Testimony on Education Governance Proposals
Paul Reville, Chairman, Massachusetts Board of Education
January 29, 2008
Good morning. My name is Paul Reville. I am chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education, president of the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy and director of the Education Policy and Management Program at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education where I am a lecturer on the policy and politics of education.
As chairman of the state Board, no one is prouder of its rich tradition than I am. No one is more protective of its prerogatives than I have been and continue to be. It is with this sense of pride and protectiveness that I am here today to tell you that I fully support Governor Deval Patrick’s Article 87 proposal for governance changes. I do so because I believe these changes will be ultimately beneficial for students and educators while not interfering with the independence and authority of the Board of Education.
Various governors, in the past two decades have proposed reorganizations. Often these proposals have called for the creation of an education “czar,” an all powerful, politically appointed cabinet secretary whose authority would supercede that of the various education boards. I have consistently opposed such proposals as encroachments on the independence of the Board of Education. Similarly, I opposed proposals to create an extraordinarily powerful chairman of the Board of Education when the then Republican governor and the Democratic leadership of the Legislature made significant governance changes to strengthen the role of the then new Board chairman in 1996. I felt these changes served to politicize the Board, make it less representative, yet more responsive to the chair and Governor while at the same time, packing its membership with ideologically similar people. Some years later, when the Governor’s education advisor was made chair of the Board, I thought that was a bad idea also, as was the fact that the decision on appointing the last Commissioner and the then incoming Board chair was essentially a deal worked out behind closed doors in the then Governor’s office.
Suffice it to say, we’ve had many twists and turns on governance in recent years. Now, we have a new Governor coming forward to propose his own set of changes. He, too, initially favored a strong education secretariat, an education czar. Nonetheless, he appointed me, a known opponent of such a concept, as the co-chair of his Governance Task Force. Over time, the Governor has shaped a much more modest, but still important proposal to create a secretariat which will truly be dedicated to comprehensive, cross sector planning, coordinating and budgeting. That a Secretary would have authority in these areas is only natural if greater coordination is, as I believe it is, a worthwhile goal.
We need to break down the silos in the world of education to encourage greater efficiency and better transitions for our students. We need to accelerate progress to creating a seamless pre Kindergarten through college education system that truly educates every child to proficiency. At the moment, our education sector is too fragmented to realize this dream, but a competent Secretary of Education, operating with the Governor’s authority can make interagency collaboration a daily reality.
For example, the Secretary would have the power to regularly convene an education cabinet composed of board chairs and commissioners in each of the sectors as well as the heads of other youth related agencies in the area of employment and training and health and human services. Such a cabinet could be a very important instrument for making interagency collaboration a reality so that children, especially poor children, receive comprehensive, coordinated services, the kind of support that will be essential if we are truly to realize our dream of having all children achieve proficiency.
At the same time, the Governor proposes to restore a couple of seats to the Board. When I first served on the state Board of Education, we had 17 members and did a good job of representing various constituencies across the Commonwealth. When the Board was radically down-sized to 9 members in 1996, a move which I testified in opposition to, it became far less representative and there ensued at least a decade of profound alienation between the Board and the field in education. This alienation had deleterious effects on policy and practice. The increase in size to 11 members will not only enable the Board to be more representative, it will give us sufficient size to create subcommittees which will enable us to become more efficient and effective in our work.
And though I will sorely miss both the Chancellor of Higher Education and the Commissioner of Early Childhood Education should they depart the Board, I know that our new Commissioner will be working closely with them and their time, and the time of Commissioner-elect Chester, will be better spent in engaging collaboratively through the new mechanisms that the Secretary of Education will create.
As to the re-staggering of terms, this is a change that simply restores balance to the Board. The staggering of terms had disappeared due to a combination of historical accident and political manipulation. Re-instituting staggering will enable the Board to be, as it should be, only modestly and gradually responsive to changes in leadership made by the electorate. In this way, the Board is partially buffered from sudden political changes, providing the children in the education system some measure of protection from sudden lurches of change.
The Board’s existing powers would be substantially the same were the proposed governance changes to pass. In reality, the Board has never been fully independent. For example, we lack budgetary power. Our budget is always submitted as part of the Administration’s budget proposal much as is the budget of other departments. We do not make policy in a vacuum either. We shape our policies and regulations in accordance with the legislative intent.
On the other hand, we do have autonomy in making our policy decisions and that autonomy would in no way be compromised or diminished with this set of changes. We would retain the same range of powers we have today with one exception. We would have to share decision making powers on appointing a new Commissioner with the Secretary. The Board would be the sole nominator of a single candidate for the Commissioner’s post and the Secretary could approve of or veto that candidate. However, once a Commissioner was appointed, he would serve strictly and exclusively at the pleasure of the Board. This is the crucial autonomy to protect.
Incidentally, Governors, in recent decades, seeking to influence Board decisions, have been deeply involved in the appointment of Commissioners. When I was on the Board in the early 1990’s, Governor Weld actually sat with the Board to interview finalists and then made his preference known to Board members. Later as already mentioned, Governor Cellucci brokered the appointment of Commissioner Driscoll when the Board of Education deadlocked and failed to make an appointment. Ironically, Governor Patrick has probably been least involved of any recent Governor in the appointment of a Commissioner out of his deference to an autonomous Board on which he’s appointed only two members. Governor Patrick interviewed all three finalists privately then revealed his preference only to me, and I did not share that information with the Board. I appreciated the Governor’s willingness to honor the Board’s independence and take this action as a sign of how he and the Secretary will operate in the future.
In conclusion, let me say that education is, and should be, a public enterprise subject to political processes. Politics is the clash of values and the resolution of those clashes through the legitimate functioning of our democratic and political system. No enterprise more deeply reflects our values than education, so, naturally, education policy is and should be subject to our political processes.
I find it preciously naïve, or downright disingenuous, in some people to pretend that education can or should be insulated from politics. Not so coincidentally, such concerns generally arise only when the plaintiff’s ideology is out of power. But that’s another story.
In the end, the success of this set of governance changes will depend on people and leadership. Governance changes are generally overestimated in their capacity to have a real impact on student learning. I believe this set of changes, the kind of coordination and cohesiveness promised by these modest reforms, can lead to genuine improvement of our education system and hence real benefits to students. However, this result will depend on picking the right leader, someone not seeking to build an empire, but someone seeking to fulfill the clear intent of this proposal that is to create a seamless, cohesive education and youth development system that will provide sufficient advantages to all our students so that achievement gaps will be closed and all students will attain full proficiency and success.
These proposals aren’t a silver bullet, but they could be a big help, and I urge you to give them your full approval. Thank you.
