No on Measure D!

By Michael V. Johnson

How does giving the mayor the authority to appoint school board members improve our schools. It doesn't! It justs gives him control! If the voters in Oakland had insight enough to vote for our mayor, shouldn't that same insight be used to vote for school board members who are capable of independent thought and possess the ability to get the job done?

So what exactly is the difference between being appointed to the board by the mayor or endorsed as a candidate by the mayor? As far as the mayor is concerned absolutely nothing! Remember 3 + 4 = 7. The end justifies the means; the mayor doesn't really care how he gets control of the schools as long as he has it. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the mayor has chosen the path of least resistance. The path he has chosen does not "lead to significant improvement in student performance" as outlined in the Education Commission's mission statement.

Where does it lead? To politics as usual unfortunately. When a sitting board member ensures that the mayor's choice for interim superintendent is appointed, and then stands mute on the issue of governance, in exchange for a job in city hall, of course the mayor is going to endorse him.

Measure D is the mayors' plan to gain control of the school board by any means necessary. Where is the mayors' plan to improve the academic performance of students. He doesn't have one. It doesn't exist. If the mayor had his way he would appoint the interim superintendent (who has no experience running a school district)as superintendent, instead of pursuing qualified candidates who may actually be capable of turning Oakland Public Schools around.

We need a coherent strategy for improving our schools. I have one! But it requires that you and I work together. Together we can be successful "Creating Schools That Work" for all of our children.