A board that clicks

THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL BOARD was, as usual, fretting over details. In this case, the issue was whether to give principals more resources and flexibility to improve campus safety. One speaker grew so frustrated that he finally sputtered, “This is a perfect example of why the mayor wants to take over this district.”

What made the outburst at the meeting a few months back so surprising was that it came from Mike Lansing, a member of the school board since 1999. He then echoed a sentiment commonly voiced by board critics: “We don’t get anything done.”

It’s not a comment one is likely to hear at a school board meeting in Boston. There, the board routinely moves through its agenda with brisk efficiency, which its chairwoman attributes in part to the panel being appointed rather than elected. The two boards are the same size -- seven members -- but in Boston there are no campaign donors to please, no reason to show off for TV cameras or voters. One of the benefits of true mayoral control is that it allows the superintendent and the school board to focus more on operations and less on politics. Voters know to hold the mayor accountable for the schools’ performance.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s plan to share control of the district, which the state Senate is scheduled to consider next week, divides that accountability in a confusing and illogical way. The mayor would have control over a small group of schools and say-so over the superintendent, but the board would still have crucial responsibilities -- including negotiation of the teachers’ contract. And the board’s handling of its current duties hardly inspires confidence.

The L.A. school board’s unwieldy meetings are characterized mainly by drawn-out debates over minutiae. Members indulge in long-winded, repetitive speeches, often lauding themselves for their accomplishments. As the meetings drag on, they peer into their laptops, talk to their staff, interrupt and talk over each other and the public. Meetings generally start at 1 p.m. and drift into evening. People who have come to speak on one item or another cool their heels for hours -- or sometimes give up and walk out.

Some examples from recent meetings: The board spent 40 minutes on an “inspirational moment” to honor women, followed by 20 minutes to decide whether to place a portable building at a middle school for a parent center. It took 55 minutes to name a high school, 45 minutes to congratulate the winners of the U.S. Academic Decathlon and an hour and 20 minutes to decide whether individual high schools could purchase history textbooks that a teachers’ committee had determined were below standard.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In this tale of two school boards, witness the meetings of the mayor-appointed Boston School Committee:

The board begins its twice-monthly meetings at 6 p.m. -- when parents, students and teachers can attend -- and almost always wraps them up within two hours. It delegates most contract, personnel, curriculum and day-to-day operations to its superintendent so it can stay tuned to the big picture: making policy, setting standards and holding the superintendent responsible for living up to them.

A recent meeting was typical. Five minutes to honor longtime principals. A 10-minute interim report outlined the steps the district might take in elementary and middle schools to prevent students from dropping out later on. The largest share of the meeting -- close to an hour -- was devoted to adopting a sweeping policy on closing the achievement gap.

At issue was whether to hire a “czar” to oversee it. Many teachers and parents worried the policy would languish without someone specifically appointed to carry it out. The superintendent wanted all administrators to feel fully responsible for the policy. A focused, insightful and civil conversation followed, with a few committee members weighing in on both sides.

Then Chairwoman Elizabeth Reilinger crisply summed up the concerns and her viewpoint: A czar would be necessary, but ultimately all school managers would have to take responsibility for the policy’s long-term success. The board quickly approved the policy and the hiring of a temporary czar.

After time for public comment and quick votes on several other business matters, the meeting stopped seven minutes short of two hours, with a major policy on the achievement gap adopted and another one on early prevention of dropouts in the works. During the meeting, board members were intent on the business at hand. There were no laptops, no side conversations. Comments were concise and to the point.

Any resident of the city is eligible to apply for membership to the Boston School Committee. Applicants are screened by a 13-member citizens’ nominating panel that presents the mayor with three to five candidates for each slot. He must choose from among them for four-year terms. They can be reappointed and frequently are. Members come from varied backgrounds -- academia, business, nonprofits. Their ethnic makeup roughly reflects the school population: three African Americans, two Latinos and two whites. (L.A.’s board has one African American and one Latino.) All are part-time volunteers.

Boston’s school officials aren’t surprised to hear about the goings-on at L.A. board meetings. Their board was just as ponderous and ineffective before voters approved mayoral control 15 years ago. Whether to place a portable building on a campus “is not a policy issue,” said former Boston Supt. Tom Payzant, who retired in June. In Boston, such a matter would be referred to one of his assistants. The board would hold Payzant accountable for seeing it through.

Villaraigosa’s legislation seeks to nudge the board in the right direction by taking specified tasks away from it and giving them to the superintendent. But in doing so, the bill micromanages the district and could create new problems because the lines of accountability are so unclear. Under true mayoral control, the mayor, board and superintendent are headed in the same direction -- which means the students may actually get someplace.

Next: A school’s progress under mayoral control