|
|
Publisher's Column Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Poizner's Education Plan: Some Ideas Worth Discussing A recent survey by the Public Policy Institute (PPIC) of California found that 74 percent of Californians say that “improving education should be a high priority for the next governor”. Each of the gubernatorial candidates seemed to have gotten this message and have proposed various approaches to changing the state’s education system – including California Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, one of two major Republican candidates for governor. Poizner’s plan focuses on 3 main areas: providing funding and program flexibility to school districts; holding districts accountable; and eliminating barriers in the state’s five worst performing school districts. All of these are legitimate areas of focus, but as the not-so-distant past has demonstrated, California has tried to grapple with some form of these issues – thusfar with only a modicum of success. Let’s take a closer look. Funding & Program Flexibility Under the broad theme of creating “charter districts”, Poizner proposes providing school districts with broad funding flexibility via a weighted student formula (WSF) model combined with what he calls a “portfolio” of school model offerings. Both of these proposals are not new in the education world and both may offer some assistance to some districts. A WSF model provides schools the same amount of funding for similar students and may provide additional funding for students with special needs, English language learners, or for students from families with low socio-economic status. In California, San Francisco Unified School District was one of the first districts to pioneer the WSF in California. Other districts have embraced this model of funding because of its transparency, fairness in funding, and higher level of fiscal accountability provided to communities. Again, the WSF is not a new idea, but it is consistent with what many experts have been calling for several years – funding transparency. And while WSF provides greater funding transparency and simplifies school funding, it does not address the need to restore the $18 billion cut from schools over the last few years. Similar to his republican rival, Meg Whitman, Poizner’s plans seems to avoid discussing the need to rebuild education funding. Without a discussion of funding restoration and further augmentation, education finance reform plans ring hollow. Poizner’s portfolio model calls on each school district to create its own mix of schools that may include traditional, charter, magnet and virtual schools. It’s not clear how this proposal is any different than current practice. School districts across the state offer a wide range learning opportunities for students and provide different venues for students to accelerate, even in these challenging economic times. Accountability Under Poizner’s plan, accountability is characterized by making the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) the Chief Accountability Officer and by extending open enrollment to students in the state’s 4,000 lowest-performing schools to enroll in other schools. The notion of making the SPI responsible for academic accountability in California schools has been the recommendation of several government and education organizations going as far back as 1999 when the state’s Legislative Analyst recommended California reform its education governance model. This recommendation resurfaced again more notably in 2002 in the California Master Plan for Education. If implemented in conjunction with other state-level governance changes that redefine the responsibilities of the State Board of Education (SBE), the California Department of Education (CDE) and the Governor’s office role in the education system, such a proposal may have some merit. As the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence argued, by having the SPI focus singularly on accountability, this could help move the current focus of school support from a model of intervention towards an enhanced prevention model. Of course, such a change is fraught with political landmines and undercuts the current elected office holders. Moreover, such a change could actually shift more power to the Governor’s office (regardless of whoever is occupying the first floor office in the Capitol) as the Governor would have a Secretary of Education, appoint members of the SBE and have sway over the education budget. Under Poizner’s plan, accountability is linked to open enrollment. According to Poizner, “students in the 4,000 lowest-performing schools can seek transfer” under his plan. He argues this will give parents with students in failing schools more and better choices. Providing parents with enrollment options is an ongoing discussion in many communities as districts try to balance the needs of parents, students, ethnic communities, and district operations. The legislature has, in recent years, advanced legislation to encourage open enrollment type activities, such as the extension of the District of Choice program (DOC) (Chapter 198. / Statutes 2009). More recently, the legislature enacted the Open Enrollment Act as a part of its efforts to meet eligibility requirements for the federal Race To The Top (RTTT) program. The Act permitted students in the lowest performing 1,000 schools to transfer to any higher achieving school in the state. Conceptually, Poizner’s plan greatly expands the number of schools in the state that would be eligible to transfer students to a new school. The Poizner plan takes the 1,000 eligible schools under the RTTT legislation and expands it fourfold to 4,000 schools. This would essentially make the students in almost half of the state’s schools eligible to move to another school. As with any other open enrollment policy/program, Poizner’s plan must confront the reality that there is limited capacity to accommodate every student. Furthermore, the Poizner plan does not address the transportation needs of all the students at the eligible schools under his plan. And, consistent with the state’s RTTT legislation and the federal program, Poizner suggests that failing schools should be either closed or converted charter schools. While these should be options for local communities to consider, they should not been viewed as the only options that make sense to improving a school. Eliminating Barriers to Success Poizner characterizes collective bargaining and teacher tenure as barriers to student success and proposes a pilot project with the state’s five “worst-performing” school districts to eliminate both of these policies. While there may be varying opinions on the efficacy of collective bargaining in the public school environment, it can be argued that it serves as a valuable protection for employees and forces the interest of employees and management to be negotiated. However, there has been mounting frustration over the last few years by some policymakers, parents, educators and school district management over the apparent difficulty to make staffing and academic changes due to collective bargaining agreements and tenure rules. This frustration was brought to the forefront recently as the state struggled to enact RTTT legislation and with the recent introduction of Senate Bill 955 by State Senator Bob Huff (R), which would dramatically change the laws regarding, among other things, teacher tenure. Although, Poizner’s collective bargaining and teacher tenure proposals may not be politically viable given the democratically-controlled legislature would more than likely be opposed to any significant weakening of these laws, it is worthy to have discussions about how collective bargaining and teacher tenure impact student success and school district efficiency. If students are the primary focus, then all aspects of the education system should be on the table for discussion with all its stakeholders. Everyone, management and unions need to be open to considering new ways to do business. We are in the 21st Century, and the times dictate a new approach if we are going to ensure the children of the 21st Century have a quality education. Finally, the Poizner plan, similar to his Republican opponent’s education plan, calls for teacher rewards for improving student teacher. Under the Poizner plan, rewards would be sent to schools in a lump sum and then distributed to teachers based on individual classroom performance. Teacher bonuses have been tried in California. They were not fully embraced by union officials and while they were in existence, they were welcomed by those who received them and despised by some of those that did not. And, while the debate continues about the efficacy of teacher bonuses, one fact remains – when budget times are tough, these bonuses are inevitably among the first things to be placed on the chopping block. Moreover, while financial incentives for improving teaching in the classroom may be a nice financial boost to teachers, it does not represent an investment in the professional development of teachers which will be more effective in helping all students; particularly, students in low-performing schools. Such professional development could be complimented by doing something as simple as ensuring classroom teachers have the supplies and materials that they need, so they are no longer digging into their wallets or purses to provide students with the most basic supplies that we as a society should be providing. The Poizner plan touches on a number of hot-button education issues that are at the forefront of many policy discussions and are worthy of a review. The plan, however, from this vantage point, is less than innovative and does not seem to address some of the more fundamental issues impacting school and student success right now, including adequate funding that is backed by stronger local control authority – a recognition that teachers need support and that quality principals are critical pieces in the success of schools. This writer hopes these, and other important aspects of California’s education system, would be up for review and discussion by Poizner if he is ultimately elected as California’s next governor. Editor's Note: Vernon M. Billy is president of Governmental Solutions Group, LLC (GSG) a Sacramento-based consulting and legislative advocacy firm. GSG serves public and private education organizations, non-profit organizations and private sector companies. |
|
