Education advocates say they're hoping a new Board of Education president will shift the focus from business to teaching (Mayor's office still mum on Michael Scott replacement
Chicago Current). But that seems unlikely to happen. And it's not even clear if it would make a difference, given the rubber-stamp nature of the Board's appointees.
Precious few instances (I can only think of one, actually) exist where Board members have, publicly or privately, voted against or otherwise changed what Vallas, Duncan, and now Huberman have wanted to do.
What does it matter who the next Board chair is? Do they really make a difference, other than stylistically? If not, bring back Rufus Williams. He still seems to want the job (and I don't recall that he did anything particularly horrible to lose it).