All Education Eyes on January
With the year coming quickly to a close and projects and tasks being wrapped before the holidays, it’s crucial to keep an eye on the State Board of Education going into the new year, particularly between now and January 21. The SB has the WEIC plan for our Wilmington schools, students and teachers in their hands from now until their January meeting where they are expected to vote up or down on the plan in its entirety. The plan and its related documentation weighs in at several hundred pages’ worth of information and material. http://www.solutionsfordelawareschools.com/
During the last 10 months, the public had opportunities to contribute their thoughts, ideas, feedback, and criticisms of the plan or any part thereof. Public comment ran the gamut from helpful feedback to downright racist criticism. In my observation, the comments that tended to align closer to the racist end of the spectrum were elicited when meetings were held in suburban locations. The more supportive comments, while also showing in the suburbs, really came to the forefront in the meetings’ city locations.
What’s interesting to me is even though the team that put this plan together is titled the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission, the changes proposed in the ways Delaware funds public education are designed to be eventually rolled out statewide, despite the public ‘testimony’ to the contrary. Changes including weighted funding formulas that take into account a student’s level of poverty and/or level of English language proficiency (two of the biggest drivers of academic difficulty that are not addressed in the current funding model). The recommendation for property reassessment and permitting School Boards to raise the operating tax in an amount that would control for inflation only without a referendum. All would be ‘piloted’ in northern New Castle County and then expanded statewide over time.
Poverty isn’t limited to the city of Wilmington nor is it even limited to New Castle County and it has the same deleterious effects on a student’s ability to learn and retain no matter where he/she is located. So for the state to finally wake up to that fact and potentially do something about it is something we’ve kind of all been waiting for. As we move closer to the first toll gate, the State Board of Education meeting in January, commentary on the plan will surely pick up. Once the State Board says Yea or Nay, it goes to the General Assembly. If it passes there, it goes to the Governor. At no stage in the approvals process can any part of the plan be amended. The State Board, General Assembly, and Governor have to accept it 100% as is, or reject it 100%.
Of course, none of this really matters unless Governor Markell budgets significant funding to get this off the ground. We’ll find that out next month too.
Tags: Delaware education reform, poverty, schools, WEIC, Wilmington
The SBE can vote down the plan but they must come back to the Commission in writing and tell us what they are not in agreement with and give us an opportunity to make corrections. The SBE only has until March 30 to make their final decision, however.
The Feds manipulate state public education through funding, only to pull away the funding after X number of years leaving districts and the state to make up for the costs. Not taking Federal dollars would be just as damaging.
All of this has caused a gradual manipulation and malinvestment in education policies and spending. There are some great reforms in the WEIC report and I like how broadly it is “rethinking”, at a minimum, how we fund education. I don’t think it will pass mostly because of what I stated about them going broader than what they were tasked with. Unfortunately that’s what’s needed though to reform education; a complete overhaul and the state blocking Federal manipulation.
Lastly whenever you’re allocating capital efficiently you typically make everything as homogeneous as possible. This means traditional school children not being moved out of where they live. We also need to separate social services from education so the root cause can be addressed (in so much as DHSS can truly even alleviate those issues). Educators are being forced to play parent and teacher, and that’s an almost impossible dual role.
@Anon
I read your response three times and I’m really, honestly confused with the last couple sentences.
First: Lastly whenever you’re allocating capital efficiently you typically make everything as homogeneous as possible.
So this means that you favor public education in a “one size fits all” delivery package?
Then: This means traditional school children not being moved out of where they live. Ah. Getting clearer now. Poor kids stay in the city schools, wealthier kids stay in the suburbs, and charter kids (not “traditional”) get to go anywhere their parents want them to go. Funny, didn’t expect to find many Neighborhood Schools advocates supporting WEIC.
Finally: We also need to separate social services from education so the root cause can be addressed (in so much as DHSS can truly even alleviate those issues). So no more wellness centers, no more food backpacks, no hot breakfasts, not more laundering clothes, no more access to birth control, no more counseling in our schools. Got it.
When I read the first couple paragraphs of your response I though you actually supported the WEIC reforms. When I read the last paragraph am I seeing what you really think? Confused.
I like that WEIC is attempting to reform the funding portion, but I think it’s equally necessary to tackle the social challenges kids from poverty face.
You’re seeing what you want to see, which is not at all what I wrote. Probably why you’re so confused.
Really? I said I was confused. Enlighten me about how I misread.
I tried to be clear that I think the plan is a great attempt because it addresses the funding to accommodate kids in poverty.
Separating social services doesn’t mean cutting programs, it means highlighting them as a necessary but separate component to improving education.
am abit confused:- will all those changes improves the education for all? or only the wealthier kids!
Anon, I’m confused as well. It seems like you’re saying, “This is a great attempt, but…” And that’s where I get lost with what you’re saying.
I keep coming back to your “allocating funding homogeneously” and “traditional school children not being moved out of where they live” points. Could you explain these points?
As far as separating social services… are you saying that these should be supplied but shouldn’t be funded in any way by the education budget? What about Title 1?
Not picking on you. I’m just not getting what you’re saying.
Title I is a good point. It does provide funding for some of the social services that exist within our schools. But with each year that passess the need for in-house counseling and social support services in our schools gets more apparent.
I would prefer our teachers to not have to handle social services along with teaching, but to achieve that, funding streams to support in-school counselors, psychologists or social workers have to exist -and- be sustained. In Christina, Title I provides some support for that, but the bulk of the funding comes out of local property tax revenue and goes toward contracting a health/social services support provider, and it was a difficult struggle to maintain the level of service after the failed referenda.
I suspect the funding model is similar in each district statewide. State doesn’t pay for it, Feds don’t really pay for it. But we need it. So who’s left to foot the bill? Us.
@Pandora: Do you think title 1 is enough? With it going to district wide initiatives, I’m not sure how much is left to adequately address needs at the school level, which varies but is essential (the things Brian mentioned above). Homogeneous (not in allocation) refers to the concept that resources will work more efficiently if the need is concentrated which is why WEAC and WEIC came about to begin with- to identify solutions for high poverty schools.
Me using “good attempt” infers I don’t think it will pass.