It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Successful School Restructuring (I’m about to rain on some parades, so apologies in advance…)
A five-year study by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers found that structural school reform works only under certain conditions:
1. Students must be engaged in activities that build on prior knowledge and allow them to apply that knowledge to new situations.
2. Students must use disciplined inquiry.
3. School activities must have value beyond school.
In their report, "Successful School Restructuring," the researchers at Wisconsin's Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools found that even innovative school improvements, such as portfolio assessment and shared decision making, are less effective without accompanying meaningful student assignments based on deep inquiry. Researchers analyzed data from more than 1,500 elementary, middle, and high schools and conducted field studies in forty-four schools in sixteen states between 1990 and 1995. (Source: Edutopia—George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2001)
In other words:
1) Reform must be student centered, and involve applied knowledge (projects).
2) Reform must be student centered, and use guided inquiry (open-ended, long-term projects).
3) Reform must be student centered in the context of their families, communities and personal interests (place-based, real-world projects).
Nowhere is it indicated that kids’ problems can be solved by reorganizing adults’ problems. A business that ignores its clients’ needs doesn’t survive unless it is a monopoly.
I really believe deeply and strongly that if you want to change education, you can’t just set up multiple districts and hope for autonomy to be a panacea—more importantly you also have to sanction and guide curricular change within the whole stakeholder community.
Machiavelli tells us why (and you tell me if he wasn’t a time traveler describing our DOE 500 years ago):
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this luke warmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries … and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it."
This very “incredulity of mankind” is why you cannot just wipe away the BOE, and then cut loose 15 or 42 or however many new districts without first considering curricular models that demonstrate how they might make good use of their autonomy right away.
With luck and visionary leadership, such models toward change may eventually arise spontaneously if districts first set up innovative curricular experiments. Then again, a newly constituted, autonomous district tasked with reinventing the proverbial (curricular) wheel WHILE ALSO managing autonomous governance structures may likely hobble along for a while on its remaining familiar structures before entropy finally sets in.
In the context of Hawaii’s education milieu, one should really take a serious look at charter schools. Although none are perfect, many are highly effective in both pedagogy and governance methods. Many are quite instructive as R&D initiatives that can be replicated in each and every district. Several charter schools are just flat out better than a majority of their DOE peers by any practical measure you care to apply.
Before I go further, I have to say this: Hawaii charter schools are NOT for-profit operations, NOR a bridge to vouchers, NOR a means for religious schools to get public money. Nor are they a threat to the DOE. Those who benefit from preserving the status quo spout obtuse and disingenuous shibai like this about charters all the time. I wish they would simply stop.
Hawaii charters are in fact quite unlike their mainland counterparts. Here in the middle of the sea, they are the very embodiment of democratic grass roots reform, and are among the most successful innovation initiatives occurring in our state government today. Period.
Charters complement DOE programs, providing innovative service to underserved segments of the taxpaying public. They account for 2.4% of public education dollars, yet educate 4.6% of public school children.
Consider: My main concern is that the DOE system itself cannot simply be overturned and reinvented. The energy required to make wholesale changes to a large system is normally what dooms initiatives to failure. The sentiment of simply breaking it apart into a scattering of smaller school districts is just not going to work. I’m sorry if you disagree, but me and Machiavelli are on the same page here.
We do all agree that in order to bring meaningful change to education, community stakeholders need to have meaningful say, so let’s start there. The Constitution already appears to support the notion of grass root initiatives like place-based, community-run schools and/or community focused academies via Article X, Section 4 (“The State shall promote the study of Hawaiian culture, history and language.”). It is clearly implicit to me that this means within every complex there is room for Hawaiian-focused programs in the DOE. In that absence, and where demand dictated, charter schools have arisen.
With that said, I think the DOE should be changed via external forces—market forces, if you will. Change must come from the outside incrementally by setting up autonomous programs with the potential to prove they are effective, and then be used as models to modify the larger system. This is exactly what the Hawaii charter school movement is doing right now. In concept they are kindred spirits with the Castle High School Theatre, established via Ron Bright’s genius and honest sweat. In practice they are akin to Waverider Productions, which took much political will and community support to establish. These and charters are exactly the type of inroads toward Machiavelli’s “incredulity of mankind” that must be encouraged by the tools of government.
A constitutional change that supports such initiatives, both from the DOE side and the community based charter school side, is the most effective avenue toward permanent change.
I think of public transportation as a fair allegory of the DOE/BOE bureaucracy—perhaps very much like an old style locomotive chugging along. The BOE holds as much control as the guy who yells, “All aboard!”, and takes tickets from passengers. No one really thinks he’s in charge of the whole operation, except maybe him. But he CAN hold up the whole rig capriciously if he so chooses.
A Con Con certainly can make meaningful changes without attempting a wholesale gut-and-retrofit.
1. The way the BOE is assembled, and their self-serving nature are big problems that can be fixed by creating an appointed body that puts accountability squarely at the feet of the Governor
2. Its status as exclusive overseer of all public education can also be set aside to make room for unmolested competition from charter schools or other autonomous education initiatives. Big Business allows their R&D to operate unfettered by the engineers and bean-counters over at the main plant—this seems a sound approach for education as well. Let charters, magnet schools, et cetera create reform models for the rest of the system.
The BOE is ineffectual at initiating change. The Governor is insulated from initiating broad education policy. The legislature is often misguided by special interests. The Bureaucracy is resistant. And the Superintendent, beholden to the BOE, is not particularly tasked with revolution and transformation, even amid crisis.
A simple increase in accountability at the top is the way to go. Preserve the state BOE as a body, but place it squarely under the Executive Branch. If schools are junk, the Governor and appointees are directly answerable.
There is indeed room for the idea of locally elected boards of education within the districts, in fact, I totally agree with that as a part of what needs to happen. It preserves voters’ choice, and would serve to greatly enhance local control, while still retaining statewide oversight.
1. Students must be engaged in activities that build on prior knowledge and allow them to apply that knowledge to new situations.
2. Students must use disciplined inquiry.
3. School activities must have value beyond school.
In their report, "Successful School Restructuring," the researchers at Wisconsin's Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools found that even innovative school improvements, such as portfolio assessment and shared decision making, are less effective without accompanying meaningful student assignments based on deep inquiry. Researchers analyzed data from more than 1,500 elementary, middle, and high schools and conducted field studies in forty-four schools in sixteen states between 1990 and 1995. (Source: Edutopia—George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2001)
In other words:
1) Reform must be student centered, and involve applied knowledge (projects).
2) Reform must be student centered, and use guided inquiry (open-ended, long-term projects).
3) Reform must be student centered in the context of their families, communities and personal interests (place-based, real-world projects).
Nowhere is it indicated that kids’ problems can be solved by reorganizing adults’ problems. A business that ignores its clients’ needs doesn’t survive unless it is a monopoly.
I really believe deeply and strongly that if you want to change education, you can’t just set up multiple districts and hope for autonomy to be a panacea—more importantly you also have to sanction and guide curricular change within the whole stakeholder community.
Machiavelli tells us why (and you tell me if he wasn’t a time traveler describing our DOE 500 years ago):
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this luke warmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries … and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it."
This very “incredulity of mankind” is why you cannot just wipe away the BOE, and then cut loose 15 or 42 or however many new districts without first considering curricular models that demonstrate how they might make good use of their autonomy right away.
With luck and visionary leadership, such models toward change may eventually arise spontaneously if districts first set up innovative curricular experiments. Then again, a newly constituted, autonomous district tasked with reinventing the proverbial (curricular) wheel WHILE ALSO managing autonomous governance structures may likely hobble along for a while on its remaining familiar structures before entropy finally sets in.
In the context of Hawaii’s education milieu, one should really take a serious look at charter schools. Although none are perfect, many are highly effective in both pedagogy and governance methods. Many are quite instructive as R&D initiatives that can be replicated in each and every district. Several charter schools are just flat out better than a majority of their DOE peers by any practical measure you care to apply.
Before I go further, I have to say this: Hawaii charter schools are NOT for-profit operations, NOR a bridge to vouchers, NOR a means for religious schools to get public money. Nor are they a threat to the DOE. Those who benefit from preserving the status quo spout obtuse and disingenuous shibai like this about charters all the time. I wish they would simply stop.
Hawaii charters are in fact quite unlike their mainland counterparts. Here in the middle of the sea, they are the very embodiment of democratic grass roots reform, and are among the most successful innovation initiatives occurring in our state government today. Period.
Charters complement DOE programs, providing innovative service to underserved segments of the taxpaying public. They account for 2.4% of public education dollars, yet educate 4.6% of public school children.
Consider: My main concern is that the DOE system itself cannot simply be overturned and reinvented. The energy required to make wholesale changes to a large system is normally what dooms initiatives to failure. The sentiment of simply breaking it apart into a scattering of smaller school districts is just not going to work. I’m sorry if you disagree, but me and Machiavelli are on the same page here.
We do all agree that in order to bring meaningful change to education, community stakeholders need to have meaningful say, so let’s start there. The Constitution already appears to support the notion of grass root initiatives like place-based, community-run schools and/or community focused academies via Article X, Section 4 (“The State shall promote the study of Hawaiian culture, history and language.”). It is clearly implicit to me that this means within every complex there is room for Hawaiian-focused programs in the DOE. In that absence, and where demand dictated, charter schools have arisen.
With that said, I think the DOE should be changed via external forces—market forces, if you will. Change must come from the outside incrementally by setting up autonomous programs with the potential to prove they are effective, and then be used as models to modify the larger system. This is exactly what the Hawaii charter school movement is doing right now. In concept they are kindred spirits with the Castle High School Theatre, established via Ron Bright’s genius and honest sweat. In practice they are akin to Waverider Productions, which took much political will and community support to establish. These and charters are exactly the type of inroads toward Machiavelli’s “incredulity of mankind” that must be encouraged by the tools of government.
A constitutional change that supports such initiatives, both from the DOE side and the community based charter school side, is the most effective avenue toward permanent change.
I think of public transportation as a fair allegory of the DOE/BOE bureaucracy—perhaps very much like an old style locomotive chugging along. The BOE holds as much control as the guy who yells, “All aboard!”, and takes tickets from passengers. No one really thinks he’s in charge of the whole operation, except maybe him. But he CAN hold up the whole rig capriciously if he so chooses.
A Con Con certainly can make meaningful changes without attempting a wholesale gut-and-retrofit.
1. The way the BOE is assembled, and their self-serving nature are big problems that can be fixed by creating an appointed body that puts accountability squarely at the feet of the Governor
2. Its status as exclusive overseer of all public education can also be set aside to make room for unmolested competition from charter schools or other autonomous education initiatives. Big Business allows their R&D to operate unfettered by the engineers and bean-counters over at the main plant—this seems a sound approach for education as well. Let charters, magnet schools, et cetera create reform models for the rest of the system.
The BOE is ineffectual at initiating change. The Governor is insulated from initiating broad education policy. The legislature is often misguided by special interests. The Bureaucracy is resistant. And the Superintendent, beholden to the BOE, is not particularly tasked with revolution and transformation, even amid crisis.
A simple increase in accountability at the top is the way to go. Preserve the state BOE as a body, but place it squarely under the Executive Branch. If schools are junk, the Governor and appointees are directly answerable.
There is indeed room for the idea of locally elected boards of education within the districts, in fact, I totally agree with that as a part of what needs to happen. It preserves voters’ choice, and would serve to greatly enhance local control, while still retaining statewide oversight.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on -
Aloha All:
There is much more we agree upon than disagree:
Student centered reform, local education board elections, community focus.
Why I advocate for the maintenance of a centralized BOE/DOE is that too much change will result in fear-mongering from the status quo, which will make such proposals fail in the popular vote. I foresee that the HSTA/HGEA/UPW will have an easy PR statement ("Local school governance will ultimately lead to pay cuts for you, our valued members. Vote NO to Con Con Proposal #1 that destroys our ability to bargain in your interests.")
Meanwhile, who will organize support? Can supporters hope to win against such an organized trifecta? What message would we be able to craft to effectively counter such a simple and anxiety inspiring message?
You mess with the bull, you get the horns. And this is one big bull we are proposing to mess with.
Finesse is needed. That means incremental change. That means a minimalist approach.
When water contends with stone, water eventually wins.
That is why I advocate for targeting specifically the BOE's exclusivity clause. Make it possible for another agency to establish public schools without relationship to the BOE.
Now, that is not to say that proposing several packages of reform would not be effective. It is very possible to couch reform packages so that the unions will accept the lesser of evils (to their perspective).
Thoughts?
ps YES! Charter schools are PUBLIC schools!
-
Permalink Reply by jk on -
Hi Curtis:
It is disheartening that you would want to compromise on your position before any discussion with the unions at ConCon. The unions are not going to agree with anything but the status quo. If a proposal that is already watered down is considered by ConCon, it will surely be watered down even more due to union pressure – perhaps to the point of being useless.
I agree that we should strive for student centered reform, community focus, and locally elected school boards with exclusive power to set education policy. However, all of these are threatened by a centralized DOE/BOE that can establish statewide policy that overrides community interests. Once the DOE/BOE is created, there is nothing to stop it from doing whatever it wants to interfere with the districts represented by the locally elected school boards.
In many cases incremental change works. But it won't in this case. The Legislature and the BOE are not going to continue any change that start with a Constitutional amendment. Since they will oppose that change from the beginning, they will do all that they can to reverse it.
I agree that unions are still powerful in Hawaii politics. However, their power has waned significantly over the last few decades. They don’t control Hawaii like they used to. Today there are many centers of power in Hawaii. It’s possible to fight the unions and win.
Union leadership may get most of the union members to vote against proposal to eliminate the DOE/BOE, but that’s not certain. It is against the interests of union members because most of their children attend public school. I’m sure they want the quality of public education to improve. The PR statement in favor of education reform could be: “Vote YES on ConCon Proposal #1 for the sake of your kids and their future.”
jk
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
jk
Disheartening? Moi? Au contraire.
If you look really hard for a lynch pin in the constitution that hinders innovation, it is the exclusivity of the BOE as both SEA and LEA. Period.
Removing that exclusivity WILL create meaningful inroads to reform without having to throw the baby out with the bath.
Again I cite public charter schools. Even with an obviously hostile BOE breathing down their neck, firing effective CS administrative leadership without cause, subverting positive policy change, most of these schools STILL are managing to flourish. They have been able to put themselves at arm's length from the creeping and insidious attempts by the status quo to hinder and/or ignore their progress. The stick they hit charters with is easily broken. Just create alternate authorizing bodies (like UH CRDG, or counties), and remove the legislative cap on the number of start-ups allowed.
I envision (as an interim strategy--long term we both agree on outcomes) the current district configurations put under pressure of competition from charter schools and magnet programs within the context of the existing DOE.
Stakeholders will witness a better way first hand, and will buy in to the innovative models. Positive change will come from the DOE too. Everybody wins.
I am advocating for a zen approach.
But let's keep discussing this. One thing we obviously agree upon is the gravity of need for change.
-
Permalink Reply by jk on
-
Hi Curtis:
It’s a good discussion we’re having because it brings out many of the issues involved in determining whether Hawaii’s centralized education system is workable or whether it should be dissolved.
By the way, I appreciate the zen influence in your last post. However, I believe that zen is a path to personal enlightenment and is not meant to be used to achieve political or social goals. Maybe I’m wrong, but the zen master might say that trying to improve Hawaii’s public education system shows a human desire that must be annihilated in order to become enlightened.
Regarding charter schools, the reason they have been able to succeed as they have is because they are nearly independent from the DOE. As you know, each charter school sets its own education policy without any interference from the DOE/BOE. If all the public schools were charter schools, there would be no need for a DOE or BOE.
The districts have to be set up like big charter schools. In order to succeed, the districts have to be independent from the DOE/BOE. If they are independent, there’s no need for a DOE or BOE.
As long as the DOE/BOE has the power to set statewide education policy (for the districts), it will continue to do so. The memory of a bureaucracy is long, and habits are difficult to break. The DOE bureaucracy consists of 1,000 people and has an annual budget of $120 million – at least that’s the information I got from the DOE a few years ago. In order for the bureaucracy to justify its existence, it has to do something. In this case, “doing something” necessarily means interfering with the districts. Otherwise, the bureaucracy would be expendable. For the bureaucrat, that is untenable. Every single bureaucrat is going to try as hard as possible to sustain the bureaucracy so they can keep their job.
That is why the bureaucracy needs to be dissolved. It’s the only way to guarantee independence for the districts.
jk
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
jk
I didn't think it possible to fuse Machiavelli and Zen Buddhism in one discussion, but I guess I have attempted it here. This may be a clue that my way could very well be a primrose path.
However, I sincerely think the simple way is best.
Now let me cite Occam's Razor and Stephen Hawking:
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." William of Occam (or Ockam) was speaking of simplicity as a "razor" to trim away the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that often clouds perception of God. In other words, consider what can be seen over what you think might be there. (To his Pope's chagrin, he opined that it was not possible to prove the existence of God by reason alone).
Hawking also advocated for simplicity in theories of the Universe, saying "It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."
Now, they were admittedly talking about bigger things than the BOE/DOE, but I think it is relevant to consider at least a measure of parsimony when discussing impacting other peoples' jobs.
Which should be a main consideration in this discussion; remember that the DOE is a government unto itself. These people WILL vote against anything that changes their lives if the change is even slightly negative.
A constitutional change that creates 15 autonomous districts basically overnight will have deep impacts on employment. Less than 1/3 of the total DOE budget reaches the school level. The rest goes to non-school level jobs, infrastructure, services and contracts. I don't have a citation, but I believe the DOE cuts about 100,000 checks per month. That's a lot of juice to reapportion.
A shuffling and re-subdividing of resources will take tremendous planning, but by whom?
How will federal money be distributed, and more importantly, who will oversee implementation of this +/-$275 million pot of money?
Will districts seek to levy additional taxes? Hold revenue generating lotteries?
Will wealthy districts tap community resources more aggressively, and thus further outcompete poorer districts? Will this help or harm interscholastic programs?
As for Zen being for personal journeys, I think anything personal can be applied to human systems, which is what we are dealing with here. The unions are not faceless, heartless cadres of lawyering, ill-willed orcs. Neither are the pencil pushers or bean counters. They are human. And human nature fears the unknown.
What you and others support will likely create a minefield of unknowns.
I advocate preservation of the known, while creating change patterns within.
I know it falls short of your expectations, but as I have said, your outcomes are my outcomes as well. Our paths differ, that is all.
I don't see my proposal as a watered down one either. A shift from an elected BOE to a full-time, Governor appointed body makes a tremendous shift toward boosting accountability by tying statewide public school policy to the Executive Branch. This also puts unions a bit farther out from lobbying for specific pieces of self-serving legislation, and mutes the ability of unions to stack the deck of the poorly examined, elected BOE we have at present. I mean really, who watches these races except the HSTA and candidates themselves? Public school parents sure don't investigate the races, or else most of the current members would be out the door.
I've mentioned previously that it is not completely the fault of the BOE members, and I mean that with no flippancy or irony. They are part-time, and basically unpaid. While they may get compensation from related activities (consulting, advising, nepotism, etc.), or may be serving in hopes of cutting their political teeth before running for House or Senate, they are indeed, and in a word, dysfunctional due in part to the structures under which they have to operate.
Yes, there are big statewide functions that need to happen even if school districts are autonomous. How to transition is a real pro
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
Continued:
Yes, there are big statewide functions that need to happen even if school districts are autonomous. How to transition is a real problem.
The DOE is the Union Pacific Rail, and she won't turn on a dime. Also, you can't just unhitch the box cars that you don't happen to like, and abandon them on the track behind you.
-
Permalink Reply by jk on
-
Hi Curtis:
Thank you for posing questions about the proposal for a public school structure with totally independent school districts that does not have a DOE/BOE. It’s such a big change from what exists today that many people aren’t sure how it would work. Your questions are excellent, and I hope my answers are informative.
But first, let me respond to a couple of your comments. I don’t buy that idea that the DOE/BOE is needed to effect a smooth transition to a decentralized structure. Every charter school has already made the transition without any help from the DOE/BOE. In my opinion, any effort by the DOE/BOE to assist in the transition would just muck it up.
An appointed BOE won’t work today for the same reasons it didn’t work 40 years ago, when the BOE was appointed. Those reasons don’t have anything to do with social/political/economic conditions. The appointed BOE did not work because the organizational structure of that model is flawed.
Your statistic that less than 1/3 of the funds appropriated for education actually reaches the school level is not an argument to retain the bureaucracy, but to eliminate it. The bureaucracy is a black hole that takes money to sustain and grow itself, leaving only the leftovers for the schools.
Now to answer your specific questions:
A shuffling and re-subdividing of resources will take tremendous planning, but by whom?
The districts would determine what kinds of additional employees in administrative, educational, clerical, and other categories are needed. Those who are working for the dissolved DOE bureaucracy would be able to apply for those jobs. Please note that most of the professionals in the DOE’s central office were once good teachers, but are victims of the Peter Principal. Many would be put back in the classroom, where they belong.
How will federal money be distributed, and more importantly, who will oversee implementation of this +/-$275 million pot of money?
I admit that here’s where some kind of statewide agency may be needed. But that agency would perform only this narrow administrative task. I don’t know enough about what the feds require of this agency. Perhaps this function could be performed by an existing agency, otherwise a new one could be created. If a new one has to be created, the Governor would appoint the members of the board of this agency.
Will districts seek to levy additional taxes? Hold revenue generating lotteries?
Districts would not have the authority to levy additional taxes or to have lotteries. In the future they may seek to do so, but I would oppose it. I also think the Legislature and the general public would oppose it, so it would not happen.
Will wealthy districts tap community resources more aggressively, and thus further outcompete poorer districts?
That is already happening at some schools.
I agree that there are “unknowns” in creating a structure with fully independent school districts and without the DOE/BOE. However, there is actually substantial experience in this area, as each charter school has become the equivalent of an independent school district (though a small one). New independent districts can draw on all of those charter school experiences. This alternative has a downside that can’t be any worse than what exists today. And the upside is much, much, better.
I also agree that there are a lot of “knowns” in retaining the DOE/BOE. However, those “knowns” are only too well known, including: (1) A huge, ponderous bureaucracy that is resistant to change, and that stifles creativity and initiative at the school level; (2) Statewide education policy that is irrelevant and counterproductive because it was formulated by people whose experiences are limited to a few schools, and those experiences are dated; and (3) Caretaker leadership style that is satisfied with the existing level of student performance and is defensive when faced with suggestions to improve the quality of education.
(continued)
-
Permalink Reply by jk on
-
(continuation)
It is well worth forsaking the certainty of the “knowns” for the potential substantial benefits of the “unknowns.”
jk
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
Aloha jk
I think I need to focus point by point. Perhaps we are like the blind men examining an elephant.
I don’t buy that idea that the DOE/BOE is needed to effect a smooth transition to a decentralized structure. Every charter school has already made the transition without any help from the DOE/BOE. In my opinion, any effort by the DOE/BOE to assist in the transition would just muck it up.
I am quite familiar with charter schools in Hawaii. If you think there was any smoothness in any transition, think again. There is a definite yin-yang here in the relationship; without the DOE as a reference point, we would not have known to do or not do many things that eventually led us to higher levels of success. And, charters are not all motoring along smoothly yet, but thank you for the vote of confidence. Many are thriving, but none are perfect. Most are successful, to be quite honest, because the DOE neglects their geographic area, and because what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. The level of success you see is quite closely tied to motivation in the context of another system that we rejected.
I'm told childbirth is painful. Your proposal to give birth to 15 districts at once, is...well, like giving birth to 15 babies at once. It will likely not be pretty.
An appointed BOE won’t work today for the same reasons it didn’t work 40 years ago, when the BOE was appointed. Those reasons don’t have anything to do with social/political/economic conditions. The appointed BOE did not work because the organizational structure of that model is flawed.
I admit tremendous ignorance of the appointed BOE of 1964, but it is my understanding that as the newly minted state, democracy and people power ruled the day. The plantation overseer model was rejected in favor of popular vote.
What I see as the main issue in the current BOE is lack of accountability due to voter apathy (and if I'm being candid, ignorance). I wager that the great majority of voters can't name more than two current members of the BOE, and of those who can, less than 10% will be able to name one committee the members serve on.
You state that the organizational structure of 1964 was flawed, but don't say how.
I say an innovative organizational structure of an appointed BOE would be fairly easy to create: 1) Oversight of compliance with federal mandates (not just NCLB, but McKinney-Vento, IDEA, TANF, and every other mandate that comes out of Washington's Wazoo); 2) Coordination of statewide funding formulae, including grant searches; 3) Oversight of Risk Management/Debt Service, payroll/benefits, and audits; 4) SPED/IDEA resource management, 5) And most importantly (and ironically), oversight of initiatives and legislation to benefit the districts as they move toward autonomy.
Your statistic that less than 1/3 of the funds appropriated for education actually reaches the school level is not an argument to retain the bureaucracy, but to eliminate it. The bureaucracy is a black hole that takes money to sustain and grow itself, leaving only the leftovers for the schools.
That "1/3" is the WSF's $4114 base plus categories, out of $13,950 per pupil available to the DOE. The size and weigh of the bureaucracy is precisely why it will be so difficult to shift money--the money is so big that no one will be willing. Without willingness, you end up with entropy.
Remember, these are humans we are dealing with, and most will not share your enthusiasm, nor share your vision and motives. That is fact.
The districts would determine what kinds of additional employees in administrative, educational, clerical, and other categories are needed. Those who are working for the dissolved DOE bureaucracy would be able to apply for those jobs. Please note that most of the professionals in the DOE’s central office were once good teachers, but are victims of the Peter Principal. Many would be put back in the classroom, where they belong.
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
Continued
Sorry. This is naive. Again, you are dealing with peoples' jobs. They do not share your vision. They will not take kindly to you saying they are examples of the Peter Principle. Further, I know many of these people, and many do NOT belong back in the classroom. They belong just where they are, shuffling papers until 62 years of age.
The DOE is an economic engine driving employment in Hawaii. Like the military, it moves money into the state economy. The people in these jobs are not faceless numbers; they are not chattel to be bartered away in favor of a different herd. To paraphrase Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, an employee is not a piece of fruit--you can't eat up the insides and throw away the peel when you are done.
Reform has limits, and those limits are determined by stakeholders, including bureaucrats and minions.
Thoughts?
-
Permalink Reply by jk on
-
Aloha Curtis:
I’m impressed by the thoughts you have expressed on this forum. It’s too bad that a person with your knowledge and talents is taking the side of the powerful (the unions) instead of the weak (the children). The children of Hawaii need more advocates, and you would make a good one.
Your main objection to a structure with fully independent districts that does not have a DOE/BOE seems to be based not on the proposal itself, but upon the notion that the unions are so powerful that it would be fruitless to oppose them.
That may have been true in the long ago past, but in recent years a union endorsement is not necessary for a candidate to be elected. Remember that only two years ago the HSTA endorsed Randy Iwase for Governor. If my memory serves me right, he lost that election by the highest percentage of votes in a gubernatorial election in Hawaii’s history.
So it’s possible to oppose the unions and win. But it will take the support of advocates like you.
As you know, the unions are opposing a ConCon. Yet you are posting ideas on this forum for consideration by the ConCon. I think that in your heart you know that the unions can be defeated.
jk
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
jk insightfully declared: "As you know, the unions are opposing a ConCon. Yet you are posting ideas on this forum for consideration by the ConCon. I think that in your heart you know that the unions can be defeated."
Yeah, I do. But it is not just the unions. There are wheels within wheels here.
And change is a process (as I've stated before, revolutions are swift only when much blood is spilled, but that's not an option--yet).
I 'm not advocating for the unions. I am advocating for a process that considers all--and i do mean ALL--stakeholders. I am also advocating for children--that's why I have such an interest in charter schools.
Say there are some monkeys swinging around on this rope bridge, and everyone one agrees they are a problem. I would like to get rid of some, and teach the others a lesson. You (and pardon me if I overreach) are advocating cutting the ropes on one side. Your suggestion renders the whole useless (and angers the common folk who used the bridge to get to work, and most of the monkeys escape into the jungle anyway). Is that a solution?
Of course we can rebuild the bridge, but that takes time, and who will do it?
I am all for picking off the monkeys one by one. Later, we can still rebuild the bridge how we want it, if that is our desire and need.
For now, cutting ropes does not seem workable, even though it WILL get rid of the monkeys for now.
However, you have much motivation, and that is of tremendous value. I would enjoy reading details of your solution as you envision it.
I am never quite sure whether I am right, and am always seeking perspectives.
This discussion is interesting.
About
Badge
Photos
© 2009 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
