Coffee and Talking Education with the Governor
I could never be a reporter, mainly because I would never meet a deadline. That said, I am very good at mulling things over – which I’ve done for the last 24 hours and have finally decided to write about part of the meeting that hasn’t, as yet, been discussed: Education.
There’s been a lot of debate over the number of school districts in Delaware and whether or not consolidating them would be an effective way to cut costs. Governor Markell stated that while he’s not prepared, today, to reduce the number of school districts, the option is on the table.
Now, while I think nineteen school districts in a state the size of Delaware is excessive, I’m not ready to shrink this number without serious debate. On the surface, I can readily support trimming down the number of administrative overlaps that come with having this many districts, (which, often times, strikes me more as fiefdoms designed to benefit those making big salaries) but I don’t support making any move without all the facts. Obviously, I’m generalizing with the fiefdom comment, but given how many sacrifices our children are asked to make – from over crowded classrooms to lack of textbooks – I’d really prefer it if the next cost saving education plan didn’t take place in the classroom.
Financially transparency in relation to school districts was also discussed. As a Red Clay resident this issue is a big deal for me since I still haven’t forgotten Red Clay’s financial meltdown a little over a year ago. Governor Markell stated that transparency in regards to school districts would have to evolve over time and would probably begin with viewing check registries. And while I’d like transparency to evolve further, this seems like a good place to start.
RSmitty of Delaware Politics continued the education discussion by asking Governor Markell about performance based pay for teachers. The Governor replied by saying that performance based pay should be focused on the growth of students in each school. He continued, by adding, that we needed to measure a student’s success from the beginning of the school year to the end.
Now, here is where I jumped in. Measuring success from the beginning to the end of a school year makes perfect sense, except when you’re dealing with high poverty schools whose population tends to be transient. In these schools the measuring device can be inaccurate because the students you tested in September may not be sitting in your class by May. And even if they are, they might not have attended the school the previous year. High poverty schools suffer due to an ever changing population which hurts educational consistency. I suggested offering an incentive for teachers willing to work in these schools. The Governor nodded, and said that was a valid point. It is a valid point, and must be addressed, since all Delaware schools are not created equal.
There are still questions to be answered when it comes to education in Delaware, and that seems to be a good thing. It means we have a chance to help shape educational policy.
Lastly, I’d like to thank Governor Markell for taking the time to sit down and talk with us. I really appreciated it, and hope we can repeat the experience in the future.
Tags: Jack Markell
One of the things to figure out is what Delaware is doing to try to get some of the “Race to the Top” funds from Obama’s push to improve public education. This is a $5B pool of funds for competitive grants to school systems or states who are implementing real innovation for long-term improvements. (There lots more avail under the Stimulus Package, which we should know something about too). There are states (like Colorado) who are working out statewide reforms and innovations in order to compete for these funds. What are we doing?
Consolidation of school districts would be a great first step, but one that has more administrative benefits than financial ones (I think) over the long term. Breaking up some of the fiefdoms may be a good way to get to some of the more innovative thinking.
As a starter, I would think that 19 school districts could be paired down to three, one in each county headed by a superintendent. Since NCC is the most populated, it could be divided into three area districts, each headed by an assistant superintendent. Then KC and SC districts would each be headed by one superintendent each. Each of the three districts would have its own elected school board, and raise its own school taxes.
The final consolidation could be into one state district with one superintendent, one school board and one statewide school tax system. This basic organization could then be subdivided into 6 area districts, say 3 in NCC, 1 in KC, 1 in SC, each headed by an assistant superintendent.
Something like this approach would give more administrative benefit due to economies of scale, as per your thought Cassandra, and the savings passed on to the classroom, per your point Pandora.
Regarding merit pay, Pandora, I’ve seen that done on a per school basis by the district, and a within school basis by the principal. The goal for each school is set based on a percent improvement in test scores. This then accommodates the schools with lower achievement, and their teachers. Within a school, there is an allotment of dollars given to the principal, then assistant principals, department heads and guidance determine merit pay recipients, using a bottoms up approach based on appraisals and discussions as the process moves up the ladder. I’ve seen this system work satisfactorily.
One other salary booster is to pay a bonus to teachers in the more challenging districts.
I’m glad to hear that Jack is open to new ideas.
As a postscript, I would like to see the private school students be required to pass the standard tests in order to graduate.
The DTSP has to be redesigned so that it assesses critical thinking skills in addition to the factual pieces, so there will not be so much need to ‘teach to the test’. Teachers know exactly what I am saying!
Countywide consolidation, on balance, is terrible idea.
Why, John? I’m not saying it isn’t, but you really need to state your case.
Anything about SEED?
There are scenarios where large consolidated school districts can work, but more often than not, they create unaccountable long-term management [You find a lot more George Meneys than Jim Scanlons]. Large districts are prone to sell out certain parts of the community in favor of others [Red Clay is classic]. Claimed economies of scale are chimerical. Locally-based school districts yield much more community involvement and loyalty. Local school districts can pursue excellence or innovation w/ less interference from district pooh-bahs.
I realize there are places where county-wide districts work, but Fairfax County is not easily replicated. Give me a Mount Pleasant or Conrad or Seaford district rather than a Red Clay any day.
It should be added that the Department of Education is an ideal resource for medium-sized districts in curriculum, training and other functions. A well-deployed DOE is an efficient and high-level resource for locally-controlled schools.
If I may–Consolidation of most districts IS a terrible idea–consolidation of services is where the real cost containment lies. Delaware can pride itself on the regionality of local concern given to school districts, in areas where it has remained local. The disasters of a Christina or Red Clay have been greatly amplified by the cut-out, and slicing and dicing of districts to serve some social engineering project. All you end up with is fragmentation, disenfranchised communities/stakeholders, long bus rides, and ill will. I can’t wait for the legislature to tackle the redraw of district boundaries, as Brandywine empties out and Indian River picks up. Administrative overhead in probably 14 of the districts is not the villian you think it is. It is very lean at the top for many districts. Currently, Sec. Lowery is auditing the functionality of DOE, and the prolific positions that have appeared there over the last 8 years. Those of us in the districts have voiced the necessity and merit of some of those spots, that don’t seem to give value added to many of the districts, and we want justification for their existence. Now, that’s just a spoonful of the elephant to eat. She is very open, and waiting too for these audit results. We’ll await the findings, and decisions she makes. So again, before we do herculean shifts of consolidation–an impersonal bureacratic move–let’s jettison dead wood, duplicity of services, and failure to secure larger contract leverage with purchasing.
And anyone who thinks, we will have less personnel costs with only “county” superintendents is grossly mistaking the price of all the “specialists”, and “directors”, “associates”, and every other “rose”, that may come along and be needed–and expecting to be well paid. Let’s not rearrange the deck chairs.
When did this prescription become a panacea?
I don’t mean to threadjack, but IMHO, the state could save a good bit more money by consolidating fire districts than school districts. Look at the annual grants-in-aid, along with the county budgets — I see an awful lot of independent fire companies there, each getting its piece of the tax-money pie. More than a few of the small ones could fold into bigger ones without much consequence. Consolidation would also ease the transition to paid services that Coons said is coming in NCCo.
I vote with Mr. Manifold and Ms. Christian (sounds like a Burt Reynolds-Sally Field movie, doesn’t it?) — in education, local control equals more parent involvement. The administration comes from state and federal requirements — the fewer the mandates, the lower the need for high-priced meeting-takers and paper-shufflers.
Uh Oh–Geezer is talking fire companies. Them fightin’ words for a bunch of folks. I’m out of here, before bottles get broken…
Allow me to play devil’s advocate (since I’m uncommitted on this point), but having had my kids in both Red Clay and Brandywine I haven’t seen this universal parent involvement. What I have seen are a lot of Administrators whose only purpose seems to be coming up with “new” math, language, etc. in order to justify their continued existence. Their other duty seems to be filling seats at school board meetings.
Yeah, I’m being snarky, but if there’s any chance consolidation will result in getting more money into classrooms then let’s look into it. I’m not ready to take anything off the table.
Pandora–Right now the table needs to be set for EXPEDITIOUS budgeting of what limited resources are coming to education. Consolidation is a protracted goal of long range planning and visioning. To undertake that now would be fiscally irresponsible to incur the administrative oversight needed to move to this model. Perhaps some dismantling of a district or two…but absolutely no county consolidation.
Pandora: My point exactly. Huge consolidated districts such as RCCSD and Brandywine see depressed parental involvement.
I just spoke to a very highly placed source who told me that there is a big education initiative forthcoming (in the next week). Nothing about redistricting, etc. But more on revamping to meet the “Race to the Top” requirements.
More to come…
How is it possible to improve education by cutting teachers’ salaries? There was a report in the NEW YORK TIMES yesterday (4/7) about an impending teacher shortage as a result of retirements and that fact that one out of three new teachers leaves the profession within five years. All the rhetoric about merit pay and reorganization will mean nothing if teachers don’t get reasonable compensation.
truthatlast – would it be better to improve education through RIFing those teachers? Perhaps there is a middle way here, but it is not apparent in the short term.
So, please pick your poison.