Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. These days, if you want to find the most white-hot politics, you might look to your local school board. My guest today is the former chairman of Blythedale Children's Hospital in Westchester County, New York, and he's a former investment banker and he's currently a partner at an investment management firm. And he decided several years ago that he'd seek a seat on his local public school board. And he has something to say, not only about the experience, but about school boards more generally. Scott Levy recently published, "Why School Boards Matter: Reclaiming the Heart of American Education and Democracy." Mr. Levy, welcome to the program.
Scott Levy: Well, Grant, it's great to be with you today.
GR: I really appreciate you making the time. Let me just start with the book's title, "Why School Boards Matter," I think in at least one way, I think it's obvious to a lot of us in recent years that school boards do matter, they have mattered. And let me just give you and our listeners a quick story to illustrate this. At Syracuse University, I help run a course for military veterans who are interested in pursuing elective office for the first time. And as a way to get started down that path, what we used to suggest to them is that they look at school boards, among other local offices. It's a common first step. Now we're cautioning them to tread very carefully there, because this terrain has become so politically fraught with divisive cultural debates. I mean, it's a way for, it seems to me, for someone to get labeled and sucked into a polarized debate right out of the gate in their public service. And just to sort of put an exclamation point on this point I'm making, one of the folks that teaches on our program is a former National Party campaign chair, and he starts out his presentation saying, you know, one thing I want to tell you, don't run for school board.
Scott Levy: (laughter)
GR: So, my question is, what has happened? Have school boards, do you think, just been drawn into this black hole of political polarization right now along with everything else, or is something more distinctive going on? What happened?
SL: So, you're getting to the heart of one of the reasons why I decided to write the book. Because when I first became a school board member in 2015, it's a local district outside of New York City, in Westchester County, I remember school boards being thought of as relatively boring, and I remember when I won the election and I was walking in my town, somebody had stopped me in the street and they said, oh, Scott, congratulations on winning the race, and I said to them, oh, I really appreciate it, and they said, yeah, we're going to see you on video because all the school board meetings are videoed and anybody can watch them. That's one of the things about school boards that's so important, the transparency. And I remember thinking at the time, wow, somebody actually watches this because this is 2015 and not a lot of attention was being paid to it.
GR: (laughter)
SL: And he responds by saying, yeah, I watch it. I watch it because I've been having trouble falling asleep lately, and it's very helpful, especially when you're doing the budget or you're doing policy language. And that was really, I think, the way so many people thought about school boards in 2015. And then you fast forward to 2020, 21 and 22, in the heart of Covid and afterwards, and we see everything explode. And what my message would be is, on the one hand, school boards have always been a place throughout American history where these battles have taken place. And I did a lot of research looking back at the 1800s and early 1900s, finding examples where you could almost find the same language that people used for the smallpox vaccine, as they did for the Covid vaccine when there was talk of vaccination requirements in the early 1900s on smallpox and obviously around, you know, in the middle of the pandemic. This battle between parental rights and government control or curriculum versus indoctrination, and the fact that we as Americans approached these questions with slightly different ideas, I think gets to the heart of what happens in boardrooms. Now, there are a bunch of things that have changed as well that I'm happy to get into it with you.
GR: Yeah, well, you actually anticipated something I want to ask you about. You do get into the history of this, and you take a look at the past regarding school board politics. So, you went back to the 1800s, and that example was smallpox. But, you know, I'm old enough to remember really epic battles over school desegregation. I can't remember how many of those happened at the school board level, but I know it was a big issue at the state level and certainly the national level. Thinking about maybe after World War two, have there been other times when school boards occupied a similarly volatile political space? Or again, are we now in this combination of, you mentioned indoctrination versus education, the battles over curriculum and what books people are going to read, battles over bathrooms and battles over gender identity, the Covid battles, which were huge. I mean, is it new, do you think, or is it just a blip on our continuum?
SL: I think it's a blip on the continuum in the sense that there are always issues that permeate boardrooms, and obviously they change from time to time, teaching evolution versus creationism, the way in which religion comes into schools in different ways, even today, we see that, but we've seen that throughout American history. In the early 1800s in Philadelphia, there was literally a riot that happened over what Bible was going to be taught in public schools in Philadelphia. And then you look at the way that lines are drawn between different schools within a district. That's a very controversial issue. Whether a school is potentially going to be closed, that's, it's not a cultural issue, but it's an incredibly important issue for the community that tends to bring out a lot of different factions and some real battles that happen in boardrooms. So, there's just so many different reasons why things can heat up, and you never quite know what's around the corner. But I think that these places are just manifestations of what's happening in broader society and/or in that community.
GR: I'm Grant Reeher and I'm speaking with Scott Levy. He's a former investment banker and a member of the board of education in Westchester County, New York, and the author of, "Why School Boards Matter: Reclaiming the Heart of American Education and Democracy." So, we've been talking about the real headline, you know, political battles that that are deeply divisive and that have been located in school boards, but your book is about a lot more than that. And, you know, you want to emphasize how important school boards are in American democracy and in education policy. So, I just want to give you some space to talk about that. What are the other reasons why school boards are so important?
SL: So, the reason that I decided to run for school board is really after I had seen what happened with the rollout of Race to the Top in New York State, which happened around the time of 2013, 2014. I was the chair of an organization that was raising money for public schools to try to fund innovative projects, projects that couldn't be done in the regular way - school budget. And this organization had been around for 20 years, there had been a steady stream of ideas that had always flowed from teachers, from administrators to the organization, for, you know, funding opportunities. And all of a sudden, those ideas stopped. And I remember thinking at the time, why all of a sudden, I become chair of this organization do the ideas stop? And the reason was that Race to the Top as it was executed by New York State in a very aggressive manner, really did upend the way that everybody thought about schools, the way teachers were teaching, the role of tests tied to teacher evaluations, there were a lot of elements of this, and it garnered all the attention. And I remember thinking at the beginning, well, maybe this is just affecting my district and not affecting the districts more broadly. And I went to this forum that I'll never forget where there were schools across our region, there were schools that were high needs, schools that were low needs, schools on all different, you know, economic ends of the spectrum, all different demographics. And really across the board there was an amazing amount of energy focused on how this initiative was really upending schools in a very negative way. And so that got me to doing a lot of policy research and work and thinking about the fact that, if you're on a school board and you sit within the district as the governance body, there are a lot of things that you can do that even the state and federal government, as well-meaning as they may be, can't do. And that is really the, you know, heart of a lot of what I talk about in my book, ways that school boards can improve districts in just a very different manner than can be done at a centralized level. The thing that I found by the time I finished writing the book was that, perhaps maybe the most important takeaway, is the role of school boards in our democracy more broadly, and how I really do think that despite the fact that we see a lot of infighting in school board meetings and polarization that happens in local communities, we really do have an opportunity through this mechanism of public school boards to bring communities together and to ultimately try to repair our country and reduce polarization broadly. They're an incredibly important piece of democracy. So, there's those two angles, there's how it can improve schools and then how we can use it to strengthen our democracy.
GR: So, we're going to get into both of those things, particularly in the second half. But let me ask you this question now, you probably already answered it really, but if you want to say anything additionally about it. There is this argument out there, and you just engaged it, that the politics of school boards have gotten so nasty and dysfunctional and also that the challenges of education have become so big and cut across local districts that it's actually better to let larger entities, such as state government and federal government, really sort of drive the bus, as opposed to local school boards. But you have a different view on that, obviously.
SL: I believe that the state has an important accountability role to play. The state is funding a good portion of education in New York State and in states around the country. And so, it certainly makes sense that the state plays an active role in overall policy and governance. But I think what we've seen is a tremendous shift over the course of several decades from power that used to reside at the local level to now power at the state level, and to a lesser extent, though still significant, at the federal level. And I think what's interesting about this is that this is not about red or blue, because if you look at a state like New York that's blue at the state level, and if you look at a state like like Tennessee or Florida, that may be red at the state level, you see the same pattern of legislation that is quite specific around the way in which schools operate, including curriculum that you wouldn't have seen 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago. So, day to day, it doesn't seem like much changes, but when you look at it across, you know, decades, there's been a dramatic shift. And it's so interesting because there are a lot of people in blue states that are blue that say, yay, this is great, this stuff is great. And a lot of people in red states that look at their red state legislative bodies and governors and say, yeah, this is great. But when you really step back and think about some of the legislation that's happening in red or blue states, to me, I view it from a political science perspective as quite similar. You know, if you're going to ban something at the state level, you may be banning or you may be mandating something at the state level, but at the end of the day, you're taking an action that's going to affect a lot of different districts. And it goes back to what I was saying before, our system is complex. There used to be room for nuance, and there used to be room for this governing body at the local level to really try to perform certain tasks that just can't be done on a centralized basis. And that's why I think school boards, you know, can be very good at.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Scott Levy, the former investment banker serves on his local school board in Westchester County, New York, and is the author of, "Why School Boards Matter: Reclaiming the Heart of American Education and Democracy." So, can you speak a little bit more about how the ways you see school boards can make things better, the unique contributions that they can have?
SL: For sure. Because they sit within the district, they're really best suited to try to tackle the issues that that particular district faces. And when you think about it, if we look across New York State, if we look across the country, every district is different. Some districts have a challenge with academic proficiency, others may have a challenge with declining enrollment or maybe stress and anxiety in the high school in that crazy race, the college. There are all different kinds of issues that districts face, and depending on the issue, what you really want to do is you want to set up a set of initiatives that try to tackle the issue, and then you want to try to measure your progress against that issue. If that's done at a centralized level, it's very difficult to be specific around some of these issues because not everybody has the same issue. And so, really what the board can do incredibly well is do some soul searching that says, well, what are the issues that we want to try to improve in our district? And then set up some key performance indicators to say, okay, I'm going to try to measure my progress against them. That's one big thing. Another thing at the end of the day, is the fact that the heart of a district is all about its people and relationships. And if you think about what's broken in education in America, we look at our students and there's a tremendous amount of mental health issues and anxiety and stress and disconnection that we, of course, want to try to improve. We look at our teaching force and we know that teacher attrition is at very high levels, and it's just very, and teacher satisfaction is at a very low level, and so we want to reverse that. And then we look at superintendents and the average length of a superintendency these days, tenure is very short. In many places it's as short as three years. And so, we want more longevity for administrators. And when you think about all of this, it ties back to the district climate and what it feels like to work in that district, or to be a student in that district, and how can we make sure it's a place where we're getting great engagement, student engagement and professional engagement from the people that work there? And that's something that the school board has a lot of, kind of control over, because the school board sets the tone, the school board sets the example of what happens, and that board-superintendent relationship is incredibly important to set a model for the entire system to try to improve all relationships throughout.
GR: You know, you come from a business background more generally, and you do often hear when people from business / finance backgrounds run for public office. They say, you know, the problem is government should be run more like a business. If we did that, it would be efficient, everyone would be happy, etc.. One of the most important differences in your mind between the two realms, you've been in both realms now, you've been on the school board and you're also pretty high level financier. What makes them different?
SL: Well, what's so interesting about that question is Race to the Top, which is kind of how I got started and so motivated to spend the last ten years immersed in education policy, so much of that was predicated from ideas from business. Oh, we're going to increase competition, we're going to increase standardization and data measurement, all these concepts that we're taking from business. And obviously there was an incredible push against that. There’s always a lot of skepticism when business ideas come into the realm of education. And what I would say, is the way in which that initiative was ultimately, you know, executed was not the business world that I recognize from the 21st century. Maybe it was the business world 100 years ago. And so, I think that that was a very flawed way to take business ideas and put them in education. Having said that, I think that there are so many things that are applicable, especially when it comes to governance and boards. And the reality is that there's not a lot of research on school boards, more in the last five years than ever before, but not a lot. There's a tremendous amount of research on corporate boards and nonprofit boards, and I think a lot of the concepts certainly can be applicable and can really, you know, get us thinking. There's, you know, the board superintendent relationship that I mentioned? That is so important. It's like the pinnacle of the organization in terms of setting an example and setting the tone, and if you get that right, a lot of good things happen. Well, that's no different than the board and the CEO having a constructive relationship in a company. And the fundamental role of a governance board in corporate America and in the world of public education is very similar in that, you're not running the district day to day, you shouldn't be running the corporation day to day if you're a board member. If you show up to that company every day and you have an office in the corner and you're like, micromanaging, that's not a good recipe for success. And it's the same thing for a school board member. If I went to my district office every day and started to, you know, run the district day to day, that would be a breach of my governance duties. It would not make any sense. I'm not a professional administrator and it's not my role. So, there are many things that we can learn, we just have to be careful and thoughtful about applying these concepts to make sure that they're constructive.
GR: On this issue, then, of the role of democracy and the school board's role in the democratic process. You seem like an exceptionally reasonable person with a lot of really specific, good knowledge from other areas that can be applied in a school board. So, if I'm thinking of what type of person do I want on my school board, I think of someone like you, okay? However, with the problems that we've seen with school boards in recent years, I think there are probably some people that run in order to grind an axe, right? They're angry and they're mad about something, and by golly, they're going to make sure that there's only two bathrooms or whatever the issue is that they're going to… so, that might not be the best thing for democracy. So, how do you see school boards being so uniquely important in the American democratic system?
SL: Well, one thing that I think we have to remember: why boards exist in general. And this comes like way back in history, hundreds and hundreds of years ago, is that boards are not just one person. So, the board is, you know, any individual board member doesn't have power until the board votes, and then it's really the majority of the board that carries the day. And so, I think that brings some humility to the entire process and also brings some balance. Because if you had one person that was charged with the governance of an entity, you would, I think you had a very different result and potentially a more erratic result. Now, I think there's a beauty to the fact that, let's say you're one board member and you come to the board with an axe on a particular issue, and you're not using your governance hat, and you're just all about one issue. And at the end of the day, in order for you to prevail, which you might, you have to convince all these other people that are on the board with you, or at least the majority of them, to focus on that issue and then to vote your way. And in that process, you have to do it publicly in front of the entire community on video, and it's part of the record. And so, I think that there are all these protections in our system to bring more balance. It doesn't mean that somebody can't cause a ruckus, but it does mean that by the time a decision gets made, the public has the right to come to the microphone and speak their mind. Other board members have the right to speak their mind, debate. And I think that this is why it's civil discourse at its best. You don't get to choose who's on the board, as another board member, it's the community that chooses, as it should be, through the vote. And then you get all these people from different backgrounds. They bring positives from different parts of their lives all together, and then you have to do everything transparently.
GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. And my guest is Scott Levy, the author of, "Why School Boards Matter." Just briefly, what were some of the biggest highs you've had from your service and the lowest lows?
SL: So, I think that the biggest highs are always about student achievement and students flourishing in the system and ultimately finding their passion, whatever that passion might be, and all the things that they do to make the world a better place while they're in school, and then the hope that you have when they graduate, that they'll go on to do amazing things in their lives. I think that's the reason that so many of us run for school board is about students and student outcomes and the student experience. And so that really is, I think, always the highlight. And then part of it, of course, is students that are in the system today. And I think a big responsibility, and this is where some boards spend a lot of time on this and other boards probably need to spend more, is to think about the system ten years from now, 15 years from now, and are we making decisions that are going to keep the district strong over time? I think that there's a tremendous tendency, and this is no different than the business world and the nonprofit world, to think about today and not to think about that long term planning aspect, and how decisions are going to matter down the road. I think in terms of the lows, I would say that it's not when there are disagreements because there should be disagreement, it's not when there are split votes because there should be, you know, split votes. It's when there's disrespect or when there's just animosity, where you automatically think that the person who doesn't think like you is coming from an evil or bad place. And I think what I've learned through the years of being a school board member is I may believe that I have a policy position that puts children first and is really, you know, being thoughtful to student outcomes, the other person might have the opposite policy position, but it's not necessarily because they don't have the same objective that I do. They may have the same objective, they just believe that there's a very different policy way to get there. And I think we all have to make a little bit of room for that. I've also learned that over time, sometimes the positions that I might have had that I thought were in the best interest may not have been. And so, I think you have to have that sense of humility too, that sometimes you're going to be wrong, and there's nothing wrong with admitting when you're wrong and reversing course.
GR: You mentioned the problem of vilifying and being vilified. All of this takes place during an era of social media where there's a lot of nasty stuff there. Have you ever been singled out on social media like, “Scott Levy is evil! He's ruining our schools.”?
SL: Well, sometimes it's interesting in election processes that are contentious, you get, you know, very personal things that do happen. And I think for many of us as school board members, we've had things, you know, said to us, whether it's on social media or in person, that, you know, certainly can be tough, but it's also part of being a public official, just like if you are an elected, you know, state representative or a congressional representative, that part of being in public services that you do need to be able to take criticism. I think the positive is that, yep, we have an environment where any clip can be taken from a school board meeting and literally distributed to hundreds of thousands, if not in some cases, millions of people in a very short period of time. That happens all the time. And that is a, you know, just a risk of sitting on the dais and have everything, you know, being videoed. And, and things come into the boardroom from far off places because of social media as well. So, it's really, in that respect, changed the game. Like I said, there's always been contention in boardrooms, there's always been tough issues that have been adjudicated, but now it's a social media makes it a little bit different. But the point that I would make, is that as bad as polarization is at the local level, polarization is multiples worse at the national level. There was a recent study that the Carnegie Corporation did last year that measured local polarization versus national polarization, and there's a very stark difference in degree. So, I do think that we have a real opportunity because we are all neighbors, we all live in the same community, we're in the same room together in person when there's a school board meeting, which I think is a huge positive, sitting on the sidelines of a football game together or a concert. There is a way to try to have constructive dialog across differences that you, it's very difficult to do at the state or national level, and that's a real opportunity.
GR: Yeah. Good point. I mean, one thing about Congress is they don't spend any time together across party lines.
SL: Oh, exactly, not like it used to be.
Grant Reeher: Right, but you still do. So, I'm going to be very blunt here, and I apologize if this sounds elitist. You are not the average person. You have very, very specific knowledge at a very high level. By any measure of elites for society, you are one. Do you think that people like yourself, for lack of a better word, have a special obligation to the community, to the public, in terms of service? Because obviously you could have not been a school board member and done quite well, you don't need to do this. Do you think there's something different, for lack of a better word, people like you?
SL: No. I think that one thing that I've learned through the years networking with so many school board members across our region, across the state, and sometimes across the country, is that I learn things from board members of all backgrounds, and I don't think that my background gives me any sort of a special obligation or edge in terms of service. I just see so many people making a contribution and they may not have a college education, they may not have studied, you know, school policy, but they can still bring an amazing amount of wisdom to the board table. And then I think that, for me, service is more personal. It's not coming from a place where, oh, I have a special obligation because of where I studied or my professional career. It's much more about how, truly, when I serve, it's fulfilling to me. And I love, you know, being really deeply involved in my community because I love my community, and that's where it comes from. But I don't think that there's any sort of a special obligation. That notion was very much a part of the progressive era in the turn of the century, between the 19th and 20th century. Oh, we need to make school board members a bunch of people that are really well-educated and elite, and they're going to do a great job, and I do not subscribe to that view. I think little ‘d’ democracy. Let the people decide who they think should lead the charge in their communities, and then I think good things happen.
Grant Reeher: Be. Right. But you still do. So I'm going to be very blunt here, and I apologize if the sounds elitist. You are not the average person. You have very, very specific knowledge at a very high level. By any measure of elites for society, you are one. Do you think that people like yourself, for lack of a better word, have a special obligation to the community, to the public in terms of service? Because obviously you could have not been a school board member and done quite well. You don't need to do this. Do you think there's something different, for lack of a better word, people like you.
Scott Levy: Know, I think that one thing that I've learned through the years, networking with so many school board members across our region, across the state, and sometimes across the country, is that I learn things from board members of all backgrounds, and I don't think that my background gives me any sort of a special obligation or edge in terms of service.
SL: I just see so many people making a contribution and they may not have a college education, they may not have studied, you know, school policy, but they can still bring an amazing amount of wisdom to the board table. And then I think that, for me, service is more personal. It's not coming from a place where, oh, I have a special obligation because of where I studied or my professional career. It's much more about how truly, when I serve, it's fulfilling to me. And I love, you know, being really deeply involved in my community because I love my community, and that's where it comes from. But I don't I don't think that there's any sort of a special obligation. That notion was very much a part of the Progressive ERA in the right, in the turn of the century, between the 19th and 20th century. Oh, we need to make school board members a bunch of people that are really well-educated and elite, and they're going to do a great job, and I don't I do not subscribe to that view. I think little democracy. Let the people decide who they think should, lead the charge in their communities. And, and then I think, good things happen.
GR: Only a couple seconds left, last question. What do you say to someone who's thinking about running for school board and may say, oh my God, I don't want to get into that mess? Give me two sentences.
SL: I think it's incredibly fulfilling and they should absolutely go for it. But they should also go in with their eyes wide open and understand what they're getting into and how there could be very contentious issues that they need to adjudicate, and they could be put in the public spotlight in a way that they may not have been used to before. They need to be ready for that, but I think it's a phenomenal way to start.
GR: Great, we'll have to leave it there. That was Scott Levy, and again, his book is titled, "Why School Boards Matter: Reclaiming the Heart of American Education and Democracy" and there's a lot of good wisdom in that book. Mr. Levy, thanks so much for talking with me.
SL: Well, I appreciate it. It's been great.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
