The newest solution being proposed to "save MPS" is to eliminate a democratically elected board, and replace it with a superintendant and school board appointed by the Mayor:

Gov. Jim Doyle and Mayor Tom Barrett both said for the first time Thursday that achieving significant reform in Milwaukee Public Schools would require the mayor to lead the school system and select the next superintendent.

Mayoral control of the school system - a tactic that experts say has improved the academic and fiscal performance of some other urban districts - has been hinted at in Milwaukee since late spring, but wasn't formally endorsed until Doyle did so Thursday in an interview with a member of the Journal Sentinel's editorial board.

In addition to selecting the superintendent, Barrett said, the mayor should also appoint the School Board. Doyle did not commit to that but indicated he was open to new ways for the School Board to operate.

If done correctly, he added, changes to the governance of MPS could bring significant benefits to the district.
...
Under his plan, Barrett argued, the school system would be more accountable to the public, because the mayor is more visible to voters throughout the city. Eight board members now are elected from districts, and only one is elected citywide. In turn, the superintendent would be accountable directly to the mayor rather than nine board members and therefore would be better able to focus on educational issues, he said.

Surprisingly, several people on the right (example here) are in support of this idea.  It seems that everyone thinks "bold changes" are needed by an executive in order to implement the kind of reforms that an elected group of people seem unwilling to implement.  Granted, MPS has been a favorite target of highly conservative commentators for some time.  It should therefore not surprise me that they would be supportive of blowing up a system they see as not working.  However, I see some glaring hypocrisies in this position:

1. Approval of Taxation Without Representation:  Whether you like who got elected to the current board or not, the school board has the power to tax people.  Anytime there have been suggestions for the creation of other appointed boards that have the power to tax (regional transit, parks, etc.), it rightly comes under criticism that this board lacks direct voter oversight.  Now there are people who want to take an elected board with taxing power, and make it unelected!  This seems to fly directly in the face of Conservative and Republican principles.
   
2. Anti-Democratic:  The premise behind this whole idea is that we don't like the fact that an elected body is making slow or bad decisions, and that an executive power has the needed bold changes necessary to fix the system. Therefore it's acceptable to nullify previous elections, and replace that body with appointed members who more closely align with the ideas of the executive.
   
   If you find this acceptable, would you also find it acceptable for President Obama, citing the fact that Congress has been slow to enact the necessary health care reforms this country desperately needs, to dissolve Congress and replace all Senators and Congressman with appointees?  Right, I didn't think so.  This is just a smaller scale of the exact same thing, and is just as wrong.
   
   Even Barret's argument that the Mayor is more visible, and therefore more accountable, could be applied to the Federal government.  Everyone knows who the President is, but most people can't name their Congressman or Senators to save their lives.  Would you be comfortable giving President Obama that kind of power?

The reason why we elect our school board is more than just about taxing power though.  It is out of a belief that we care so much about our children's education, that if we are going to have a public school system, those that administer that system need to be directly accountable to the voters... and more importantly... the parents.  This idea inserts a layer between the parents and the school board leaders.  Leaders therefore will have more reason to obey the Mayor's wishes, even if it goes against the wishes of the parents.

It also distorts the basic checks and balances we put in place in our government, where those that create policy (legislatures) are different than those that administer them (executives).  I would strongly fight any precedent setting measure that would dissolve a democratically elected body to be replaced with one appointed by an executive.