In the landscape of American public education, few issues strike at the heart of democratic governance quite like the structure of school board authority. While most school districts have local school board members elected by the people they serve, Cleveland’s Metropolitan School District (CMSD) operates under a fundamentally different model that raises profound questions about accountability, representation, and the delicate balance between efficiency and democracy.
The Cleveland Metropolitan School District is a stark anomaly in American education governance. In a nation where over 97% of school board members are elected by their communities, Cleveland’s nine-member board is entirely appointed by the mayor, making it a rarity that warrants thorough examination. This deviation from democratic norms didn’t occur in isolation; it arose from a history of perceived dysfunction that prompted voters to relinquish direct control in favor of mayoral oversight. But has this trade-off benefited the district’s 36,000 students—and more importantly, has it supported democracy itself?
The Tale of Two Systems: Elected Versus Appointed Governance
The fundamental difference between elected and appointed school boards lies in their selection process and how the members are held accountable.
- Elected boards derive their legitimacy directly from the people, establishing a clear line of responsibility between board members and the families whose children they serve. These officials must consistently return to voters, justify their decisions, and undergo the ultimate democratic test: re-election or removal from office.
- Appointed boards, in contrast, derive their authority from a single executive—in Cleveland’s case, the mayor. This creates what governance experts refer to as a “chain of accountability,” where board members primarily answer to their appointing authority rather than directly to the community.
This distinction holds significant implications. Elected board members often bring diverse perspectives that reflect their specific communities and campaign on educational platforms that resonate with local voters. They may be parents concerned about classroom sizes, business leaders focused on workforce preparation, or community activists advocating for equity initiatives. Their election provides a mandate and legitimacy that arises directly from democratic participation.
Appointed board members, while they may bring valuable expertise, serve at the pleasure of a single individual. Their qualifications may be impressive, but the selection process lacks the democratic validation that comes from winning over hundreds or thousands of voters.
The Corruption Trap: When Appointment Becomes Political Currency
When a mayor controls all school board appointments, education policy becomes closely tied to the mayor’s broader political agenda. Board members realize that their continued service depends not on community satisfaction, but on the mayor’s favor.
Board members may feel pressured to approve budgets that align with the mayor’s fiscal priorities rather than educational needs. Contracts for services, facilities, or supplies may undergo less rigorous scrutiny when they benefit political allies of the appointing authority. Most insidiously, the board may hesitate to challenge or investigate problems that could poorly reflect the mayor’s or the school’s administration.
While elected officials must publicly campaign and debate their positions, appointed board members often have their policy preferences unknown to the community. Citizens lack direct means to reject candidates they find unsuitable, have no opportunity to question them in public forums, and have no recourse other than the indirect route of pressuring the mayor.
The Rubber Stamp Phenomenon: When Governance Becomes Performance
Perhaps the most damaging outcome of mayoral-appointed school boards is that they tend to “rubber stamp” any decision the mayor or school superintendent proposes. An effective school board should serve as a forum where diverse perspectives are heard, debated, and balanced. When board members view their role primarily as supporting the mayor’s agenda, this crucial function is diminished.
The rubber stamp effect becomes evident in several ways: unanimous or nearly unanimous votes on controversial issues, limited questioning of administrative recommendations, brief reviews of budgets and contracts, and minimal community engagement in policy decisions. Board meetings often turn into mere formalities rather than genuine discussions about educational priorities.
Breaking the Stamp: Strategies for Community Engagement and Accountability
Despite the structural challenges of appointed governance, communities are not powerless in demanding accountability and resisting rubber-stamping behavior.
- First, community members must recognize that their primary point of leverage is through the mayor, not individual board members. Mayoral elections effectively become school board elections, requiring voters to carefully evaluate candidates’ educational platforms and their commitment to appointing truly independent board members.
- Consistent community presence at board meetings can deter rubber-stamp behavior by creating reputational costs for obviously perfunctory decision-making. Citizens should pose pointed questions, request detailed explanations for votes, and demand transparency in board deliberations.
- When parent groups, teacher associations, community nonprofits, and other stakeholders present unified positions on school policies, even appointed board members find it hard to ignore their concerns. Sustained community pressure creates political costs that even insulated board members must consider.
- Public records requests are particularly important tools for oversight in appointed systems. Requesting records of board communications, meeting attendance, voting patterns, and financial decisions can reveal whether members are fulfilling their oversight responsibilities or simply endorsing administrative recommendations.
- Media engagement and social media campaigns can amplify community concerns and create public pressure for accountability. Local news outlets, blogs, and social media platforms offer forums to highlight questionable board decisions and demand explanations.
Finally, citizens should advocate for structural reforms to enhance accountability within the appointed system. This might include requiring public interviews for board nominees, establishing term limits to prevent entrenchment, creating citizen advisory committees to provide input on educational priorities, or implementing conflict-of-interest rules that prevent board members from benefiting financially from their positions.
The National Context: Cleveland’s Place in American School Governance
Current research suggests that approximately 93-97% of school boards nationwide are elected rather than appointed, making Cleveland’s model a significant departure from standard democratic practice. The districts that have adopted mayoral control tend to be large urban systems that have faced substantial challenges: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and others.
This concentration of appointed boards in struggling urban districts reflects a troubling pattern: when communities of color and economically disadvantaged populations face educational challenges, the solution often involves reducing rather than enhancing democratic participation. The implicit yet clear message is that these communities cannot be trusted to govern their schools effectively.
The Replacement Reality: How Political Loyalty Shapes Educational Leadership
One of the most concerning aspects of Cleveland’s appointed system is how board members who displease the mayor can be replaced. Unlike elected officials, who can only be removed through recall elections or criminal convictions, appointed board members serve entirely at the mayor’s discretion when their terms end. This creates a powerful incentive structure that prioritizes political compatibility over educational advocacy.
The replacement process also allows mayors to shape board composition strategically. By appointing members with specific professional backgrounds, political affiliations, or policy preferences, mayors can influence outcomes on key votes before issues even reach the board table. This pre-selection of perspectives undermines the deliberative process that should characterize effective governance.
Looking Forward: The Democratic Imperative in Educational Governance
School boards have historically acted as entry points for civic engagement, training grounds for future leaders, and forums where communities navigate their values and priorities. When this function fades, communities lose not only control over their schools but also opportunities for democratic participation and leadership development.
A Final Thought
Ultimately, the debate between elected and appointed school boards is not just political—it’s profoundly personal. It reflects how we want our communities to be represented and how much control we’re willing to give to political leaders. In Cleveland, shifting to an appointed board means the community must stay vigilant, engaged, and vocal to ensure that their children’s education isn’t reduced to a pawn in a larger political game.
While the system may not be perfect, it is the one we have. Therefore, we must make use of the available tools—advocacy, pressure, and public engagement—to ensure that the Cleveland Metropolitan School District remains, above all, a place where student and community interests take precedence over political agendas.