I have to confess I was a little disappointed in Governor Strickland's proposals in his state of the state address. For starters, while I support the jobs program he proposes, it's so essentially the same as Bob Taft's plan from a few years ago that it's a little embarrassing. But if Strickland can convince Ohioans to go along with it, something Taft couldn't do, it could be great for Ohio's economy. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I found Strickland's education proposals mixed. I hated his plan to eliminate the Ohio Board of Regents, and I have the same feelings about his plan to eliminate the Ohio Board of Education with a single political appointee. Do we really want the state education system under the control of a single person? A single ideologue? The plan might lead to greater efficiency for Strickland, sure, but I'm thinking down the road to a future Republican administration. What powers will the person have over curriculum decisions? Over charters and vouchers? Over a whole host of hot-button education policy ideas that are part of a radical right wing agenda? I guess I need to see the details, but on the surface this would seem to be a dangerous and radical proposal.
Scott Elliott of the Dayton Daily News makes a similar point (Scott has a terrific, balanced article on the subject, so go read the whole thing):
With direct-line control over education, what’s to stop him from junking (charter school) programs? That may sound great to some Democrats, but consider the the scenario in reverse. How quickly might a Republican governor’s appointee be able to expand those or other pet education programs? It seemed pretty clear from the speech that Strickland is not a fan of Superintendent Susan Zelman and her department. What sorts of reforms his new appointee might institute remains to be seen.
I love, and fully support, the idea of allowing students to complete their first year of college during their senior year. However, kids can do that now. The post-secondary enrollment option allows students to gain a full year or close to it depending on their level of participation in the program. If Strickland is looking at expanding this program I'm all for it, but there are a lot of issues here, and I'll keep track of them as Strickland unveils the details of this part of his proposal.
What's most disappointing, though, is that Strickland has further delayed his promise to propose a new way to fund Ohio schools. This is the most critical issue facing the state, and it shouldn't be put on the back burner any longer. We need a fix, and we need it now.
2 comments:
Dave: I have a favorable attitude towards the Governor's proposal for creating a Director of Education. Let's allow the Executive and Legislative branch run the government, and not have the kind of super-legislature contemplated by the GIRFOF amendment, which gives first dibs on the state treasury to the State Board of Education.
As an educator, you want more money to run your school. As a taxpayer, I want to know where that money is going to come from, and whether the funding mechanism creates a net inflow or a net outflow for my community.
My analysis of the GIRFOF approach is that it will cause a net outflow for my community. The people of my community will pay more in aggregate taxes (property, income, sales, estate, etc) than now, but the increase in taxation will not lead to an equal increase in state funding. In other words, we will once more be the cash cows that subsidize everyone else. And the shame of it is that there is no clear evidence that more money fixes what's wrong in our education system.
Now before you accuse me of being a rich Republican who wants to hoard his money, remember that I think we have two distinct funding issues in Ohio.
First is that we have districts in rural areas that truly have insufficient local funding sources and need subsidy. We can argue about whether it is good public policy to give tax breaks to farmers, but that is unlikely to change.
The real problem is the economic segregation of the urban areas, which is used as a legal means to achieve racial segregation. It leaves us with urban schools with high per-pupil funding but poor performance, and wealthy and predominately white suburbs.
Neither GIRFOF nor the Governor's plan address this.
My solution to the urban/suburban problem would be to consolidate them into one district and let any kid in any neighborhood attend any school.
I doubt that the State Board of Education would ever come to that conclusion.
But a Governor might...
It is immensely troublesome that responses to Strickland's proposed edcuation director, pro and con, remains in a mind set similar to what destroyed US auto making. Toyota used new ideas, new human resources (Extreme Toyota)in car building. Ohio needs to use a similar mindset--research and practice in human development,(The Ecology of Human Development), parent's employers invovlved in designing available parenting time,community planning, e.g.,retirees active in elementary learning, civic resource contribution and participation.
Post a Comment