Secretary of Education

[Gary Gilbert]

 Appointment of Secretary of Education draft  3.21.12  Gary Gilbert

The concept of elevating the Commissioner of Education to the cabinet level position of Secretary and moving the Department to the status of an Agency is straight forward.

The Secretary would have direct responsibility for the Agency just as a Secretary does for agriculture. The Secretary will be unable to control the actions of a local board any more than the Secretary of agriculture can control the behaviors of an individual farmer. It is expected that the state board will retain all its powers including setting educational policy and being responsible for school quality. The Agency, Secretary and Governor would be accountable for the success of our educational system. The public would know what the current educational goals were, how they were being addressed, and how the Agency/Governor/Secretary were working together on the issues. 

It is an idea whose time has come. Education quality is too important to be allowed to be treated as the ugly step-sister It is time for the State’s CEO to give it the same attention and to integrate it with the other administrative agencies. An analysis of the existing roles and responsibilities, and the changes contemplated by this proposal, are examined in the following sections.

Commissioner/Secretary

Current Law T 16 211: State Board appoints subject to approval of the Governor. In application, this means that the Governor chooses the person he/she wants as he/she has veto over any person nominated. The only requirement is to have special training and experience in educational work. Some requirement similar to this would remain. A Commissioner not of the Governor’s choosing would be ineffectual, receive no gubernatorial support for initiatives and eventually driven to resign.

Proposal: The Governor appoints  subject to senate as other secretaries but from no fewer than three submitted by the state board.  By the end of the second term a Governor will have replaced board members so it is his/her board. He/she will eventually get the person and board he/she wishes. Under current law the board appears to be independent but will become the Governor’s creation anyway.

State Board

Current Law 161 All members ( 9 with 2 student members – one not voting.) appointed by Governor with consent of senate to 6 yr terms biennially in February…vacancies also appointed.

Proposal:  3 year terms with reappointment to up to three terms. The quality of appointments may be of higher quality as the Governor will require an efficient board as their success or failures will be attributed to his/her selection.



Budget

Current Law 164(4)  Biennially, or as required by Governor, prepare budget for DOE.  In application, the Department prepares a budget for the Board and submits it to the Governor after the Governor has made his preferences known i.e. Governor determined staffing levels to a given dollar amount or for a specific program. It is the Governor’s recommend that goes to the legislature money committees.

Proposal; The Secretary would be responsible for preparing and presenting the budget as part of the administrations budget proposal to the legislature. It would be the Governor’s budget for which he/she would be accountable. There is also the possibility that the budget would receive greater legislative oversight similar to what occurs in other areas of government. The Governor would be responsible for managing the funds, the Agency, and the results of the Agency. A Governor could not take the position that he/she had no control over spending, quality, or that failure is someone else’s responsibility.

Secretary as cabinet member

Current law:  the Commissioner is invited by the Governor to attend cabinet meetings. The Department is an independent Agency of government and the Governor can not tell the Commissioner what to do but can control resources such as funding and staffing levels even if a position is paid by federal funds. The Ed Department cooperates with the agencies of government with memorandums of understanding that describe where, how, and to what degree they will coordinate duties, responsibilities and financial resources.  This means that no one is in charge and no one Agency is responsible for the outcomes. Silos are intact. Money allocated to a need can not be adequately tracked and program success evaluated. The Commissioner must serve two masters- one with the bully pulpit and one that meets just once a month.

Proposal: The Secretary would be a member of the Governor’s Cabinet and have the same standing as other agencies. Cooperation would be forced as the Governor would be able to tell each Secretary when, in his/her best judgment, cooperation is necessary to address a problem in an efficient manner. Human Services and Education would sit at the same table, develop budgets that reflect their shared responsibilities, report to and be accountable to the Governor for their results. And the Governor would be accountable to the public for progress, and to the state board which has a legislated public voice and are charged with the responsibility to establish the quality standards for Vermont education. (Human services expend 42% of state appropriations. Education is 33%. However much of the ed expenditure is dollars voted ant the local level and collected at the state level and the Departments role simply to distribute the voted funds to the local districts and not in the control of the Department or the administration.)  In other words 1.98 billion and 1.55 billion are big numbers.





Board Powers

Current: Lots – leave all operations the same except operation of the Department/Agency and constructing a suggested  budget.. Retain: establish advisory commissions; enter into agreements with government entities, foundations etc; examine appeals; make regulations concerning attendance, deportment, and records; make regulations; implement and update standards for student performance; graduation standards; adult education programs; approve independent schools; establish accounting procedures for districts and supervisory unions; ensure distance learning technologies; report yearly on the condition of education statewide and on a school by school basis; evaluate the equalizing effects of Vermont’s finance system and school quality standards; develop sample ballot language;

Proposal: Remove developing the budget and direct control over the Agency which was already minimal. Add –review and evaluate education policy presented by the
Governor and secretary, establish policies to guide the work of the agency, and engage local school board members and the broader education community. This gives the Board a legislative voice and a public role to hold the Agency and Governor accountable;   Approvals, appeals, rule making, quality standards the policy stuff remains.


Local Boards

Current: responsible to their district members
Proposal: No change in authority of local boards.  The Secretary would have authority over the Agency, period.  He/she would have no authority that the Commissioner does not already have unless the legislature chooses to change existing statutes.

[rod anode]

one more post..,since when does ANYTHING  the government do good ? answer NEVER . stop spending money we dont have

[mirjo]

Remember that statement, in case it comes back and bites.

[Rev. Elizabeth]

Are you proposing anarchy then, 'Rod?" Or just choosing to be contentious?  Should you stop and think, I would guess you could enumerate many many things that the government does that is good. For one, we here are FREE to make such remarks without worrying that someone will come and take us away.....

[rod anode]

the bait is laid ,the trap is set.will he get caught? join us next week for the harrowing ending to this drama

[mirjo]

While there is plenty to grouse about with any given administration, where the government is concerned (and certainly, plenty to be thankful for, as Reverend Liz pointed out), I find it interesting that the only thing that people pay money to and still feel they can lay claim to said money, is taxes. You never hear anyone ever claiming the electric/phone/gas/plumbing/chimney sweep/grocery store/condo association etc. company isn't spending the money they've paid the right way. Or that the money paid to these entities shouldn't be used for services to certain people or salaries of employees should or shouldn't be whatever they are. Even though hard earned cash is paid to these things, no one ever states it's their money being used for salaries, benefits, bonuses, advertising, renovations, supplies or anything else the company might want to spend money on.  But any tax to any government, federal, state, or local and  whatever those dollars go toward we feel (collectively) that we own it, because of said tax --or at least bitching rights to it.

It's got to be the word tax that makes people believe  the money still belongs to them. I don't get it.  Perhaps a name change would help.

[rod anode]

your right mirjo,but the money paid for services makes its way back into the community. i hope anyway

[Thor]

Apples and oranges.... with regards to all the examples Mirjo gave, those are choices. If I don't like the cost of an item at the grocery store, I can try to find a cheaper alternate or forego the purchase, if I think the phone company is raking me over the coals... I can get rid of the landline and so on. If I do not like the condo fee, I am free to move. It is not the word "tax", it is the fact that we, as individuals have no say in how it is spent. Once again, I would defer to the idea of letting us keep our money and support the things we believe in.

And as for the things that the gov't "gives us.... such as FREE speech, please see below:

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.
 
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.


What the gov't gives us, they can easily take away. Perhaps that poem should read "citizen soldier" or "patriot". But those who rely on the gov't, will willingly and incrementally give up those freedoms, in order to get just a little bit more from the big machine. That should not happen on our watch. Another great quote is from Edmund Burke... "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

[rod anode]

i like youe explaination better thor

[Norton]

Thor,

The soldier is a government employee, paid for entirely with taxes, providing a very valuable service that we, as citizens of a country, have decided to provide for ourselves by pooling our resources.  That's the very essence of government.

[rod anode]

he knows

[Thor]

Norton,

     No question about it. But recognize that the oath they take is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not an allegiance to the gov't that keeps people in uniform or even after leaving the service, keeps them willing to keep their oath. Keeping the Department of Defense going, is exactly where my taxes would go if I could choose, instead of letting the idiots in charge, who cannot balance the countries checkbook have them to do with, what they wish.

    

[Rev. Elizabeth]

I have just finished reading "Mighty is our Power" about the war in Liberia written by one of the women who won the Nobel Prize for peace; I am currently reading "Beyond the Beautiful Forever," about the slums of Mumbai.  These are two brutally frank, harsh and telling narratives about the lives and struggles of people living in dire circumstances.  One takeaway from my reading is that regardless of how we might disagree with the actions of our government, we have the right to disagree; regardless of how wrongheaded we may view some policies, we are free to express our concerns.  We  are truly fortunate to live where we do; our challenge is to be patient with those with whom we disagree and be willing to hear both sides of an issue and recognize  those places where our attitudes might change and grow by listening to and thinking about another's perspective.
 

[mirjo]

So true, Rev. There are two sides to every story and there are two sides to politics and what we know about other stories--the truth lies somewhere in the middle...everyone has something to bring to the table, but no one really wants to listen long enough to take the best from both sides...

Someone I know recently said this: "The problem is, people don't understand how the government works."

I don't know what he meant exactly, because there is a lot to infer, but I agree--at least in the way I'm interpreting his intent. I listen to what both sides of the fence are saying, with an open mind and I conclude over and over again the only real answers are not right or left, but in the middle. Nobody wins with all the fighting on capital hill. Compromising should not include holding the American people hostage and that's what seems to be happening more often than not. It's about balance. You can't realistically balance a budget by only cutting spending or raising taxes, anymore than you can lose weight by only cutting calories or exercising. It takes a combination of both to achieve the desired end result. I don't believe this is a hard concept to understand--just something political parties like to use as a battering ram on each other (& causing a rift in the American public in the mean time). It also seems there are only a few "services" or "departments" within the government that always seem to be at the top of the chopping list for cuts and they're the ones that provide help to people who need it. I'm not a Rhodes Scholar by any means, but I'm fairly certain with a budget in the trillions there has to be more than a handful of programs from which to cut. The right wing focus on social welfare programs  conveys this attitude that  anyone everyone who utilizes these programs is nothing more than a lazy degenerate, who doesn't work, has never worked, and doesn't want to have to work. These people are portrayed as lazy slobs who want things handed to them. I find this attitude pervasive among "conservatives" and it's a disgusting over generalization that is as wrong as it is unfair.

I think there are plenty of things the government does (needs to do) that it does mostly right. An entity that big (and that's not the Obama Admin, its just the US is a large country and we have a large gov. some 500 members in congress alone)  is bound to do stupid stuff and it does and we complain A LOT, but don't really use the power we possess to change things--because WE as a people can't agree. I don't feel I own the taxes I pay  after I've paid them. We choose to live in this country, like we choose to live in any town in this country. We have the choice to move elsewhere. For all of the things that are wrong with the government and the ways that I may not like them spending money, it's very likely still a whole hell of a lot better here than elsewhere. I stand by the concept that tax dollars belong to the government once they're paid and are no longer yours or mine and we have a choice to move to another country if we don't like it here.

[Thor]

Mirjo,

     The only "over generalization" is your view of the "pervasive" attitude among conservatives. It is as wrong as it is unfair! But that is what I would expect you to say, which is why we do not exchanges Christmas (can I still use that word?) cards.

                                                                                                              Thor