Deval Patrick proposes expanding the Board of Education

The governor has proposed expanding the board of education from 9 to 13 members, with the goal of expanding his authority over the Department of Education to match his responsibility as a governor who has chosen to make education reform one of his primary objectives.

I don't like this move as a political means to overcome an independent board, but I do support the governor's objective, and there is some historical context to support the move, both very recent (outgoing governor Romney stacked the board with two new appointees on his way out the door), and relatively recent (Governor Weld dissolved the existing board and cut the board from 17 to 9 members in 1996).

It appears that the Massachusetts Senate also supports the objective of shaking up the existing Board of Education, given that the Governor's action was at a committee hearing for an initiative sponsored by the chair of the Senate Education Committee.

A couple of letters to the editor of the Boston Globe this week shed more light on the issues.

Ed board shuffle: a lesson in irony, on how the Board of Ed was restructured in 1996, with the reconstituted board dominated by conservative think-tank appointees affiliated with the Pioneer Institute.

Schools beset by regulations, by the executive director of the Mass Association of School Committees, expressing concerns about the regulatory burden put in place by the now status-quo board of ed.

Last month's newspaper headlines blasting Deval Patrick for appointing a parent representative approved by the PTA and school committees appeared to me to be a preemptive strike in support of the existing board of education and a warning to the governor regarding the appointment of the next commissioner of education.

I think it is interesting to see the Boston Globe at least allowing letters to the editor expressing a more expansive view, rather than a followup editorial chalking up a second strike against the governor in his actions regarding the board of education. "First he appoints Ruth Kaplan, and now this!". Maybe the Globe's Pioneer delegate has gone sailing for the holiday.

Ruth Kaplan, PTA representative on the Board of Ed

Governor Deval Patrick made his first appointment to the Massachusetts Board of Education this week, filling a spot on the board authorized by the legislature two years ago but never filled by former governor Romney. The governor is instructed to select from three nominees made by the state PTA. Governor Romney was not willing to select any of the nominees offered for the past two years.

Media coverage this week was nearly unanimous, castigating the governor for selecting an "anti-MCAS zealot". A different opinion was presented by the Berkshire Eagle and by the Needham Times, which see an opportunity for a more flexible and nuanced path forward. I concur with these two op-eds.

Below is an excerpt from a June 2005 news article in the Boston Globe, when our former governor refused to select any of the PTA nominees offered.

Romney, PTA tussle over appointment

Governor unhappy with parent group's choices for education panel

By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff June 8, 2005

The idea seemed harmless: Put a parent on the state Board of Education for the first time, so that parents' concerns would be heard.

But the naming of a parent to the Board of Education has become a surprisingly intense tug-of-war between the state Parent Teachers Association and Governor Mitt Romney. Two weeks ago, the PTA sent Romney a list of three women from which to choose, including two Democrats, and asked the governor to pick one.

Instead, an aide from the governor's office last week told the PTA that the governor wanted three additional candidates, perhaps including a man. The problem with the PTA's list, a spokeswoman for Romney said, was that the candidates opposed the MCAS and charter schools. In the governor's view, the PTA's list didn't include someone who would represent most parents.

...

The Readiness Project

Governor Deval Patrick's speech at the U-MASS Boston commencement was reported as the announcement of the governor's new education plan. The focus of subsequent news articles has been on a couple points made in the speech.

Free tuition to community colleges

Universal extended day and universal pre-K

I don't claim any special expertise on community colleges. It seems like a good idea to make community college affordable. I agree with most of the op-ed in today's Hampshire Gazette, which I quote in some detail at the end of this post.

I do note that the summaries printed in the news reports appear to be tangential or perhaps even at odds with the speeches a few weeks ago at annual meeting of school committees and in Framingham. Those speeches focused on the other talking point, "the property tax is not working". The summaries of this speech point to new and expensive long term initiatives but do not say anything about measuring the true cost of K-12 ed or addressing the problem of paying for too much of it with property tax revenues.

Reading the details of the governor's speech, there was more to the speech than was reported, but I paraphrase a news quote from Lexington, it seems impractical to contemplate expensive new initiatives at a time when resources to cover existing needs are scarce. A meaningful shift of K-12 funding away from the property tax would require something near a $Billion of new state funds, which would bring Mass closer to the national average in terms of local/state funding split. The governor's new initiatives appear at least on the same order of magnitude, and no source of new funds has been mentioned yet by the governor, left to a task force to identify. Double or nothing?

Gazette quote:

The governor has no price tag for the plan but said it was workable and dismissed, in advance, any naysayers. The governor makes a bold statement about the importance of education, but the financial realties need to be understood in order to fully gauge its impact.

A study last fall by the state Board of Higher Education estimated it would cost between $25 million and $40 million in the first year to offer two years of free community college to high school graduates who met the qualifications. At a time when many state college facilities are in need of upgrades, free tuition could put physical plant improvements on hold.

If the state has jobs that require a two-year degree, do the colleges have the programs to develop the right skills for those jobs? Developing new academic programs will also cost money.

In an interview with the Gazette, GCC President Robert Pura said cost is the commonwealth's "single biggest barrier" to higher education. No doubt cost keeps eligible individuals from attending college, but others can afford it. Is a tuition-free community college the best way to serve the neediest, or does a big boost in scholarships and financial aid work better?

Other states have experimented with free community colleges - California most notably - only to abandon the idea. A special study group being set up by the governor to examine the idea should certainly look at the experiences of other states.

Gov. Patrick has offered an appealing vision, but right now that's all it is. We look forward to a vigorous discussion of the merits and affordability of the plan.

Patrick to lay out Education Roadmap to 2015

WRPI has an AP report that says Deval Patrick will roll out his ed plan at a UMASS-Boston commencement speech tomorrow, June 1st.

A Berkshire Eagle report a few days ago was titled Tight Lid on School Plan.

Worcester Telegram Property taxes spark dissent

This one is a local article about a Republican at-large candidate running for city council, running on opposition to a property tax hike. But, as the article says, this taps into the same thread Deval Patrick tapped in the race for Governor last year, and which Patrick has put forward as a primary reason for reforming school funding - "The property tax is not working".

This Telegram article is not school focused, and does not touch on the state .vs. local tax issue; but I think it raises an important point. The property tax is again elevated in concern as it was prior to Prop 2.5, and the governor has framed this issue as one the governor should work to resolve.

I think this raises a conundrum. Voters want taxes cut across the board - state taxes, local taxes, federal taxes.

The governor's only concrete proposal on the table, local option taxes, are not big enough in scale to make a serious dent in this issue. They could help, but the median telephone pole tax, I calculate, is eight-tenths of one percent of local required minimums for schools. For about 50 towns, the telephone pole tax would be above 2% of school spending. A nice addition to local revenue, but not something I would call a bold and sweeping reform.

For Boston, my estimate is that the combination of telephone tax plus a 1% meal tax could amount to 7% of the local school bill, using the Globe's $20 million figure for a 1% sales tax on meals. That's enough to be worth Tom Menino's serious attention. But that's near the top of the list across the state.

But for a counter example, in Amherst, I think the numbers would come in at about one-fifth of the size of the property tax override that was defeated a couple weeks ago - with the small margin in the vote likely swayed by the governor's message that "the property tax isn't working". Amherst could certainly use the revenue diversification, but the governor's proposal won't solve their budget problems.

Or neighboring Granby, where the $1,305 for telephone pole property taxes compares with their $4 million local funding for schools. Granby is awaiting $442 thousand a year of additional Chapter 70 aid, when target local share is completed.

Waltham Times Op-Ed on Charter Schools

The Herald's op-ed yesterday was essentially cheerleading for charters. This one takes a more balanced view, and probes what charters should be trying to do, while also stating the editors consider charters are an education reform success.