Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > February > 10 > Entry
Carl Wick: What does Strickland want?
Carl Wick
If you read today’s paper, you saw that members of the Ohio Board of Education aren’t wild about Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to cut their clout dramatically by advocating for an appointed directorship to oversee K-12 education in Ohio.
One of those board members, Carl Wick, sent me some thoughtful comments on the issue, but most of them did not make it into the story for the paper. Still, I thought you might like to hear more of what he had to say, so here is his statement on Strickland’s move:
“It seems to me that Governor Strickland’s proposal simply adds another level of bureaucracy to Ohio K-12 public education. While (Board President Jennifer) Sheets points out that it will insolate K-12 education issues and debate from the public, it simply adds another layer to the overall organization. This is not good public organization (private too) conventional wisdom sense.
We now have a state board of education directly reporting to the people of Ohio. The new proposal will have a director reporting to the governor with the board of education and state superintendent reporting to the director. I do not understand how another level of bureaucracy adds to better K-12 education.
What’s different from the recent changed Board of Regents model of governance?
Ohio public education is spread throughout over hundreds of public school districts. All are governed by a local board of education, mostly elected with some appointed. The state of Ohio model of governance reflects this model.
Since most of Ohio children from age 5 through 18 attend public schools (about 1.8-million with another 300,000 attending private schools and also some having dropped out) the current state board of education public forum model allows, if they choose to, any and all to engage in the debate as well as any and all knowing exactly how public policy is determined. The proposed Gov. Strickland director of education model will not allow public debate nor overall exposure for public scrutiny.
While we have more road to travel to make Ohio public education more effective for all students, we have progressed in the last five years to being ranked seventh in the nation. This is pretty good under the current governance model. How will the new governance make this even better?
Other points, or at least questions:
—Why is Governor Strickland doing this knowing that there has been good improvement in the past few years in Ohio public education?
—What is it that he wants to change?
—Is he anti-school choice? Is he frustrated for not being able to get at community schools to close them out?
—Does he want to dismantle No Child Left Behind which he’s been critical of? NCLB has been successfully implemented in Ohio and can be pointed to for some of the recent success for Ohio public education?
—Does he not like recent Ohio Board of Education decisions?
—While Gov. Strickland has met with our board president, he has not sought to meet with or engage with the state board of education. A meeting had been set up with him only for him to cancel the meeting a few days before scheduled. The meeting was never re-scheduled. The previous governor met with the state board on many occasions.”
Permalink | Comments (13) | Categories: Schools and Politics
Comments
By School Supporter (Classic)
February 12, 2008 10:34 PM | Link to this
Hi OldProf, I think David Esrati and Bruce Kettelle have made the same point about county-wide school districts. You’re right, no prominent Democrat would fight local control. As far as Obama and Clinton, it’s a fair question given the Louisville decision and its predecessors (e.g. de facto segregation alone not enough to consolidate racially stratified districts). My principle frustration is elsewhere you’ve outlined reasonable measures (e.g. grammar school curricula), but when Columbus is mentioned, you downplay the effective steps we could take locally. Or am I misreading your comments?By Oldprof
February 12, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Hi Classic. I’m a bit confused by your post; I know of no Democrats in Ohio who support my idea of county-wide (or maybe better, state-wide) school districting. In fact, many Dems dislike it—let’s face it, the surfeit of board posts makes it easy for the party activists to launch their political careers, do away with local boards and they’d be stuck in their patronage jobs forever. As for the US Supreme Court—I believe it has no say in how a state sets up its public education system. And if the Ohio Supreme Court were to be involved, I’m sure that if they interpreted Ohio’s consitution literally and conservatively they’d have to conclude that it is the state’s responsibility to provide a “thorough and efficient” system of education—and having over 600 local school boards, some of them administering tiny districts, is NOT efficient—throw in a hundred or so charter schools and you have re-created Byzantium.By School Supporter (Classic)
February 11, 2008 10:13 PM | Link to this
School S/supporter: Tone, please. Especially when posting under a name already in use. Rich: I cringed when I read Scott’s report—Susan Haverkos was being her candid, level-headed self and admitted that more happens in Columbus than any board member can attend. How did she get on your enemies list? OldProf: While Democrats are willing to predicate school reform on county-wide consolidation, you know it won’t happen until a Democratic President appoints enough activist Supreme Court Justices—I’m with Garrison Keillor on this: It’s morally disgusting to play such politics with schoolchildren. And where is university faculty testimony on the alleged inappropriateness of Ohio’s Academic Content Standards?By School Supporter
February 11, 2008 9:07 PM | Link to this
Rich it’s obvious from your remarks you must be a Gunlock or Upoff sore looser. Each of them spent five times what other candidates spent and Uphoff got $10grand from the teachers unions. Don’t even try to compare your tiny role in a tiny district where the superintendant prepares a two minute consent agenda for you versus matters occuring at the State level. You still didn’t answer how you personally would handle all the non-paid personal expenses of travel and time ??By Laura
February 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this
I have a problem with such a drastic change without input from the public. I agree with another writer that Strickland should have included this in his agenda when he was funning for office. If this is a new idea, I would like some explanation of why he has decided this is the way to improve education for Ohio’s children. It doesn’t seem like he has done much, if anything, to change the problems he inherited and I fail to see how appointing another person will improve things. I, like others, don’t like the idea that these changes could become a revolving door with each new administration.By Oldprof
February 11, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this
Another thing: one of the weaknesses of the system is that we have hundreds of local school boards. The public could save hundreds of thousands of dollars that’s currently paid for a few minor elected officials to re-invent the wheel in every Arcanum, Bradford, Covington, Deer Park, Eaton, Franklin, etc. etc. etc. across the state. If we consolidated all school districts in every county (as Florida has done) then we could draw our school boards from a deeper talent pool, eliminate disparities in funding, ameliorate white flight, and reduce administrative costs through genuine economies of scale. Then the state BOE won’t be able to argue that reflecting such an inefficient, needlessly duplicative system is a good thing.By Rich
February 10, 2008 11:54 PM | Link to this
Well, I’ll await clarification by Susan Haverkos, but don’t see the difference between the state school board and local school boards regarding attendance and participation in board activities. I went into my own elected terms on a local school board knowing what was going to be required, and it was clearly MORE than just the full, formal monthly meetings. If I’d found out that the position required more than I could do (for whatever reason), I know I would have at least thought about resigning. And while there’s clearly a big difference in travel costs within the same county versus going to and from Columbus, such travel is clearly part of the job. (Snarky question — how much, exactly, was spent in her campaign to WIN this board seat? Bet it was many thousands of dollars, based on the hundreds of yard signs she erected all over her district — so if it’s financially distressing to commute to Columbus, why not solicit $$$ from some of the same donors who funded her campaign, so the job can be done properly?)By School supporter
February 10, 2008 11:20 PM | Link to this
Our State school board members are only paid $30 per hour, actual time sitting in the monthly meeting for regular meetings. They don’t get paid to drive hours to and from Columbus, and they don’t get paid to attend house or senate meetings holding hearings virtually every day of the week. They don’t get paid to sit around and chat with with legislatures. So Rich, how would you have attended meetings that are held in Columbus, sometimes several times per week at your own expense ? Our local State reps have taken the time to answer my questions on a number of occasions. I also know both Mr. Wick and Mrs. Haverkos have made many of those unpaid trips to Columbus to attend hearings. Think twice before you ask someone to resign when you obviously don’t know the facts.By Oldprof
February 10, 2008 11:06 PM | Link to this
Let’s see. There’s a state board of education that has an unrealistic set of standards for outcomes that reliable research says is not attainable by the age groups specified. Same board failed to exercise anything resembling governance over charter schools. Same board has failed to influence the legislature to fix the unconstitutional funding of public schools. And the members of that board whine and want to keep their authority when someone wants to shake things up. If Strickland’s proposals are a disaster, WE WILL BE NO WORSE OFF.By Scott Elliott
February 10, 2008 10:41 PM | Link to this
I believe what Susan Haverkos was saying was not that she is missing any state board meetings. It’s that she’d like to do more. Rather than just read a report about testimony taken on an issue like teacher misconduct, she’d like to actually attend the hearings and hear the testimony first hand. But she was elected to a part-time office that does not require, or even encourage, greater participation beyond just going to the state board meetings. Susan reads this blog so perhaps she will clarify further.By Rich
February 10, 2008 9:50 PM | Link to this
Scott — in your article on this topic published in today’s DDN (“Board of education members slam governor’s schools plan”), you reveal that my state board of education member, Susan Haverkos, “…can’t be in Columbus for as much board business as she would like. For instance, Haverkos said she would have loved to attend all the recent meetings at which the department heard testimony on teacher misconduct.” As the old saying goes, all I know is what I read in the paper, but if this is literally true — that Mrs. Haverkos is unable to participate fully in such critically important parts of her elected job — then she needs to resign and allow someone who can DO THE JOB to be appointed in her place. I just completed 12 years on a local school board, and would have felt compelled to resign if faced with a similar situation. You need to investigate this further, Scott. Don’t let this matter drop from sight — if we deserve to have an elected state school board, we need members who actually DO THE JOB!By Concerned Mom of 3
February 10, 2008 9:41 PM | Link to this
The Stivers Jazz Band took 1st place at the Berklee College of Music 40th Annivesary High School Jazz Festival in Boston!By Rich
February 10, 2008 9:36 PM | Link to this
My initial reaction to Strickland’s proposal, which is essentially to take over complete control of state education policy, is the same as Wick’s. If he had this in mind when running for governor, I for one wish he’d stated it explicitly. Public school policy should NOT become even more of a political football than it already is, open to being shifted 180 degrees every four years (or more often) by whoever happens to occupy the governor’s mansion in Columbus. When voters approved the change in Ohio’s Constitution to require an elected state board of education, no sensible person could interpret that to mean this body should simply be advisory, with no independent authority. If the governor wants such a radical change, he should seek voter approval. Beyond that, since Strickland DID explicitly state that failure to reform school funding would mean he would have failed as governor, THAT reform should be #1 on his to-do list — NOT an ill-advised, poorly explained takeover of all education policy in this state. Adding this to another ill-advised Strickland proposal (expanding gambling to include keno), I’m rapidly becoming disenchanted with him — even though he’s still clearly preferable to the only other option at the time, Ken Blackwell.