As Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon positions herself to lobby for control of the Baltimore school system, New York is revisiting its state law -- adopted in 2002 and due to expire in June -- giving the mayor of the Big Apple oversight of the nation's largest school system.

The New York Times reports today that a commission appointed by that city's public advocate is recommending the continuation of mayoral control of schools. However, the commission is also recommending that structures be put in place to serve as a check on the mayor's power. It would give an independent panel more say over budget and policy decisions.

When Dr. Alonso served as deputy chancellor in New York, he had tremendous authority as a result of the mayoral control structure. He needed only to report to the chancellor, who had the backing of the mayor. He accepted his job as CEO in Baltimore on the condition that the school board give him the authority he needs to run the system without political interference. Even as observers say the board has given him more power than any Baltimore superintendent has had in decades, he still has to jump through more hoops here than he did in New York.

Education observers agree that the success of mayoral control of schools depends on a mayor's willingness to risk political capital to support controversial decisions made by a superintendent. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has shown that's not a question in New York. The same is now true in Washington, where Mayor Adrian Fenty has thrown his weight behind Chancellor Michelle Rhee. But should there be a limit on the authority vested in these arrangements? Or does a limit defeat the purpose, which is to minimize the bureaucracy that inhibits progress?