
A Bold Stroke to Return Local Control
Nebraska's state
education commissioner, Doug Christensen, is radiating a lot of angst these
days. As our state ed department's chief compliance officer, he's in a fit over
the U.S. Department of Education's recent rebuke. The feds are saying that,
under his leadership, Nebraska is not in compliance with federal education
regulations on school quality, and it's going to cost us some of our Title I
federal funding.
The
brouhaha all stems from the goofy accountability system that Christensen
designed and railroaded across the state, and its inability to meet the
requirements of No Child Left Behind.
See www.nde.state.ne.us/documents/NCLBASSMTMRDMO70506.pdf
for Christensen's response to the feds, and their letter on www.nde.state.ne.us/documents/USDEASSMTLTR070506.pdf
Christensen
has planted his feet and locked Nebraska in to his vision of what
accountability should be. It doesn't matter that the feds, plus most objective
observers whose salaries are not paid by public schools, disagree that his
system is the best. He has the power, and that's that. Meanwhile, the public
will, and the fortunes of the low-income children whose educations Title I
funding is supposed to be helping, don't matter one bit.
So what do
we do now? There's a simple answer: give him a nice buyout contract equal to
the money the feds are withholding, and reorganize the way we govern K-12
education in Nebraska. That's a cool $126,741 for Christensen, free and clear,
plus his pension, which will be sizeable. He's at retirement age. I bet he'd
take it.
And in the
long run, having an elected state schools chief would save us many, many times
that amount. So we'd all be better off.
In a
perfect world, we'd also withdraw from federal funding and get out from under
the feducrats entirely . . . but let's take one constructive step at a time.
We need to
elect our state schools chief, pay him (or her) less money than we do now, and
put him (or her) on an equal footing with the State Board of Education, instead
of having an appointed state schools chief cracking the whip over the elected
state board members, rendering them mere rubber stamps for whatever policies he
(or she) would like to impose. That's how we got into this embarrassing mess
with our wacky assessment scandal.
It's an
opportune time: Nebraska has a black eye over our noncompliance with NCLB, the
mess over OPS, the embarrassment over the Class I schools educratic terrorism, the
shame of the equity lawsuits, the decades of a persistent and despicable chasm
between educational attainment based on skin color and family income, and ongoing
woes regarding escalating school spending and tax increases.
The natives
are restless. Change is in the air. The best way to restore power to the people
is to make their officials accountable to them, by making those officials
elected, not appointed.
Last time I
checked, Christensen's salary was the highest among state government employees
except for a few state psychiatrists - which paints a picture in itself. I
think he was making around $125,000, but that was a few years ago. Plenty of
people would be delighted to have his job for half as much. It would still be
far more than most teachers make in this state, and certainly, the state
schools chief should be making less than the governor and other constitutional
officers, instead of so much more.
Most of
all, instead of having an appointed state schools chief, we really need to be
electing that person from now on. It's long past time. All we've had in the
last 25 years is more and more tangential regulation and more and more
nonacademic mumbo-jumbo, because people who are insulated from the public -
such as appointed educrats - can't help but O.D. on compliance issues instead
of education issues.
That's what
educrats do - obsess over regs and compliance.
But what we
NEED is someone who will obsess over why poor kids aren't doing as well in
school and what we can do for them, and how we can save our priceless country
schools, and how we can get more bang for the bucks that Nebraska taxpayers are
forking over to our schools.
Those are
huge issues, of crucial importance to the public, that Christensen hasn't
addressed. Why? Because he's been so busy arm-wrestling with the feds over
NCLB, and his own ego trip over his own weird design for Nebraska's "study your
own navel" assessment system.
No offense
to Christensen, but if we want elected citizens to maintain control over our
schools, we need someone who's accountable to us in that job, instead of
someone whose job description calls for him (or her) to just think up more regs
and schmooze with other educrats and union wonks, with no need to give a rip
what the people who pay his (or her) salary really want from our schools.
It's
unclear whether Christensen knows that the concerns he communicates to
Nebraskans - standards, assessments, all-day kindergarten, globalism,
increasing loss of privacy and increasing data collection on individual
students and teachers - are all boilerplate for a nationalized school system.
They're the same issues being parroted all across the country. They're not addressing
Nebraska's unique school needs, or the real challenges we face, at all. That's
what we get for having a state schools chief whose allegiances are to other
state schools chiefs and feducrats, rather than listening to what Nebraska
policymakers and the public want and need.
Christensen
is in a no-win situation; we need to create a system of school leadership in
which we all can win. We elect the governor; we elect the state treasurer; we
elect all kinds of people to do all kinds of jobs on state, county and local
levels. Why, oh why, wouldn't we elect the person in charge of what may be our
important governmental function, which is to preside over K-12 education?
We really
need to elect the person who monitors and regulates our schools, because Big Government
and special-interest groups, notably the labor unions, have stolen away local
control from our school boards, local teachers and, most regrettably, local
parents, taxpayers and voters.
Are we
going to stand for that? Or do we have the guts to give Christensen a
well-earned gold watch and a very nice retirement nest egg . . . and go back to
the books on what we really want in the way of school leadership?