ML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Plan for Education; Elaine Alquist, State
Assemblywoman, Co-Vice Chair, Higher Education Issues, Joint Committee
to Develop a Master Plan for Education; Thomas E. Henry, Chief Executive
Officer, Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team; Janet L.
Holmgren, President, Mills College; Carol Liu, State Assemblywoman; and
Fred Silva, Senior Advisor, Governmental Relations, Public Policy
Institute of California.
Note: Postings on today's topic that appeared on the Web site by 8:00 PM
Pacific time are included in this summary.
Who's in Charge? Reallocating Education Responsibilities of the
Governor and Others: Do you see the changes suggested by the draft Plan
as a way to achieve greater accountability for student achievement, and
make it possible to seek remedies when the system does not work well?
What are the advantages and disadvantages?
- This new governance system would clarify who is accountable and in
charge. As the single source of accountability, the governor would be in
charge of CDE and would appoint an executive officer. The Superintendent
of Public Instruction (elected) would hold the system accountable and serve as the voice of the people, and the state board of education would be the
governor's advisory board.
- The working group suggested that any change in governance needs to restructure leadership at the state level so that broad education policy derives from a single, consistent source and is tied to assured funding. It was suggested that it is also necessary to restore flexibility to local school districts, and allow for an intermediate level of assistance and oversight between the state and local communities.
- Participants raised concerns about giving primary authority to
the governor, for whom we vote based on many different issues; this will give little consistency, since the governor may be replaced at any election for reasons having little to do with education. It would be better to have to an official whose only responsibility is education and who is elected solely on the basis of his or her viewpoint on education.
- Others felt that California needs centralized decision making and funding and decentralized delivery of academic programs. The Governor is key to
policy and funding and therefore must have the authority and
responsibility for planning and administration. The Department of
Education should be an executive branch from which districts get support
and direction.
- A suggestion was made to give the Superintendent of Public Instruction
more responsibilities beyond watchdog.
- Several questions arose about the new structure: What would the State
Board of Education's new responsibilities ("limited to state governance
and policy matters") be? If the governor appoints the board members, how
will they have any independence on behalf of children and learning?
Would senate confirmation be required for the Secretary of Education?
- We need two divisions within the Department of Education: one for
Early Childhood and Primary, the other for Elementary and Secondary Education.
- The State Board of Education should be composed of representatives
from geographical areas as well as professional organizations for the
content areas being tested (e.g., California Reading Association).
- Interest was expressed in collaborative models of governance for K-12
school districts.
- We need a model of "one system" of education (e.g., shared database of
students/transcripts, common course numbering) to foster efficiency in
governance and finance.
- We need somebody in charge who has student achievement as number one
priority and accountability at all levels.
- Local communities need to take ownership for the direction and success
of their schools.
- One participant proposed eliminating school district governance by
allowing every school that satisfies certain criteria (e.g., diversity)
a chance to become a state charter school. Principals, given local
control of the means to achieve common goals set by state standards,
would be held accountable for the results of their choices. Another
participant felt that this proposal means moving in the direction of privatization in this way will not solve our problems.
Community College Governance: The draft Plan recommends that the
Community College Board of Governors should be responsible for overall
governance of community colleges, just as the California State
University Board of Trustees and the University of California Board of
Regents are for their respective systems. This is intended to decrease
fragmentation and, among other things including cost efficiencies, to
make it easier to transfer between colleges. Do you see a need for this
change? What are the pros and cons?
- The higher education model of governance for the Community College
system would be beneficial. With a strengthened CC Board of Governors,
significant improvements could be made (e.g., transfers, course
articulation, expanding enrollments, funding).
- Local control allows districts to meet regional needs. (e.g., Silicon
Valley community colleges tailor programs to local industry). Concerns
were raised that governance outside the community would not be
responsive to local needs.
- By constituting the community college system as an independent "public
trust", the Plan proposes to give the Board the authority to deliver on
its mandate and to be held accountable for the system's success.
- Concern was expressed that higher education issues might be lost if
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) was replaced with a
new California Education Commission with responsibility for policy and
fiscal advice for pre-K, K-12 and higher education.
- There were concerns that several aspects of Adult Ed would be lost if
governance were moved to the CC system: community location where it
easily serves the adult population, open entry/open exit, funding due to
conflicting priorities, service to "at risk" people, flexibility,
cost-effectiveness.
- It was suggested that oversight of Adult Education should be shared by both the California Community Colleges and California Department of Education. However, another noted that historically efforts to have CCC and CDE share governance have been unsuccessful. While there is no perfect answer, a single entity needs to
oversee Adult Ed.
- Another participant indicated that there is no research to indicate
putting Adult Ed under CCC would succeed. Rather, there has been much
testimony to the contrary. We need a master plan for Adult Ed.
Unification of School Districts: The draft Plan recommends locally-determined consolidation and/or unification of school districts to achieve a more integrated education system - one in which the courses offered in districts are more
comparable and aligned - and save money. Do you believe this
would help to assure that the quality of the education students receive
is less dependent on which district schools they attend? Why or why not?
- Governance Working Group Committee recommended researching the effects
of district and school size and structure. An examination of current
structures is merited before recommending unification for all school districts.
- There should be one group of people elected by a community to be
responsible for kids' education from K-12, rather than electing one
group for elementary schools and another for high school.
- One participant questioned whether the assumptions underlying
unification have been examined carefully: has this approach yielded
higher student achievement, greater connectedness of parents/schools,
more effective organization? Popular wisdom in business is that the
small organization is more innovative, effective and efficient.
- Concerns were expressed about funding after unification: leveling the
playing field so everything is "equal" is usually done at the expense of
the economically disadvantaged youth.
- Compared to larger school districts, small school districts are far
more efficient and extremely child-centered: there is breadth, not
cookie cutter establishment.
- Others viewed unified districts favorably. They facilitate a
comprehensive, articulated plan for learning from pre-K to grade 12. If
this stays in the plan, who would lead this change process? This is a
very difficult issue because people often have passionate feelings about
their small district. It was stated that the small school districts' association is willing to work on the proposal in the plan.
- One suggestion is to have superintendents/administrators from the top
third largest districts swap positions with the small districts.
- The Plan should require (recommend) K-12 unification of districts and
provide the mechanisms for reexamining size issues (large and small)
where there is a need.
Non-salary Employment Benefits: At what level should negotiation with
employee organizations take place? Negotiations with employee
organizations regarding non-salary employment benefits are now carried
out separately by each local school district. The draft Plan
suggests (see "Background") the State itself should negotiate with
statewide employee organizations, and fund the employer share. Which
approach do you prefer? Why?
- The state should identify areas where it thinks it can negotiate,
arrange, or create exceptional benefits for districts or employees, and
local districts should have the option of "opting in."
- A state-wide health benefit package could address disparities among
benefits that employees receive (e.g., retirement health benefits).
Other Threads
- We need to look at ways to reduce transportation costs.
- Leadership and vision at the building level are essential to realize
the vision of accessibility and achievement set forth in the Plan.
- An issue was raised about exemplary test scores being used to penalize
a teacher for doing an excellent job because the per cent increase was not high enough. Such success should be emulated, documented and shared.
- A question was raised about home rule (Recommendation 36) and whether
it allows a district to favor one group of children over another and
whether the needs of special ed children would be met.
While this summary contains the highlights from the many ideas
that were offered, far more comprehensive information may be found
in the discussion archives.
We highly recommend that you read the original postings to discover
the full richness of the discussion. We suggest you chose the Thread
viewing option.
Background summaries, daily topics, questions and background
information are available from the Agenda page.
Thursday, June 13 will focus on the Draft Master Plan.
I welcome your comments on the summaries.
Sally Hedman
Reporter