent. The boundless enthusiasm that Romer will have for the L.A. schools will be infectious, and his demand for greater achievement, accountability and respect for the district will have the ability to change the culture of public education in Los Angeles. But people such as Romer--super-smart and confident--are sometimes in danger of hearing only their own persuasive rhetoric. They have little patience for those who would distract the debate by asserting their own priorities.
Righteous zealots at times mistake silence as support rather than skepticism. That was certainly the case in 1992 when Romer believed that Colorado voters would be as outraged as he was that the Legislature had not properly funded education. But voters were skeptical that they were being asked to approve a tax increase without an iron-clad commitment to higher standards and performance. How the state’s most seasoned politician could have missed the widespread murmur of disapproval about public education can only be explained by his hearing mainly himself on the subject.
In Roy Romer, Los Angeles residents have a tremendous advocate for public education, a talented leader and a wise man of good heart. If Romer pushes the various parties to embrace their mutual interests rather than their individual ones, and if he has the patience to craft a broad coalition of support for public education, there is little doubt that he and Los Angeles will do well together. If, however, he allows his personal crusade to undermine his true leadership, he could fail.
The “Lone Ranger” made for great movies, but very poor politics.
