How Gregoire can shake up education, restore voter trust
The governor and the legislature should take an overhaul of the education bureaucracy straight to the people. And let the people have a chance to eliminate the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
State of Washington
Our public institutions have taken some hits lately — both financially and in the public’s opinion. Restoring public trust and funding vital public services will take creativity and bold leadership. Gov. Chris Gregoire’s recent announcement on education reform might be the kind of move to get it done.
The governor's proposal, which would consolidate the state’s education bureaucracies under a newly created state Secretary of Education, is reminiscent of another governor and another large bureaucracy that lacked public support and funding. Then, as now, there were huge needs and a public that didn’t believe their money was being well spent. Then, as now, the people had spoken at the ballot box that the government needed to live within its means and not ask for more.
In 1999, Gov. Gary Locke and the legislature were dealt a huge blow from Initiative 695. The state faced aging roads, bridges, and ferries — and a public that thought the state had enough of their money. Worse, the public believed money was wasted on an ineffective bureaucracy that was not accountable to anyone.
So Locke did what all leaders do in this situation — convene a Blue Ribbon Commission. These commissions generally say two things: we need more money and we need to reorganize. This Blue Ribbon Commission recommended a 9 cent gas tax increase, which the legislature passed and put on the 2002 ballot as Referendum 51. The measure created a Transportation Accountability Board to monitor the spending on 100 projects and over $3 billion in revenue. Referendum 51 got clobbered at the polls. On the same ballot, state voters again reduced vehicle license fees while Seattle voters approved $1.7 billion in license fee revenue for the Seattle Monorail Authority. While Seattle bucked the trend, the state’s voters were very clearly against any tax increases.
It was clear that systemic change was needed if the state had any hope of catching up with our infrastructure needs.
At this time the director of the Washington State Department of Transportation reported directly to the five-member State Transportation Commission. The governor had very little control over the transportation bureaucracy, much like the case today with the education bureaucracy. So if a governor wanted to be the “transportation governor,” he or she could not even appoint his or her own director.
Because Locke was understandably frustrated with getting the blame for a system largely out of his control, he supported an effort to have the WSDOT director report directly to the governor – which is the case today. Former legislator Sid Morrison retired as director of WSDOT and Locke brought in Doug MacDonald to change the culture of the department and do a better job of communicating to the public. In fact, the department was soon nicknamed the “Department of Project Delivery and Accountability.” Project information was made available to the public online so people could understand how projects were funded and whether they were on time and within budget.
Once these reforms were in place and WSDOT was bringing in smaller projects on time and within budget — and within full public view — it was time to take the next step. The Transportation Partnership package was born. First, the legislature passed a 5 cent gas tax in 2003 — recall the “your nickel, watch it work” signs — and then a 9 cent gas tax package in 2005 phased in over time in 3 percent increments. The 2005 package is the source of funding for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement, the 520 Bridge Replacement, a number of other construction projects, and considerable maintenance.
But anti-tax populism is strong in Washington state and there was a serious effort to turn back these gas taxes. Conservative talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur did their best to kill the package, but the public in the end supported the 9.5 cent gas tax increases and turned back Initiative 912. The arguments against the tax increase were familiar: WSDOT is a bloated bureaucracy and they have enough of your money. But in the end, enough voters believed the projects were needed and that WSDOT could build them.
Gregoire’s moves on education seem to come from the same playbook. The reality of the moment makes two things very clear: 1. The election of 2010 was a clear demonstration that the voters want reform and accountability in advance of any request for more revenue. While some will say the new taxes were repealed because of heavily funded campaigns and disinformation, I believe the distrust and frustration of the electorate is real and should be heard. 2. It is hard to see how the state can balance the over $4 billion biennium deficit by only cuts without compromising the health and safety of our citizens, and the competitiveness of our state.
Given these realities, Gregoire’s education plan makes perfect sense. Here’s what I hope she will do:
She should work with the legislature to craft a ballot measure consolidating current state education functions under a newly created Secretary of Education appointed by the governor. Early learning, K though 12, and higher education will be aligned under the new Department of Education.
There should be accountability measures, and cost savings through elimination of some boards and consolidation of others. And finally, a proposal to raise revenue in order to accomplish the goals set out in the plan.
There is a lot of rough road between the idea and the reality, and the status quo always has more of a constituency than change. The current Superintendent of Public Instruction, Randy Dorn, was elected statewide and must be part of the equation. Rather than being allowed to drift along in a kind of bureaucratic limbo, his post should be put up for elimination by a vote of the people as part of the overall reorganization. The people need to be able to decide if they want an elected Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The governor has been in Olympia a long time and has been criticized in the past that she has failed to shake up the status quo. But difficult times can create great leaders. Whether she can translate her policy ideas into reality and restore public trust will define her legacy in Washington state.
It would be hard to find another governor who has been dealt such a bad hand of deficits both in voter faith and in the financial realm. But in that lies her opportunity. She should take it.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jan 27, 6:39 a.m. Inappropriate
No school reform measure is going to be very effective if it leaves in place the 300-odd separate school districts, all operating as independent fiefdoms. If we were inventing public education today, we would never divide it up among such geographically-based separately-elected units of local government. There HAS to be a better way. Hawaii has a single state-wide school system. It may not be perfect but let's take a look at such a concept. Merely consolidating the state bureaucracy under the governor isn't enough.
Posted Thu, Jan 27, 9:47 a.m. Inappropriate
I totally agree with you. Thanks for pointing that out. We need to re-think counties as well. Our county limits are based on a days horseride to the county courthouse. Times have changed.
Thanks for the comment.
Posted Thu, Jan 27, 10:28 a.m. Inappropriate
There is a nationwide movement now to put elected superintendents under the governor's control. Oregon has a couple of bills in the legislature this year to that as well. It's a move that I've supported since the WASL blow-up, which shows how much trouble can result when there is poor coordination in education policy between the many elected officials who have a hand in it.
Another issue is that, since the Superintendent for Public Instruction is fairly low on the ballot, elections for that office are subject to undue influence by party activists and special interests. This is a problem that plagues down-ticked offices of all sorts.
Posted Thu, Jan 27, 10:41 a.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Royer and R:
As a former elected official, (Snohomish County Council), I strongly disagree with the idea that one, big, consolidated government structure is going to solve the problems faced by local schools or local governments.
In the other 38 counties, the best deal taxpayers get is County Government, or services from their local city. Taxpayers have local access AND ballot box accountability. Administrative overhead at local school districts is minimal - the focus is on teaching and spending money on teaching.
Seattle is the school district with the huge, costly and centralized management. As our largest urbanized center, the City of Seattle faces human service problems on a scale not faced by the rest of the State. But does size also mean efficient? Surely, you jest.
Outside King County and Seattle, if you are a local voter and have a problem, you know exactly who to talk to and where to find them. And you will be heard.
True, you don't need image consultants, pollsters, or tens of thousands of dollars to run for a city council, school board, or fire district elected office. But then many of us who live outside King County see that as political good.
Keep government small, local, and close to the people it serves. THAT is how you get effective government.
Ross Kane
Warm Beach
Posted Thu, Jan 27, 1:10 p.m. Inappropriate
But Mr. Kane, my concern is that public education should not be viewed as just another government function like zoning or issuing building permits. In Seattle, too much activity of school board members is meddling and nit-picking in response to small groups of noisy parents and neighbors. You may think that's great because it's "local access and...accountability" but many of us see it as disfunctional.
Posted Thu, Jan 27, 8:30 p.m. Inappropriate
I agree but the school reform needs to go much more deeper. Let's couple it with district consolidation because in this area of limited resources it doesnt make sense any more for every little town to have its own school district. Make it that if your district has less then 10,000 students or 7,500 students you must consolidate with another district.
Ross, sorry, you're wrong, there is tremendous administrative expenses. In Thurston County, I can count at least 10 different school districts, each with a superintendent earning on average 150,000 and each district has at least two assistant superintendents earning on average 95,000. Ten districts combined with over 3 million in salary or closer to 5 million once you add in benefits. Let;s combine school districts. Does it make any sense to have a school district which has 1,275 students and another district with 3,500 students and each has it;s own administration.
Or do away with individual districts and make it one county wide district. Each county has their own district. Consolidating districts would consolidate resources, cut administrative expenses. Now that's real reform.
The Governor's way just creates another state agency. Hardly major reform.
Posted Fri, Jan 28, 2:46 p.m. Inappropriate
A minimum size for school districts makes sense; as does a county run district.
Bringing education into the purview of the Governor is a certainly something worth considering - having the elected OSPI report to a Governor appointed individual is not. This proposal evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of responsibility in our society - one that is quite well evidenced in her political bullying in the education arena, of which this is but one more example.
Epic fail.
Posted Thu, Feb 3, 8:02 a.m. Inappropriate
R on Beacon Hill wrote: "[i] In Seattle, too much activity of school board members is meddling and nit-picking in response to small groups of noisy parents and neighbors.[/i]"
That simply isn't true. The current school board is totally un-responsive to the community. They take their orders directly from the superintendent and dance to the tune that she calls. The current board has voted to approve every single motion that she has brought before them - some Board members haven't cast more than one or two "No" votes in their entire tenure and one of them has yet to cast his first. They don't do any constituent service at all.
The dysfunction in Seattle Public Schools isn't due to undue responsiveness to the community, but due to an utter lack of responsiveness to the community. Do you think it is the community that wants Seattle Public Schools to spend way more than any other district on central administration? Do you think it is the community that wants the district to cut spending at schools to pay for pet projects? Of course not.
As for reforming education at the state level, it's overdue. No one designing the system today would make it the way it is.
Posted Sun, Feb 6, 10:13 a.m. Inappropriate
I like the way the State Superintendent job is blithely pushed away as though it's nothing. It's almost assumed that if you put it to a vote, people would vote it away. I wouldn't count on that.
It's fine to consolidate and looks for ways to be more efficient AND more accountable. But adding another state official and another layer of government? I'm not sure that's what people truly want.
And if people decide they DO want a state superintendent who isn't accountable to the Governor? What then? Box him or her in a corner?
The Governor hasn't seen this through except to the point where she, like Seattle, wants to be on the big K-12 ed reform train like the cool kids in D. C. (and you see how well that turned out).
Education like politics is a local issue and I think there's more of a fight there than Jordan might think.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.