July 29,
2015
It gets a few laughs—that we have
18, 19, 20 … and counting!— candidates for the Presidency of the United
States. We chuckle, amazed, and ask how
any sane person could actually want
the job—or believe they are up to the task!
It is not a
joke when I ask: who actually wants the
job—to be the Commissioner of Education in Colorado?
A fair question, is it not?, when, not long after the Commissioner of
Education resigns, the chair of the Colorado Board of Education resigns as
well—offering a “stinging rebuke” in her letter explaining why: “Sadly, our
current board has become dysfunctional.”
A sample of recent headlines suggests she is not alone. (Neal’s letter: http://co.chalkbeat.org/sites/default/files/sites/2/2015/06/Resignation-Marcia-Neal-062015.pdf)
From
DENVER POST - EDITORIALS
A risky move by
State Board of Education on school testing
(2/18/15)
(First sentence: “The Colorado
State Board of Education is on a tear of late,
using its scant power to cause as much trouble as
possible.”)
Pointless
antics by state board (5/15/15)
From
CHALKBEAT
After
‘chaos,’ State board denies testing waivers
(5/13/15)
Marcia Neal’s
honesty and disappointment speaks volumes about the current situation. As she is held is such high regard, her words
will cause those interested in the Commissioner’s position to wonder if they
will be walking into a lion’s den. My
fear: unless we find another Daniel, they haven’t got a prayer.
To me, the
dysfunction is due in no small part to Colorado’s governance structure for K-12
education. If true, it is not merely partisan politics or personalities, or a
lack of courtesy, that we need to address.
More important than naming a new
Commissioner of Education in our state, we need to re-examine the job. As
currently circumscribed, a commissioner’s role in Colorado is too dependent on a supportive board, but too
independent of the Governor, to have
the authority to lead. He or she is put
in an untenable position. So before we
spend months seeking strong candidates, first things first: acknowledge that
our current structure does not work, and change it.
Then and only then will we be
able to welcome first-rate applicants who do indeed hope to take on a major
leadership role in our state.
Reason #1 – from the
Commissioner’s point of view
It is unclear if we want our
Commissioner to be a leader, or a manager.
“To lead” does not appear in the Colorado state law (22-2-112 to 113)
defining our Commissioner’s duties and powers (see Addendum A). The individual
serves “at the pleasure of at the (state) board,” and it is the board, we read,
which “provides
educational leadership for the state.”
Its members “are elected on a partisan basis” representing the
Congressional districts that vote them in. (Their qualifications? An open question.) They bring a range of convictions, which has
led this year (see Neal’s letter) to acrimonious division and ambiguous
guidance for the Commissioner and the Department of Education. The passions of our board members—and their
4-3 votes—nudge the Commissioner and CDE in one direction, while the state
legislature passes bills that lead the state down a different path, even as the
Governor might lobby for altogether different priorities.
Caught in the
crossfire, compelled to spend hours “managing the board,” a would–be leader is
reduced to the demeaning role of the board’s clerk. A sympathetic observer wonders if Robert
Hammond decided: Enough! I am out of here. Courteous as always, he refused to vent any
frustrations he must have felt.
Have we created a job in Colorado
that will attract and allow anyone to be
a leader for K-12 education? Why not ask
our two living former Commissioners: William Moloney (1997-2007) and Dwight
Jones (2007-2010)? Begin with them. Then invite other key players to this
conversation: Roy, Bill, ….
Reason #2 – from the Governor’s
point of view
|
Colorado
State & Local 2015 Spending by Function
Education - 28%
Remainder – 27%
Health Care – 18%
Pensions – 10%
Protection - 9%
Transportation – 9%
Welfare
- 4%
om/statelocal_spending_2015CObn
|
Former Governor Bill Ritter is direct about it. This past April, on a panel looking at school
governance in Colorado, Ritter stressed that–if we were to devise an effective
structure for state leadership on education—we would not continue with the
current model. Unlike most governors in
the country, the chief executive in Colorado has no say in selecting who serves
on the state board, or who becomes the state Commissioner (see Addendum B, from two national summaries
of the governance models in the 50 states). Furthermore, Ritter noted, in
Colorado, at present, the Governor
has no obligation to include the Commissioner in his or her Cabinet. State
and local spending in Colorado totals $51.6 billion, education is the #1 item: $14.3
billion (see box)—and yet our Governor has no say in who serves as our Commissioner
or as members of our state board? Really?
Again, let’s go to those who know best: joining the former
Commissioners, let’s ask Ritter, Roy Romer, and Bill Owens about the governance
structure within which they operated. Let
me stress: this is not a partisan issue. It has to do with what is effective,
what best serves public education in the state.
Is
this just “the messiness of democracy”?
Those reluctant
for a change that enhances the Commissioner’s status and clout, those who
believe state board members have a right to assume extraordinary authority—nuts to the law, in some cases (see http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27499844/colorado-ag-state-board-education-cannot-grant-test)—will
argue that the gridlock or confusion we have witnessed is, for the most part,
beneficial. For it prevents education
policy in Colorado from lurching too far to the right or left. They point to states where a Governor-appointed
Commissioner can create a dangerous degree of “alignment” (see Addendum C, which also might be titled,
Be careful what you wish for!). Would a change in our governance structure
only make education policy more, not less, partisan, or merely shift our
squabbles from the state board room to the state capital?
Fair enough. A look at other states makes one pause. A colleague in New York writes:
The NYS governor has no (official) power over the
Commissioner of Education or the State Board of Education. That is supposed to help keep politics out of
education, but instead they wreak havoc through legislation. … I would not want
the NY governor to hold the reins.
Yes, what we learn from other states makes one doubt there is a best model. But surely we can devise a better governance structure. My modest proposal is simply that we ask
former Governors, Commissioners, and state board members to come together and explore
how we might improve the current arrangement.
There may be good reasons 44 other states grant the governor more say in
who takes leadership roles in education.
There may be elements from the governance structure in other states we
could adopt to ensure our Commissioner’s job is desirable, one attractive to
great candidates.
As defined today, I wonder – again – who would want this job?
Another View, a
newsletter by Peter Huidekoper, represents his own opinion and is not intended
to represent the view of any organization he is associated with. Comments are welcome. 303-757-1225 / peterhdkpr@gmail.com
Addendum A – Do we
ask the Commissioner to lead?
Colorado
School Laws (2012)
22-2-112.
Commissioner – duties
(1)
Subject to the supervision of the state board,
the commissioner has the following duties:
(a)
To advise
the state board ….
(b)
To supply
the state board ….
(c)
To prepare
and submit ….
(d)
To establish
and maintain ….
(e)
To cause
all policies, rules, and regulations ….
(f)
To serve
as state librarian ….
(g)
To visit
public schools and communities ….
(h)
To establish
and maintain adequate statistical ….
(i)
To cause
to be represented ….
(j)
To perform
other duties as may be delegated to him by law or by the state board;
(k)
To submit
to the governor and the general assembly….
(l)
To prepare
a manual ….
(m) To
supervise, manage and control the Colorado school for the
deaf and blind….
(n)
To enter
into an interagency agreement….
(o)
To comply
with the duties….
22-2-113. Commissioner – powers.
(1)
Subject to the supervision of the state board,
the commissioner has the following powers:
(a)
To advise
the state board ….
(b)
To perform
all duties which may be required by law;
(c)
To issue
instructions to school districts ….
(d)
To prescribe
forms and items ….
(e)
To construe
provisions of the school laws ….
(f)
To cause
to be prepared ….
(g)
To recover
a penalty fee ….
(h)
To recover
an interest fee ….
(i)
To cooperate
with local boards of education ….
(j)
To issue emergency
orders ….
Addendum B – K-12 Governance in the 50 states
From
the Education Commission of the States
50-State Reports
1.
Are chief state school
officers (CSSOs) elected or appointed?
o Appointed: 38 states (76%)
§ State boards appoint in 23 states (61%)
§ Governor appoints in 15 states (39%)
o Elected: 13 states (25%).
2.
Are members of the state
board of education elected or appointed?
o Appointed: 33 states (70%)
o Elected: 7 states (15%)
o Mix of appointed and elected: 7 states (15%).
3.
What is the level of the
governor’s influence?
o In 24 states (48%), the governor appoints all of the voting
members of the state board
o In 15 states (30%), the governor appoints some, but not all, of
the state board of education members
§ In 9 of the 15 states, the governor appoints 75%-89% of the state
board of education members
§ In 6 of the 15 states, the governor appoints 5%-57% of the state
board members
o In 11 states (22%), the governor does not appoint any of the
voting members of the state board.
Governor’s role in governance
In just seven
states, ECS reports, “The governor does not appoint any of the voting
members of the state board of education nor the chief state school officer.”
Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska,
New York, and Utah.
In Wisconsin, there is no state board, and the
Governor does not appoint the
chief state school officer.
**
From
the National Association of State Boards of Education
NASBE presents four major
State Education Governance models. Colorado is one of only six states in “Model II,” with an “Elected state board,” where the
“board appoints chief state school officer.”
Alabama,
Colorado, Kansas, Michigan,
Nebraska, Utah.
NASBE’s
version puts New York in a category all its own; the NY the legislature appoints the
board, and the board appoints the chief school officer.
__
NASBE’s 2015 State Education
Governance Matrix
NOTE: This matrix also shows that Colorado is one of only five states where state board members
are elected on a partisan ballot. The others are Alabama, Kansas, Michigan, and
Texas.
Addendum C – The grass is not always greener …
ARIZONA
Education Policy Issues Caught in Arizona
Crossfire (June 10, 2015)
State chief, other officials tussle as
decisions loom (by Andrew Ujifusa)
Disagreements between Arizona's education chief and
other state officials could complicate the state's work on academic standards,
school finance, and other issues. Gov.
Doug Ducey and Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas were both
elected last year as Republicans, but their relationship hasn't been
particularly smooth. Disputes between Ms. Douglas and the governor, along with
other officials including state board President Greg Miller, have included K-12
governance and even the physical location of state board staffers' offices.
INDIANA
Tensions Rise as Indiana Schools Chief
and Governor Clash Over New Agency (Dec. 8, 2013)
INDIANAPOLIS — For Glenda Ritz, who took office as Indiana’s top
education official this year, the awkward reality of being the lone statewide
elected Democrat here did not take long to blossom into all-out combat. Now her conflict with Gov. Mike Pence, a
conservative former congressman, has become one of the most public and
combative political fights to face his new administration.
Ms. Ritz has accused the governor of creating a new education agency to
undermine her office. Mr. Pence says that was not his aim. But the tension,
months in the making, has boiled over at monthly State Board of Education
meetings, where Ms. Ritz and board members, who are appointed by the governor,
continue to wrestle for control over the state’s education policies. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/us/politics/tensions-rise-as-indiana-schools-chief-and-governor-clash-over-new-agency.html?_r=0
NEW YORK
New York state education chief clashes with
Gov. Cuomo over pre-K costs (Jan. 29, 2014)
New York state Education
Commissioner John King Jr. said Tuesday that statewide prekindergarten would
cost far more than Gov. Cuomo allotted in his budget…. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-education-chief-clashes-cuomo-pre-k-costs-article-1.1594863
TENNESSEE
Achievements, Dissension
Marked Tenn. Chief's Tenure (Dec. 3, 2014)
Tennessee Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman’s decision to leave his position as Gov. Bill Haslam begins his second term in office comes at a
time of transition for the state, which has been hailed by some as a role model
on K-12 policy and performance, even amid dissension over standards, testing,
and other issues. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/20/13tennessee.h34.html?qs=Huffman
TEXAS
Education
Leaders Clash Over Politically Connected Charter School (July 14, 2014)
When the State Board of Education
reconvenes in Austin this week, a few members will have some choice words for
Texas Education Commissioner Michael Williams ….. http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-education-leaders-clash-great-hearts-academies/
No comments:
Post a Comment