Peter--I suspect I'm not in the right mode to do the edits as you described, but I experimentally took a stab at a revision of Section 2. I'll be back to try again when it's not after midnight...ZZzzzzz.

Section 2. There shall be a STATEWIDE board of education composed of FIVE members who shall be APPOINTED BY THE EXECUTIVE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR, as provided by law, WITH ONE MEMBER SEATED from EACH COUNTY, WITH ONE ADDITIONAL AT-LARGE SEAT. The first school board district shall be comprised of the COUNTY of HAWAII. The second school board district shall be comprised of the COUNTY of Maui WHICH INCLUDES Lanai, Molokai, AND Kahoolawe. THE THIRD SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPRISED OF THE COUNTY OF Kauai, WHICH INCLUDES Niihau. THE FOURTH SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPRISED OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, WHICH INCLUDES THE ENTIRE ISLAND OF OAHU. THE FIFTH at-large school board district MAY be APPOINTED FROM ANY departmental school district, as may be provided by law. THE APPOINTED MEMBERS SHALL RESIDE IN THE SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICTS THEY REPRESENT. The Hawaii State Student Council shall select a public high school student to serve as a nonvoting member on the STATE board of education.
FURTHER, THERE SHALL BE DISTRICT BOARDS OF EDUCATION FROM EACH DEPARTMENT DISTRICT REPRESENTING EAST HAWAII, WEST HAWAII, MAUI, KAUAI, HONOLULU, WINDWARD OAHU, CENTRAL OAHU, AND LEEWARD OAHU EACH CONSISTING OF THREE MEMBERS, ELECTED BY QUALIFIED VOTERS FROM THE RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT DISTRICTS, WHOSE MEMBERSHIP TOGETHER SHALL SERVE AS THE ADVISORY PANEL TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.

What happened when you clicked on the edit tab? Try that. It should work.

I am making an attempt to amend Article X Section 2 and 3. The end result we are seeking is a Board of Education with elected representatives from DOE established complex areas. Currently there are 15 and I have placed them in (...)'s for the number should be deleted in the final draft of the amendment, because the number could change to the 42 high school complexes we have today.

The elected representation from the boundaries of the Complex Areas will have the elected representative accountable to his/her Complex Area constituents and schools. Something we fail to have today.

We must have the election of Board members serving four year terms with a two term limit and the election staggard as is today. If we have 15 members, in 2010 we have 7 running for 2 year terms, and 8 running for 4 year terms, in 2012 we have 7 running for 4 year terms and we are okay from then. We must allow the 2 year term elected members, because of a short term, able to run in two full 4 year terms, thus they can serve six years.

The change in section 3 is to have the BOE select a superintendent of education and not a CEO. Also, the BOE must approved a "job disciption" or "Position Results Description" for the superintendent that is clear and with objectives that will shift decision making for curriculum and management of funds to the Complex Areas and their schools. The superintendent becomes a coordinator and not a CEO and must have a mind set to change the current system of top down management.

It is very difficult for us to desolve the statewide school system. I believe we blame the statewide system for the poor performance of Hawaii's public schools when in truth, it is the personnel within the system that causes the poor performance. When we evaluate the successful schools, we find strong leadership by the principal and a large number of dedicated teachers, with supportive parents.

My amendments are based on the following:

1. Research shows that smaller districts provide better education than larger districts when all other factors are equalized.
2. Research also shows that maximum economies of scale are achieved with 1,000 students in a district, and larger districts do not achieve additional economies of scale.
3. The financing of public education should continue to be done on a statewide basis in order to ensure fairness.
4. Each function should be performed at the lowest possible level in order to ensure that it will be done in ways that are most sensitive to the needs of students.
5. Communities should control what is happening in their schools.
6. Competition in public education should be increased in order to motivate improvement.
7. The legislature should be prevented from micro-managing public schools so that clear lines of responsibility and authority can be established, fostering accountability.

Jimmy Kuroiwa said
at 8:34 pm on May 31, 2008


I am making an attempt to amend Article X Section 2 and 3. The end result we are seeking is a Board of Education with elected representatives from DOE established complex areas. Currently there are 15 and I have placed them in (...)'s for the number should be deleted in the final draft of the amendment, because the number could change to the 42 high school complexes we have today.

The elected representation from the boundaries of the Complex Areas will have the elected representative accountable to his/her Complex Area constituents and schools. Something we fail to have today.

We must have the election of Board members serving four year terms with a two term limit and the election staggard as is today. If we have 15 members, in 2010 we have 7 running for 2 year terms, and 8 running for 4 year terms, in 2012 we have 7 running for 4 year terms and we are okay from then. We must allow the 2 year term elected members, because of a short term, able to run in two full 4 year terms, thus they can serve six years.

The change in section 3 is to have the BOE select a superintendent of education and not a CEO. Also, the BOE must approved a "job disciption" or "Position Results Description" for the superintendent that is clear and with objectives that will shift decision making for curriculum and management of funds to the Complex Areas and their schools. The superintendent becomes a coordinator and not a CEO and must have a mind set to change the current system of top down management.

It is very difficult for us to desolve the statewide school system. I believe we blame the statewide system for the poor performance of Hawaii's public schools when in truth, it is the personnel within the system that causes the poor performance. When we evaluate the successful schools, we find strong leadership by the principal and a large number of dedicated teachers, with supportive parents.

Very good so far (at least technically). It seems that you're manually using strikethrough and underline characters but you don't need to. Let the computer do that. Just edit the article like anything else. If you want to see the differences, you can click on "page history" on the upper right, then ask to compare any two changes and the computer will automagically create the strikethroughs/underlines for you.

I'd like to try how this works out. Ideally, any user should be able to read a clean copy of the current revision, and then use the tools to look through the changes.

Make sense? Let me know how it works out.

Peter,

I can't figure out how to make changes. Plus I do not think it will work to allow one person to make massive changes (many of which I want to tweak or disagree with completely). How will be ever come to any agreement.?

I think there needs to be moderated discussion by paragraph followed by paragraph changes made as agreement is attained.

For example, I will not ever agree to vouchers for religious schools. There are too many school districts, the ideas expressed on the concon site are more in line with what I think it should be. The role of the lower school Board of Regents from the concon site is not here and I suspect it needs a better name as that name Board of Regents has a totally different meaning for the UofH.

al

I see how to make changes, dumb me...
al

Hi JK: I am attempting to understand your proposed amendment to the State Constitution on public education Article X.

Deletions:
a. Delete in section 1, the statewide system.
b. Delete in section 1, the special revenue bonds for non profit pre-schools, care facilities, private nonsectarian and sectarian schools.
c. Delete section 2, the board of education and the process of electing its members.
d. Delete section 3, the superintendent and the department of education.

Additions:
a. Add in section 1, the providing of educational alternatives to public schools and vouchers.
b. Add new section 2, the establishment of (42) independent school districts, a governing board of education, with elected members from the independent school district with authority over internal structure, management, and operations.
c. Add new section 3, the establishment of a charter school agency, with members appointed by the governor and approved by the senate, with authority of approve, evaluate, and shut down charter schools, with each charter an independent school with a governing board with authority over internal structure, management and operations.
d. Add new section 4, the establishment of an education agency, with members appointed by the governor and approved by the senate, that distributes operational and capitol improvement funds appropriated from the legislature to independent school districts and charter schools by the weighted student formula.
e. Add new section 5, the legislature appropriates operational and capitol improvement funds in lump sum, and restricted from passing laws affecting management of schools, with exception to health and safety.

Continued:

Questions:
JK, you are very bold.
a. Section 1, What is your thoughts on educational alternatives to public schools?
b. Section 1, You support vouchers, how do you propose it be administered?
c. Section 2, I take it that the (42) independent school districts are the (42) high school complexes? I bracketed 42 because there will be more high schools build in the next twenty years.
d. Section 2, How many elected members will be allowed on each independent school district’s governing board of education?
e. Section 2, How do you propose operations of each governing board of education, now numbering 42, that have authority over internal structure, management, and operations?
f. Section 3, Are you not increasing the bureaucracy by creating another state agency called the charter school agency with appointed members? How many appointed members would serve on this agency? Would this agency be a replacement of the existing Board of Education?
g. Section 4, We now establish the second bureaucracy by creating an education agency with appointed members? How many appointed members will serve on this education agency? Would this agency be the replacement of the existing Board of Education?

JK, do you believe in increasing the public education bureaucracy? Or are you attempting to shift the education bureaucracy to the independent school districts and charter schools? I strongly believe is reducing the public education bureaucracy and providing control and decision making authority at the Complex level (or your independent school district level).

Peter,

This is wild. We are amending each others ideas and eventually end up with zero. Is there a way to keep each original revision and amend the original revision in a separate file. This way, we at least keep the original ideas of each contributor. What is happening because we will be editing the original revision, the original revision is lost and so will all the other suggested changes. I saw a "compare" section earlier and cannot find it now, but that area seemed to save the original revisions.

Jimmy,

If you click on "Page History" in the upper-right hand corner, you'll see each person's edits. You can then choose radio-buttons to indicate which 2 versions you want to compare. Let me know if this helps.

Jimmy's comment that we end up with zero is telling.
Perhaps a larger view is needed before we (me included) float our pet ideas in this form.
I'll start:
Any massive change will not be accepted enough to make the change happen. Machavelli pointed out that the hardest thing to change is an entrenched system. Therefore, the increments of change, both small and large, will have to be carefully assessed. For example:
Vouchers: Too radical in this context, too Republican in a Democratic state, too divisive in a single-bureaucracy paradigm.
Complete abolishment of the current BOE: Too divisive to the single bureaucracy to simply cut off the head--a Hydra will likely be the result.
42 Independent districts: Too chaotic--sheep cannot learn to think for themselves overnight, and cannot be taught to think by the stroke of a pen.
Elevating charter schools as suggested would not serve charters necessarily. The schools as they are now are complements to a traditional system, and are not intended to supplant ALL types of educational approaches.
I believe there IS a place for the bureaucracy, and to dismantle a large structure wholesale under motivation of disgust is probably not a good idea.
The Con Con should probably find ways to provide tools for incremental change, and come with blueprints for such change, rather than be a wrecking ball only. That is why I suggest the Gov appointed BOE, with elected local BOEs.
That's my discussion starter.

Curtis, I appreciate your insights into the realities of Hawaii politics. As you say, big change doesn't have much of a chance, especially with the Democratic Party and unions against the idea of a ConCon. On the other hand, incremental change is subject the the "rubber band effect" that Jimmy refers to elsewhere on the forum. When a highly bureaucratic organization like the DOE is pulled out of shape, it will return to its original shape, or something as close to it as possible, especially if the organization didn't want to be pulled out of shape in the first place. There have been various efforts to reform public education over the past 20 or 30 years, but the bureaucracy has been quite successful in resisting all of them. Furthermore, the ConCon is a one shot deal that has to put everything in place because the Legislature or the BOE can't be depended upon to complete any reform efforts started by the ConCon. So although big change doesn't have much of a chance politically, it's the best chance for improving public education.

Jimmy, Your understanding of my proposal is correct, except that the State would be continued to be allowed to issue special purpose revenue bonds to assist private schools. The existing Constitutional language prohibits the expenditure of State funds for private schools. An exception is made for special purpose revenue bonds that are issued to assist private schools. My proposal deletes the language that prohibits the expenditure of State funds for private schools. So the exception is no longer needed to continue to allow special purpose revenue bonds to be issued to assist private schools.

Let me now try to respond to your specific questions.

a. Section 1, What is your thoughts on educational alternatives to public schools?

Vouchers. I realize this is a drastic step, and some people might not support it. I think it depends upon how long a person has observed public education in Hawaii and the efforts to reform it. Those who have not been observing it for very long may believe that incremental change can be successful. Those who have observed all of the unsuccessful efforts to reform public education in the last 20 to 30 years may believe that an escalation of efforts is needed.

b. Section 1, You support vouchers, how do you propose it be administered?

I admit that I am not familiar with the administration of vouchers. However, I know that they have been around for more than 15 years in the U.S., and other countries also have them. With the experience of other jurisdictions to draw upon, I am quite certain that vouchers can be created in Hawaii. The Constitution would only have to mandate the creation of vouchers, without specifying the details of how they would be administered, and they could be administered by the proposed education agency (see “g” below).

(continued)

c. Section 2, I take it that the (42) independent school districts are the (42) high school complexes? I bracketed 42 because there will be more high schools build in the next twenty years.

The 42 independent school districts would closely approximate the existing 42 school complexes. Some boundary adjustments may have to be made, but those adjustments would not have to be specified in the Constitution.

My proposal calls for “no fewer than 42 independent school districts” to allow for more to be added.

d. Section 2, How many elected members will be allowed on each independent school district’s governing board of education?

The Constitution need not specify the number of members on each district’s governing board, but I think that 5 or 7 would be appropriate.

e. Section 2, How do you propose operations of each governing board of education, now numbering 42, that have authority over internal structure, management, and operations?

Each governing board would have the discretion of determining how it wants to operate. There would be no mandates from above. What might happen is that the composite experiences of the members of each board would determine how it operates. For example, if most of the members of a particular board are from the corporate world, they may choose to operate like a corporate board.

(continued)

f. Section 3, Are you not increasing the bureaucracy by creating another state agency called the charter school agency with appointed members? How many appointed members would serve on this agency? Would this agency be a replacement of the existing Board of Education?

The authority of the charter school agency would be limited to issuing charters, monitoring charter schools, and retracting charters. The establishment of charter schools requires an agency to perform these functions. The charter school agency would not have any authority to formulate school policy. It would not replace the existing Board of Education. It would not increase the bureaucracy. The charter school agency could operate with a handful of staff.

The Constitution need not specify the number of members of the charter school agency, but I think 5 or 7 would be appropriate.

(continued)

g. Section 4, We now establish the second bureaucracy by creating an education agency with appointed members? How many appointed members will serve on this education agency? Would this agency be the replacement of the existing Board of Education?

The responsibility of the education agency would be limited to distributing funds appropriated by the legislature. The idea is to take politics out of the funding of public education – as much as possible, anyway. Currently, the public is completely unaware of how public funds are distributed to schools. My proposal requires the education agency to develop a formula for distributing funds, making the process transparent.

The education agency would have no authority to develop education policy. It would not replace the existing Board of Education, whose purpose is to formulate education policy. That function would be placed with the boards of education of the various independent school districts. The education agency could operate with a handful of staff.

The Constitution need not specify the number of members of the education agency, but I think 5 or 7 would be appropriate.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my proposal, and I hope I have answered all of your questions satisfactorily.

(whew. Pau, finally.)

Hi Peter, Got it. I was playing with the history and forgot what it was and where, senior moments. Jimmy

To JK: Excellent. Now, give me a time to digest your responses. On the surface, I'm begining to understand and we are not that far apart.

Jimmy, Hopefully you won't get indigestion.

Hey JK, I like some of your suggestions. I not going get indigestion. If indigestion come, I get Maalox.

Aloha Education Guys and Gals:
I have put some thought into Peter's revision initiative.

Since jk hinted that I might be a union sympathizer (grrr...!), it motivated me to shift away from what cannot be done, to how it might be done in another way.

Please have at it. I believe in democracy, and know I'm only one voice among many.

I humbly think I have put LOTS of autonomy on the table without cutting the legs out from, and thereby motivating to strong action, those who might send the torpedos.
Curtis

Hi Curtis,

It would be helpful if you summarized your revisions. Some people might misinterpret them because the Constitution has a style that is not commonly found.

I appreciate your adding more autonomy for the school districts. By the way, I wasn't aware that I implied that you might be a union sympathizer. But if that works, maybe I'll abandon my attempts at logic and common sense and instead just resort to name calling.

jk

Oops, sorry. I don't know how I missed the rationale. -- jk

Hi Curtis:

Yes, your last revision had lots of autonomy for districts in it. It must have been very painful for you to write. I hope you have managed to recover without any permanent injury. I've added just a couple more things. It was painful for me not to go further. But don't read it until you are certain that you have fully recovered.

jk

I think this is progress because I'm about to quibble:

"The phrase "as provided by law" authorizes the Legislature to formulate education policy. The deletion of this phrase reduces the confusion over the responsibility for public education and is consistent with the "Role of the Legislature" (below). The second revision requires the state board of education to obtain the approval of all district boards of education in order to formulate statewide educational policy -- not just consult with them (and ignore what they say). This revision would ensure that statewide educational policy truly benefits all districts."

My quibbles: The Legislature is THE policy body under our current government set up. I do not think taking out "as provided by law" for the reason you give will fly.

Quibble #2: I used "consultation" because constitutional language must remain broad. Whether the consultation is formal, as in, everyone has to agree by vote, or less formal, should be up to the Legislature. The district boards have a conduit to lobby the level of formalilty, as they are elected officials representing a constituency shared by the House and Senate members.

Quibble 3#: I feel no pain. Ironically, it is you who have acquiesced to preservation of a statewide entity. Merci.

ps
added equal opportunity and federal compliance to legislature powers.

Hi Curtis:

I quibble with your quibbles.

“My quibbles: The Legislature is THE policy body under our current government set up. I do not think taking out "as provided by law" for the reason you give will fly.”

The Legislature is the policy making body for most of the executive departments. However, an alternate system has been set up for public education. That’s why there’s an elected BOE. No other executive department has an elected board. The BOE is supposed to be responsible for formulating education policy. However, the phrase “as provided by law” also allows the Legislature to formulate education policy. One of the big problems with education governance in Hawaii is that two entities are formulating education policy. The field of organizational design says that’s a recipe for failure because there’s no clear line of authority. The Legislature can blame the BOE for poor student performance, and the BOE can blame the Legislature -- and the public doesn’t know who to blame. The Legislature has shown that it does not know much about education, so it should be banished from the education policy arena completely. This revision has a chance because the Legislature will not be voting on ConCon amendments.

(continued)

(continuation)

*** Quibble #2: I used "consultation" because constitutional language must remain broad. Whether the consultation is formal, as in, everyone has to agree by vote, or less formal, should be up to the Legislature. The district boards have a conduit to lobby the level of formalilty, as they are elected officials representing a constituency shared by the House and Senate members. ***

"Approval of all district boards of education” is key to independent school districts. “Consultation” just means discussing something with others or seeking their advice. Consultation is preliminary to decision making, but does not have anything to do with the decision making itself. I’m not an attorney, but if the Constitution says “consultation,” I don’t think the Legislature can override it and require the BOE to get the approval of the district boards. “Consultation” would enable the BOE to make statewide education policy that contradicts what the districts want to do. It would continue the same problem that exists today. “Approval of all district boards of education” would ensure that statewide policies benefit all districts.

I’m surprised that you did not quibble with the creation of 27 districts with “exclusive” jurisdiction over the management of the district. If this revision is allowed to continue, and if the rest of the amendment is consistent with it, I don’t think I’d have much to disagree about.

jk

Hi Curtis:

I quibble with your quibbles.

*** My quibbles: The Legislature is THE policy body under our current government set up. I do not think taking out "as provided by law" for the reason you give will fly. ***

The Legislature is the policy making body for most of the executive departments. However, an alternate system has been set up for public education. That’s why there’s an elected BOE. No other executive department has an elected board. The BOE is supposed to be responsible for formulating education policy. However, the phrase “as provided by law” also allows the Legislature to formulate education policy. One of the big problems with education governance in Hawaii is that two entities are formulating education policy. The field of organizational design says that’s a recipe for failure because there’s no clear line of authority. The Legislature can blame the BOE for poor student performance, and the BOE can blame the Legislature -- and the public doesn’t know who to blame. The Legislature has shown that it does not know much about education, so it should be banished from the education policy arena completely. This revision has a chance because the Legislature will not be voting on ConCon amendments.

(continued)

Hi Curtis:

I quibble with your quibbles.

*** My quibbles: The Legislature is THE policy body under our current government set up. I do not think taking out "as provided by law" for the reason you give will fly. ***

The Legislature is the policy making body for most of the executive departments. However, an alternate system has been set up for public education. That’s why there’s an elected BOE. No other executive department has an elected board. The BOE is supposed to be responsible for formulating education policy. However, the phrase “as provided by law” also allows the Legislature to formulate education policy. One of the big problems with education governance in Hawaii is that two entities are formulating education policy. The field of organizational design says that’s a recipe for failure because there’s no clear line of authority. The Legislature can blame the BOE for poor student performance, and the BOE can blame the Legislature -- and the public doesn’t know who to blame. The Legislature has shown that it does not know much about education, so it should be banished from the education policy arena completely. This revision has a chance because the Legislature will not be voting on ConCon amendments.

(continued)

.

Please, Administrator, delete my last 4 posts (including this one). I tried to revise the two before that and just made things worse. Now the world knows that I am a functional technological illiterate.

Aloha jk

While it is true that the BOE is the only elected board, appointed boards do create policy (BWS, for example). There is no set process that takes policy totally out of the purview of the Leg. The Leg is the representation of the people (in theory anyway), and I don't believe language in the constitution can take them meaningfully out of the statewide policy picture. This is certainly an instance when I would be happy to be wrong.

Curtis

Hi Curtis:

I’m going to try my best to make this a happy day for you.

You’re correct that some State departments are headed by appointed boards (Board of Agriculture, Board of Health), but these boards are executive boards that implement policy set by the Legislature. All agencies that formulate policy are headed by an elected body (BOE, county councils), which is consistent with broad democratic principles. All of these elected bodies directly represent the people. Since the existing BOE is elected, and since the Constitution gives it the responsibility to set education policy, the Legislature need not have a presence in this arena.

I believe that the phrase “as provided by law” was originally intended to apply to matters that were not directly related to education, such as public safety and health, in order to clarify that schools are required to conform with public health laws, the fire code, etc. However, the Legislature has interpreted this phrase to mean that it also has the authority to formulate education policy. Legislators are continually bombarded by constituents and special interest groups to make a law for this or that. So if they can find a way to make a law about something or other, they will do it, or at least try. It’s not necessary for the Legislature to formulate education policy. In fact, it’s counterproductive and inconsistent with widely accepted management principles. So the phrase should be eliminated.

jk

jk
I will reciprocate a happy day, as I do agree with your premise about conflicting and counter-productive policy.

As someone with relevant background, your assertion that eliminating "as provided by law" will keep the Leg's nose out of education is somewhat more comforting, but your assertion that it is inconsistent with widely accepted management principles just makes that warm fuzzy feeling go away.

Widely accepted management principles have no place in government, as you probably have witnessed.

I have to think about this some more.

I hope you agree that we are both sifting through a big steamy pile. If not, grab a shovel.

The structure of government has to be made as perfect as possible due to the imperfection of government officials.

jk
If not for the Hawaii Legislature, there would be no Hawaii charter schools today. Former legislator and current HSTA Executive Mike McCartney was instrumental in getting the New
Century Schools legislation passed back in 1999.

Of course, not all educational legislation is visionary like that, but my point is that as a representative body, it's tough to cut the Leg out of the picture. However, i agree that a few doors can stand to be shut. Politicians tend to love education to death.

I'm still thinking about the ramifications of 27 districts, but I don't really have druthers if it's seven or twenty-seven. The preservation of a statewide umbrella allows for transitions, consolidation, transfers and retooling within a more reasonable frame, and that is all I'm advocating for. You have to be fair to the rank and file. You just simply do.

Further, I don't believe there will be a rubber band effect as long as we just get rid of the elected BOE. I envision a full time appointed BOE that performs the State Educational Agency functions of the current BOE (including broad policy creation, but without micromanagement), plus the implementation functions of the Superintendent. The districts, however many, would become Local Educational Agencies responsible for the nuts and bolts pedagogical frameworks.

In your last comment you appear to be seeking perfection from the imperfect endeavors of Man. I remind you that Con Con delegates, policymakers and civil servants, for all their imperfections, are generally trying to accomplish exactly what you are advocating. I also point out that as public servants, the expectations of ALL stakeholders must be taken into account. That is what our style of democracy demands. Otherwise, you are advocating for benevolent dictatorship.

Aloha Curtis:

Let me address some of your concerns.

In theory, a Constitution is supposed to consist of broad language. However, a ConCon proposal to improve public education in Hawaii requires the consideration of a few practicalities. Hawaii does not have initiative at the State level, so there is no chance for the people to directly change statute. All the necessary language changes have to go into the Constitutional amendment.

If the Constitutional language is overly broad, the range of possible outcomes will be broad. For example, the Legislature will have a lot of discretion about how it fashions statutes that implement the Constitutional amendment. The drafters of a Constitutional amendment might have a specific intent, but if they use overly broad language, the Legislature will be able to interpret the amendment differently.

The use of overly broad language means that there will be a huge difference between the best case scenario and the worst case scenario. The drafters of a Constitutional amendment need to be specific enough to eliminate the lowest range of worst case scenarios so that the lowest one remaining is acceptable.

When it comes to how government operates, you seem to be an optimist, and I admit to being a pessimist. I have serious doubts when you say that the bureaucracy will change for the better if the BOE is elected. That’s the best case scenario, and I just don’t think there is enough reason to believe that it will happen. The worst case scenario is that the bureaucracy won’t change, and in my opinion that is much more probable.

(continued)

(continuation)

I agree with you that the Legislature was wise when it passed the charter school law. However, I think you will agree that it was an anomaly. It was an occurrence that happens once in 50 years – maybe 100. The Legislature’s modus operandi is a morass of bills that protect the status quo. Unfortunately, the considerable amount of bad has to be taken with the infrequent good that the Legislature is currently allowed to do. The chrter school enrollment is only 3% to 4% of the entire public school enrollment, and improvements have to be made for the 96% or 97%.

Regarding the number of school districts that should be created, I think of each school district like a charter school. Each charter school should be fully independent. It would be absurd to even consider combining several charter schools in a district with a board that formulates education policy for all the charter schools in the district. By the same reasoning, each high school complex should be its own district.

Regarding the DOE employees in the huge centralized bureaucracy (about 1000 employees), I don’t oppose taking care of them -- but not at the expense of the quality of education. As long as there is a big bureaucracy that can formulate education policy for all regular schools, the schools will be victimized. The bureaucracy has to be dissolved. I wouldn’t have any objection to the State continuing to pay the employees of the former bureaucracy. They can go to work for the schools or work for the districts. Or the State can offer them big retirement bonuses. But the big bureaucracy that is smothering the schools has to be eliminated.

Those are the thoughts of a confessed pessimist. I don’t know whether pessimism is contagious or whether optimism is. Maybe we’ll find out.

jk

If initiative, referendum, and recall come out of this Con Con, and the statewide BOE is dissolved, I will be a happier Hobbit for those changes alone.

Pessimism makes for poor leadership. You should not confess to it.

Cautious optimism is perceived as more respectable and dynamic, but actually it's just pessimism with a paint job. The difference is that you say stuff like, "I was afraid of that" instead of "I told you so".