Skip to main content

A Modest Proposal for Changing the Structure of Education Goverance in Delaware

Eat the children.

OK, now that I've gotten that out of my system, here goes:

1.  Public election of State Board of Education members to occur concurrently with existing school board elections in May.  State Board electoral districts to based on school-age population, and candidates must live within the districts they represent.  No at-large voting.  Non-partisan elections.  No employee of a school or school district within the SB electoral district, or employee of any company or corporation with a direct contractual, financial interest in school operations to be eligible for service on the State Board of Education.  Four-year terms.

2.  Remove the position of Secretary of Education from the cabinet and restore the State Superintendent of Public Education.  State Superintendent to be selected by, and serve at the pleasure of, the State Board of Education.  The State Board of Education to approve all employment contracts within the Delaware Department of Education.

3.  Local School Boards to have the right of direct appeal of any adverse ruling by DE DOE to the State Board of Education.

4. DE DOE to be converted into an agency that is primarily concerned with assisting school districts in compliance with Federal regulations and State laws.  DOE to be limited by statute to expending no more than 10% of any Federal funding for public education to cover administrative expenses.

5. The Neighborhood Schools Act to be repealed.

6. DCAS or other standardized tests to be limited for use in statistical data collection, and not to overturn local decisions on student performance, graduation, or promotion

7.  Local School Boards to become the primary authorizing mechanism for charter schools.


We've tried top-down and it didn't work.

Time to try bottom up.

Comments

So,the key to #2 is: does not report to Governor

#6 add: or teacher evaluation
#1 change the board composition 9 members to retain focus on local constituent service.

Winner!
pandora said…
Love #5. What a disaster that was.

We've overcomplicated education. Most schools are doing just fine, but if we admit that then the business community wouldn't be able to put their claws into all that lovely tax payer money.

What we need to focus on is the high poverty population. Thus far, that population has only been used as the crabs others use to hoist themselves out of the bucket - and then those who escape the bucket sit back and wallow in their awesomeness, pretending they didn't step on the heads of other children to escape.
Hube said…
#5 certainly wasn't the unmitigated disaster that forced busing was, that's for sure.

Unfortunately, what dogmatists on both sides forget: 1) there was a voluntary busing plan enacted by lawmakers before Judge Schwartz said "forget it," and 2) Smith's law deviates from what conservatives are supposed to be about regarding education -- local control. I once asked him just this and got no satisfactory answer. IOW, as pandora said in another thread, Brandywine "skirted" the law and effectively argued that its then-current feeders were its "neighborhood." But if conservatives were true to their principles, they should have left it up to districts to do what they wished.
Hube said…
... and BSD wouldn't have even had to argue such.
Coolspringer said…
Awesome.

I'm also very interested in some formal establishment of Local School Councils, especially in the city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_School_Councils Not unlike charter boards, I suppose?

And what about choice management or SES balance policy & incentives? Possible at DOE level? Up to district school boards? Individual schools?

P.S. Was busing an unmitigated disaster? Was that mainly in Christina? I know I had a pretty great experience, in Red Clay. And I imagine the majority of Red Clay schools - those that existed in that period - were enjoying better days.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...