Analysis: Why did the self-proclaimed 'education mayor' go rogue?
It looks like Tom Leppert's big plan to take over DISD will die a relatively quiet death: No one seems inclined to sponsor state legislation allowing Leppert to take over, the city council members who commented didn't exactly endorse the idea, and there hasn't been a groundswell of public support, either.
So why would Leppert consider such a move in the first place? And who in Dallas politics will be hurt by the "stealth mode" Leppert used while plotting his course?
Reading the various blogs and comments about Leppert's plan, there was one common theme among those who supported the idea: DISD is broken, and maybe this will work. There's a certain appeal to that thought, since DISD clearly has issues. And the oft-expressed idea that an outside leader could cut through DISD's dense bureaucracy is attractive, too.
But why would Leppert be the answer to those problems? This is a guy who doesn't appear to have taken any personal interest in public education prior to running for mayor. And as DISD's last chief financial officer found out, there's a big difference between corporate finance and school finance; in this case, for DISD, the difference was about $64 million, leading to last fall's well-publicized "budget crisis".
If he had succeeded in being appointed DISD overlord, Leppert would have been at the beginning of the learning curve and, given his pretty clear intentions to find some higher office to run for, it's unlikely he'd have hung around long enough to learn the ropes well enough to actually make a difference at DISD. Just like the revolving door of superintendents prior to Michael Hinojosa, DISD's bureaucracy has flourished by waiting out superintendents, knowing they've all been short-timers.
So while I understand the hope that Leppert somehow is packing the silver bullet needed to solve DISD's problems, they guy's just not packin'.
Now, the bigger question: Dallas' political power kids all play in the same relatively small sandbox. When an ambitious and opportunistic child appears to go rogue and starts sneaking around behind the other kids' backs, what are we to make of it?
One, I find it hard to believe Leppert was on a solo mission. Much like the Trinity project and the convention center hotel were the two top items on the to-do list of Leppert's financial backers, "improving DISD" had to be right up there, too. Bad schools are bad for business, and that's what this coup was all about: taking charge of biggest reason Dallas loses corporate relocations.
After polishing off the first two goals quickly and efficiently, Leppert appears to have targeted DISD, figuring his buddies would have his back when the time came. Well, no Dallas wheels have been rushing to Leppert's aid on this one, but none of them have been trashing the idea, either. That ought to tell us something.
Two, why would Leppert knowingly undercut a couple of "friends": DISD board president Jack Lowe and Hinojosa. They've all been in the sandbox together for a few years, and during his mayoral campaign, Leppert made a big production out of working with them to improve public education. Somewhere along the line, Leppert and the other kids decided Lowe and Hinojosa weren't up to the task. No one told Lowe or Hinojosa their services were no longer sufficient to maintain Dallas corporate support; Leppert just set about undermining them and plotting his coup, giving Lowe and Hinojosa the appearance of dead men walking, in terms of their political futures here in Dallas.
So much for working together. Leppert has just made Lowe's and Hinojosa's already difficult jobs that much harder, and so far, he hasn't seen fit to explain himself or his actions, either.
What to make of the whole thing?
Well, Leppert's coup plans are dead, and assuming DISD doesn't screw up big-time again soon, the mayor probably won't be handing sheepskins to DISD high school graduates in May. And the absolute shock registered on the faces of DISD's trustees says all we need to know about their future dealings with Leppert: He'd better watch his back the next time they're all together in the sandbox.
So what has been accomplished here? Leppert undercut the trustees and Hinojosa, at a time when they're still on thin ice with Dallas taxpayers and parents, and without offering any better ideas or solutions to DISD's problems. And he reignited the never-ending debate about how bad DISD is, making it difficult for the district to gain ground in the public eye even as clear academic improvements are being made across the district.
Thanks for the help, "education mayor" Leppert.
Instead of becoming part of the solution, Leppert showed himself to be part of the problem. And as we all know, DISD has enough of those already. Come to think of it, isn't Mr. Leppert's current employer — the city of Dallas — in that boat, too?
- Posted by Rick Wamre on Feb 25, 2009 at 04:55 AM in Business, City Hall, DISD, Education, Wamre, Advocate Mag, Lakewood - E Dallas
- Comments (6)
RSS Feed for Blog Comments: LINK
Comments
To me having the city (any city not just Dallas) run the local school makes sense. The city is bank rolling the school, so it should have some say in how it is run. Further, electing a school board is a very bad idea. Imagine if we elected a board of city engineers. This board of city engineers is responsible for all of the civil engineering in Dallas. Oh yeah, and to be on this board you can't be an engineer. That's our school board.
I think it might be a good idea to have the city council appoint professionals to run the school. We would appoint people with successful people who are well studied in education. There would not be a high profile political election, so we would no longer get people who are using the school board as a spring for a higher political office. Further, if the board ran into an $85 Million shortfall, they could be fired with out needing to run another election. Nor would they be able to extend their own terms on a whim when things get rocky.
I don't think a city take over of education is about Leppert. Leppert will eventually leave the office, and Leppert and city council would typically do what their professional staff would advise -rarely would they do otherwise. Rather, this discussion should be about dissolving the political failure that is the school board.
I'm not happy with 3700 Ross, and I haven't been for nearly two decades.
I'm afraid we in East Dallas have an uneasy bargain with them. We will be getting a $10 million science addition at Woodrow and they have offically approved the International Baccalauareate degree program - which will also include J.L. Long, where we finally have a stellar principal who knows the ropes because she grew up here. Lakewood and Stonewall are Blue-Ribbon, Lipscomb is exemplary and Lee, O.M. Roberts and Mount Auburn are recognized. Several of the schools were cited by Texas Monthly as the best in the state. Newsweek and D Magazine have ranked Woodrow higher than most of the hyped suburban high schools.
If change is to come it would probably start here in our neighborhood. But as long as there are no more RIFs or other extraordinary maneuvers at 3700 Ross, we are fat and happy with our own schools.
Dallas,
I tend to agree that it would be to our benefit to have the interests of the school system and the city under one roof. But, knowing that the schools system boundaries and the city's don't come close to matching, how do we make that happen?
Chicago, NYC and DC all have city run systems, but they also all have completely overlapping jurisdictions. No one lives in in Westchester County and pays taxes to the NYC school system. But in Dallas we have that and more. We have Dallasites who pay school taxes to suburban systems and suburbanites who pay taxes into the Dallas system.
I think Leppert would be wise to try to change this, I think that's his best bet. I think it would be workable in some areas. I don't think Irving would miss the 9 houses or so in west Dallas they currently serve. Same with Garland and Mesquite. Blach Springs talks every once in awhile about leaving the district. I *think* a deal could be made with HPISD to have their Dallas address traded for the HP DISD address. Same with Duncanville and Farmers Branch. But what about Seagoville, Wilmer, Hutchins, and Addison? Why would they leave the district? Why would they want the Dallas mayor running their schools?
And lastly I don't think you could ever get the Lake Highlands or Plano ISD Dallas households to accept a switch.
How would the votes be held? Would, for example, current HPISD residents vote to trade? Or would only the households in question? That would make it a lot harder. I don't think this is a practical solution. I think it'd take a dozen years to pull off and there's no reason for Leppert to invest his political capital in that. But I think it's the only way we can have 'big city' solutions to DISD's problems.
Dallas, I would respectfully disagree with you that the city council reps are uniquely more qualified than the DISD trustees to run the school district. True, the council reps are paid a bit, but running the city isn't their full-time job, and adding "school trustee" to their oversight responsibilities will simply overburden them. And when they look to someone else for help, or start listening to the city staff (a la the convention center hotel "analysis"), the politics will begin all over again.
RT, I agree with you that perhaps we are a bit "fat and happy" here, because parents, teachers, administrators and community members have worked hard and invested lots of time and money in all of our neighborhood schools. But that's the way it should be: DISD is an administrative and coordination entity, not the be-all and end-all of neighborhood education. If we allow DISD to buy textbooks and run the physical plants and rely on ourselves to watch over neighborhood schools, we wind up with good schools that are continuing to improve. I don't see where having Leppert running things would help with that goal.
I do not think the city council should be the trustees so to speak. I do think they should appoint highly qualified people to be the equivalent of the trustees.
My point is less about giving more power and responsibility to City Council, and more about placing the responsibility into the hands of highly qualified professionals. Doctors, Lawyers, and Businessmen and women should not be allowed to run a school system -unless they have a unique background that gives them the experience they need to do so.
To me having the city or for that fact Mickey Mouse running the school system would be a tremendous stride forward from what we currently have overseeing the system. I concur that Woodrow and JL are prides of the system but not because of anything that DISD did, it is because the parental involvement demanded it... For that I say "way to go!" Yes they are the bright lights but look at the other neighborhood schools in East Dallas, Bryan Adam HS, Hill Middle School and Reilley Elem. are the examples and the neighborhood schools for Lochwood Meadows and I can assure you that they have not and by anyone measuring stiick will not change. thus I am but one of several neighbors who have said thanks but no thanks and pay my city taxes to the district and my private tuition to the school my children attend. I do not enjoy doing this but as our kids are our future it is the only choice afforded me... I had a conversation with a lady the other day and she was railing about the five fifth grade classes and three of them were bilingual... While I do not blame DISD for this move, you must cater to your customer.
I applaud Leppert and agree control of the district should be handed over to the city and run in some coordinated fashion. We must remember that though Leppert has had a few bumps in the road he was and in the future will continue to be a successful business man. He obviously understands Business 101, if the processes are broken look for a way to fix or replace the process. Education is a service but as a taxpayer it is also a business, if I ran my corporation the way DISD has then I would no longer be at the helm I would be in the unemployement line.
At this stage of the ballgame I would say all options should be explored and if approriate acted upon...