RE: Home Rule

Senator Vasconcellos did indeed bring the "Home Rule" clause of the Master Plan up last week and Fred Silva's amplification of the topic was very enlightening. As one who was arrested twenty years ago (*see below) by a state (not California) "expressing its interest" in education, I am only too aware of Fred's reminder that "The difficulty in all this is that the state is interested in everything". 

I'd like to get Charles Ratliff's take on this. I perceive a major ideological rift percolating under the surface. The draft MP terminology appears to enable local control when desired; yet the "government knows best" underpinnings of the state education establishment seem inherently distrustful of local control. This conflict expresses itself in the tension between a Master Plan that promotes student achievement vs. one that unsures accountability to the state.

The Senator's remarks seemed almost fearful that a local district might eliminate the math department or abandon equal rights if left to their own devices. If those are real dangers, then I join with him in setting up a bulwark of defense.

As this philosophical and ideological issue of control relates to the draft Master Plan, is compromise possible? I was about to suggest an "inspirational" master plan vs. a "directive" one. That change would allow for far more specific treatment of each issue since they are written down for guidance and not for condemnation.

Am I too "conservative" to "get it"?

Phil