Unfortunately (but consistent with whatever copyright protection Mssrs. Justice and Edwards may wish to exercise over their comments), only Nicholas Johnson's end of the interview was available for transcribing. [Some of the comments of Justice and Edwards are contained in brackets.]

Mr. Edwards' book argues that school boards are failing our nation's children for a variety of reasons. Among his solutions are greater "local control" — by which he seems to mean individual "school boards" for each school building, and funding for the school from the tax base represented by the parents of the children attending that school. His comments during the program put forward these, and other arguments from his book. The context in which the following quotes were uttered is usually clear. Obviously, the book itself is the best source for his ideas rather than any characterization of them here.

— N.J., January 5, 2000

[Roy Justice introduces Russell Edwards and Nicholas Johnson. Edwards opens with his background and experience as a school board member in the Chicago area, and responds to Justice's question as to why Edwards thinks school boards have outlived their usefulness. Edwards says they're governing the same way they always have, made up of people with no expertise in education, furthest away from the problems. Justice then asks Johnson for his reaction.]

Nicholas Johnson: Yes, I have a reaction on a number of fronts.

I would certainly agree that there is a potential risk. I would agree that many of the nation’s 15,000 school boards are dysfunctional at best.

What we have been going through in this District, however, is using John Carver’s Reinventing Your Board. Are you familiar with John Carver’s stuff, Russell?  He offers a formula, a procedure for a board to go through with the superintendent, administrators, teachers, community, students, and parents that I think can produce a functional board.  We are now in the early stages of that process so it remains to be seen. But I must say the contrast between what we are doing and what most boards do is really rather stark and dramatic and bodes potentially very, very well for our District.

I am not sure if that is in disagreement with you [that there are many problems with school board governance]. It is simply saying that there are exceptions to the general observations that both you and I think are appropriately applied.

But the other area where I would disagree with you is that one needs to have expertise.

Prior to being on the F.C.C. I was United States Maritime Administrator. One of the great innovations that came about during that time was containerization. I discovered that 90 percent of the cost of moving cargo all the way across the ocean, thousands of miles, was a cost incurred within ten miles of the port.  And the person who I worked with on that was a gentleman in the trucking business who didn’t know that much about shipping.  I could go on with many, many more anecdotes like that. We all could. So I don’t think it is necessary to have specific expertise.

I do think it is necessary to have a judicial frame of mind.  I do think it is necessary to have an open mind, to recognize one’s limitations, to be willing to seek out expert counsel, to recognize that as an elected official you are there to represent constituents who may have views different from your own, to be willing to change your point of view, to come into the job without an agenda, without conflicts of interest. Conflicts can involve special treatment for your own child as a student, or your spouse as a teacher, or you as a contractor doing work for the district.  There are those kinds of requirements. But aside from that I think a good strong mind, a willingness to read and think and write and work with your colleagues in working these things out can make a school board work.

There are a lot of problems, I would agree. But I think I have talked on too long at this point and I will raise some of those later.

Congratulations [to Russell Edwards for his book going into a second printing]!  [Edwards mentions the availability of the book through an 800 number and amazon.com.] We probably ought to note, Roy, that it is presumable also available through Prairie Lights or Iowa Book and Supply or many of the Iowa City book stores in this town of many book stores and lots of readers.

[Russell Edwards discusses the "seven deadly sins" of school boards, including their lack of expertise and reliance on their own experience only. Some believe that they are the expert. Justice asks about his book's reference to "real local control." Edwards proposes a modified school board for each school building rather than board governance of a district of many schools. He would also limit the power of that board, and require that they consult with others -- teachers and parents. The board would not have unlimited control.]

Well, let me say I think you can have both. I think we do in this district.  We call it "site based councils."  These are made up of the principal, teachers, parents, students. To the extent we can — as you know from the business model, referred as a “flat organization” — we delegate as much decision making as possible out to the school.

I think there is still a function for a district of more than one school — a function for a central administration office.  There is an enormous amount of paper work required within the district, by the state, by the federal government, and a number of agencies. I don’t really think most individual elementary school principals would want to take on that burden all alone.  I think there is an advantage in buying in quantity for a number of schools.

But I think the idea of delegating out as much authority as possible to the individual site-based councils is an excellent idea. In fact, we even have a great deal of variety within the Iowa City Community School District, which includes Coralville, North Liberty, and Hills, as well as Iowa City.  We have a great deal of flexibility in the way those site-based councils work.  How they want to set it up, the relative power of the principal and the teachers, whether they want to have students involved or not. A lot of those things are left to the local school as well.

So I agree with what Russell is saying [about the values of "local control"], but I am not sure that his proposal is the only way to go about trying to bring that about.

[Justice asks Edwards if there was a problem in his school district. Edwards says one can look at board's minutes over time and see how they go from functional to dysfunctional in a cycle. Site based management works only if the school board won't meddle in it.]

Well, that’s [the problems created by dysfunctional and overreaching boards] why John Carver’s approach to all of this is so essential. It has been adopted by our Board, with some variations and modifications to suit our community.  It has been adopted by our school board because, as he points out, and you and I know from experience, most of the nation’s 15,000 school boards are at one end or the other of a continuum that goes from a rubber stamp school board to a micro-managing school board.

Most school boards are simply presented with documents by the superintendent.  The superintendent prepares the agenda, she or he gets the documents prepared, has someone present them to the board, and the board simply votes them up or down.  Almost always the board votes in favor of the superintendent’s recommendations. In fact, if they continuously vote against the recommendations they often end up replacing the superintendent.

At the other end of the continuum from the rubber stamp board is the micro-managing board. I’m guessing that’s one that you are describing as one of your “seven deadly sins” [a feature of his book]. That’s the board whose members get involved in the minutest of detail.  They want to hire or fire individual teachers, they want to change the school lunch menu, whatever.

What Carver is suggesting is essentially a fire-wall between the board, on the one hand, and the superintendent and the rest of the district on the other. The board focuses on policy, long range planning, measurable goals, the monitoring of the reaching of those goals and so forth.  It also comes up with what are called “executive limitations.”

Executive limitations tell the superintendent, in effect, “You and others in the district cannot do the following things.  But aside from that here are the ends or goals we want you to reach. For example, we want 90 percent of our third graders to be reading at a third grade level.  You figure out how to get us there.  We're going to leave you alone to do it. We're not going to meddle in what you do day by day."

That's the Carver model.  And I think that it can work.

But I would not disagree with you at all that there are lots of problems, certainly with most of the 15,000 school boards in the country. Those problems include the kinds of things you're mentioning.

People come on with very little background.  People come on with their own agenda.  They want to teach religion in the schools, or whatever.  Folks come on who want to micro manage.  People come on who are not particularly of judicious mind or willing to hear and change their point of view. Many serve relatively short terms so that you do have a churn, you do have turnover. And when you do, if you have the wrong board majority there, they can wreck a lot of havoc in the course of their term.

So I do think there are a lot of risks.

I haven't read your book yet, I'm going to order it as soon as this program is over. But as you also know, and I suspect you discuss in your book, in many cities, such as Chicago, New York, Detroit, and Washington, there are city councils that have simply taken over from the school board. They have said, in effect, "Lead, follow or get out of the way. You're not doing any of these. We're going to take it over and do the best we can with these schools because you aren't doing it."

So, sometimes a school board gets so dysfunctional and so ineffective that the members do simply need to be replaced.

[Edwards said he is proposing something similar to local councils, but with limitations on power.]

We had a wonderful meeting last evening in this community of a school board where one of the things we do now is actually hold meetings in the schools.  We started with a couple of the elementary schools
and we’re going to go to the high schools. So it’s a real opportunity for the community to be there and just watch us.

It’s been said that two things you should never watch are the making of sausage and the making of legislation. I would add to that the designing of ends policies by the Iowa City Community School District Board.  But one of the things that came out of that meeting deals with exactly what you are talking about. There seems to be almost unanimity amongst our Board members that our process, of course, requires a constant back and forth between the board and our experts. We also happen to have a College of Education here at the University of Iowa with a lot of expertise there, and input from parents and so forth.

The difference is that our board is not simply delegating all of this to a group of either members of our staff or members of the community and saying, "You tell us what our end policies ought to be."  The board is saying, "We are going to determine what these ends policies are. We’re going to put some things out there for community comment. And then we’re quite prepared to change our position once somebody points out that a given policy isn’t going to work.  But we’re not going to just sit back and raise our little paw in the air and vote seven-to-nothing that whatever the superintendent wants the superintendent can have without any meaningful participation by the board."

Virtually every member of our board has been writing, exchanging ideas by email, speaking up at meetings, doing readings and bringing them in to other board members.  This is an active, involved board that is both quite mindful of its limitations and also quite open to input from everybody. I think that every board member changed their positions with regards to some things last evening as a result of interacting with a couple of principals and a lot of parents. We had a really good open discussion.

[Justice asks about Edwards' assertion in his book that there will be more school shootings. He says that's because boards don't stand behind their policies. Edwards objected to Jesse Jackson's involvement in trying to get an Illinois school board to change its position regarding sanctions imposed on some disruptive students. Edwards was especially critical that the board in question ultimately failed to apply its "get tough," zero tolerance policy. Child let off hook may become killer later. There will be more shootings because boards can't stand up to the pressure. They are made up of just average people. Boards should stand behind their policies, he says.]

I certainly don't disagree with what Russell is saying. I think that's a problem. It may be a little simplistic to suggest that it's a major cause of violence in schools. We have a lot of best practices that tell us what it is we can do to treat violence, and they involve starting in kindergarten instead of waiting until high school. But in addition to the problem of a school board -- or for that matter any governmental agency, private corporation, hospital, anybody else -- not following their own policies I think you also have a problem at the other extreme. That is, a rigidity in following the policy; a rigidity in failing to recognize the distinctions that do exist between one case and another. Common sense may dictate that you really ought to approach it differently. So I think both can be a problem.

I remember at the Federal Communications Commission we had a policy on something -- Roy, you'd probably remember it better than I -- and the first 13 cases that came up we waved the rule every time. So it was not much of a rule. I agree with Russell about that one.

[Edwards quoted Jesse Jackson as urging the board to show "tolerance for our youth. That will be a victory." If students think that's a victory, Edwards contends, they may think their behavior was not that bad. Boards have to stand in the face of that attack.]

I would have to say that I have read the newspaper accounts. Jesse Jackson is a friend of mine and has been for 20 to 30 years. But I don’t really know enough of the detail to pass judgment on that one.

However, a part of what the evidence does show us is that we are creating a lot of these problems. We as adults within our high schools. It's by the way in which we are treating divergent youths in a cookie cutter uniform way.  It's the alienation that some of these kids feel and the rejection that they get.

It's our unwillingness to recognize the diversity that does exist — with regard to everything, I’m not just talking about race. I’m talking about everything from hair color to dress, to whatever. I’m not saying "if it feels good do it," and that there are no moral values, everything is a variable.

What I am saying is that I think that we should treat these kids as individuals, treat them with respect, with dignity, take an interest in them, make home visits, find out who they are, design programs that work for them. Set up alternative schools like we have with Cedar Rapids' [Iowa] Metro High School, where these kids can really thrive.

Was it Paul Goodman who wrote the book Growing Up Absurd? He argues that it’s not necessarily the individuals who are out of line, it’s those who accept the society as it is.  You could say a kid who rebels in a modern high school with 2500 students in it is right. It's the 2500 students who accept it, and their faculty and administrators, who are wrong.

That’s what U.S. Education Secretary Riley says.  We need to have high schools of 400 to 600 students.  You start getting 1500, 2500, 3500 kids in a high school, and you are bound to have isolates and kids who slip between the cracks.

So I don’t know exactly what Jesse was getting at over there, but I do know that there is a lot more to these kids who are creating problems than we often recognize.

[Russell Edwards recommended that "local control" should include the financial consequence that the money to support a school — he suggests that each school should be, in effect, its own school district — should come from property taxes assessed on the homes of those parents sending their children to that school along with whatever contributions they wish to make to their children's school.]

We already have that system don't we, Russell?

There are two things I'd say here.

One is that if you really follow through with what you are talking about, it ends up totaling abolishing public education as we know it.

The theory of why a taxpayer with no children, or with children who are grown, is paying money into the school system is not just that it is a lovely thing for them to do.  It is that that helps guarantee that they are going to get the correct change at the supermarket and that the guy working on their car is going to be able to read the manual.  We all benefit from education.  As the bumper sticker has it, "If you think education is expensive, just wait until you start paying for ignorance."  So I think that what we are trying to do with public education is precisely the opposite of what you are advocating.  Namely, we want to ensure that every child gets an education that enables her or him to participate in a democracy, lead a happy and worthwhile life, and make a constructive contribution to the economy.

But the reason I say that what you are proposing can already be done, is that in our District's schools, and most schools across the country, there is nothing to prevent parents from contributing money that can go to additional playground equipment or computers, things of that sort in their schools. That’s done all the time.

In fact, it can be done to such a degree that it can create a problem of equity, because the parents in the predominantly low-income-student schools are not going to have that kind of money for those kind of extras.  But that can already be done without having to change the tax system.

I would say here exactly what Jesse is telling you. The trouble with your idea is that you have some ideal model of what you want to mold this kid into.

As I said earlier, it's altogether possible that what’s wrong is not the kid but the institution.

The students who go to Metro High School in Cedar Rapids are not there because they have to be there, they’re there because they want to be there.  Now why is it they want to be at Metro but they wanted to drop out of the other high schools in Cedar Rapids?  Let’s take a look at that.  The kid hasn’t changed.  It’s a different institution.  It’s a different way of relating to the kids.  It’s a different way of respecting them as individuals.  It’s a different way of acknowledging what they can do.

Well, far be it from me [to criticize Edwards' ideas as too radical]. I’m constantly getting myself in trouble with my Iowa City Press Citizen columns, with floating ideas that are far less radical than anything Russell has had to say.  So if my critics are out there listening to this, I hope you realize how moderate and reasonable little Nicky Johnson is now that he's grown up and on the school board.

Nothing I have ever written is anywhere near as wild as this Russell Edwards who we are going to try to keep out of town.  But we are going to read his book, because we need to know what we do in this new millennium after school boards have been abolished by Russell Edwards.