I am grateful for the opportunity to outline our proposal to modify the current form of higher education governance and to present what I believe are valid arguments in support of this referendum.
"What are the major barriers to communication and to unity of purpose in educational policy and budget development?" "Are there organizational changes (involving the Board of Regents, Board of Public Education, Board of Education, Office of Public Instruction and the Governor's Office) better accomplish the intent of (the Montana Constitution), Article X, Section 9". These questions were asked by the Governor's Task Force to Renew Montana Government which was convened in November, 1993. In May, 1994, the questions were presented by the Education Committee of the Task Force to the Commissioner of Higher Education, Jeff Baker: Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nancy Keenan; Executive Secretary to the Board of Public Education, Wayne Buchanan, and to me.
Commissioner Baker responded to the questions by pointing out that "K-12 and higher education have different histories, different revenue sources and different missions." He noted, however, that "the basic design of the present system with the governor heading the board of education is a good model" and that with resources, leadership, incentives and communication, the current board of education could realize its constitutional expectations. The Commissioner noted: "Montana's board of education is organizationally the model that many states would like to have; functionally, however, the board is little more than a facade."
Superintendent Keenan responded to the questions by noting that the 1972 Constitutional Convention determined by majority vote that two separate boards, a Board of Public Education and a Board of Regents of Higher Education, would best serve the "specialized" interests of K-12 and post-secondary education. In her response to the Task Force, she continued: "My reading of the transcripts suggests that the State Board of Education was never intended to be much more than a gathering of two boards "just in case" they needed to communicate with each other." Superintendent Keenan suggested that with the Governor taking an active role in the leadership of the Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction serving as secretary and executive to the board, "communications and collaboration should improve."
Executive Secretary to the Board of Public Education Wayne Buchanan, noted in his response: "It is simply not practical under the present configuration to ask the Board of Public Education to meet with the Board of Regents to determine. for example, a joint education budget."
Finally, the following is an excerpt from my response to the Task Force: "A matter of concern to many and confusion to most is the cumbersome combination of two appointed boards with varying degrees of authority, a board-appointed commissioner, an elected superintendent who serves the dual role of advocate and manager, and a governor who is responsible for a $1.8 billion general fund budget, of which 60% is dedicated to education. The arrangement begs the question as to how, when and who is held accountable for the state-wide effectiveness and efficiency of public education."
A specific matter of concern is the absence of a statutory responsibility of the Governor to assess fully the appropriate link between education policy and expenditures required to carry out the duties of the Office of Public Instruction or the Board of Regents. The Budget Office is involved in the school budget process in only a peripheral manner. Without the ability and responsibility to coordinate closely education policy with the education budget, it is not possible to give the same kind of direction to education that the Governor's Office gives to other essential sen ices like health or human resource programs.
A second matter of concern is the scope and authority of the University System budget which resides with the Board of Regents. Again, it is difficult to fully coordinate policy with the budget and to defend budget requests when there is not a direct line of accountability to the Governor's Office.
The collective response to the questions posed by the Task Force is telling: a) the current configuration was confusing when it was conceived in 1972; b) attempts to implement the configuration to its fullest constitutional intent have been limited and in many instances unacceptable to the legislature and the people of Montana. Throughout the twenty-three year lifespan of the governance structure, it has been riddled with conflicting interpretations due to its complicated origins, passive resistance. and to some extent. a concerted effort to ignore its constitutional directives. In essence, the three boards. the Board of Public Education the Board of Regents and the combination of both boards. which is the Board of Education have operated independently of each other for more than 20 years. More to the point, they have operated independently of any executive branch agencies. and in the case of the Board of Regents. at least somewhat independently of the Legislature.
It is as clear to me today as it was when the questions were first raised in May, 1994: the current education governance structure does not work on behalf of higher education as well as the new model that has been proposed would. It is cumbersome and confusing. It is not the system of checks and balances that it was intended to be. Instead it has engendered a dispersal of responsibility and accountability. It has fostered a sense of autonomy among stakeholders.
If effective collaboration occurs within the current system, it is dependent upon the good will and noble intentions of all participants. I recognize a number of current education administrators have put forth tremendous effort toward collaboration and consensus building. However, l maintain that an efficient system should not have to depend upon only the personalities of the participants. It should be the inescapable result of governance structure. There must be a more effective, more responsive, better-connected way for Montanans to govern education.
In December 1994, I received the following recommendation from the Governor's Task Force to Renew Montana Government:
The Task Force recommends amending Article X of the Montana Constitution. to create a Department of Education. headed by a director appointed by and reporting to the Governor and the creation of a constitutionally based State Education Commission. The recommendation would require a constitutional amendment because the proposal eliminates the Board of Regents (and commissioner of higher education), the Board of Public Education (and its executive secretary), the Board of Education and the elected superintendent of public instruction. Because the elected superintendent serves on the Land Board, the board should be reconfigured with three members (governor, attorney general, and state auditor). Control of school districts would continue to be vested in local boards of trustees as provided by the constitution.
Prior to presenting the above recommendation, the Task Force circulated their proposals to Montanans and requested Montanans to vote as to whether they supported or opposed creating a single unified Department of Education to manage Montana's kindergarten through graduate school programs. Of the 684 Montanans responding 525, or 77% supported the recommendation compared with 159, or 23% who opposed it. In a separate survey, titled "Renewing Government Survey of Ambassadors," dated February 1994, 43 of 67 voted in favor of the recommendation while 16 were opposed. It is worth noting that Montana Ambassadors, to whom this survey was sent, is a volunteer organization of community leaders with a common dedication to living and doing business in Montana. Finally, in a survey of 400 Montanans conducted by Montana State University-Billings, 153 respondents or 38% voted in favor of a new Department of Education while 97 respondents or 24% recommended leaving the current structure in place. Of those remaining, 17.9% said there should be a different structure and 19.9% responded that they did not know.
I accepted the Task Force recommendation and incorporated it into the Governor's legislative proposals for the 1995 legislative session. Based on a belief that each proposal deserved individual attention and should be judged on its own merits, Representative Sonny Hanson separated the recommendation into two bills. Representative Hanson sponsored House Bill 228, which proposed submitting an amendment to Article X, Section 9, to the qualified electors that, if passed, would replace the state Board of Education, the Board of Public Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction with a Department of Education and a State Education Commission. House Bill 228 was not successful in passing the Senate Education Committee.
Representative Hanson also sponsored House Bill 229 which proposed replacing the Board of Education? the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Higher Education with the Department of Education and a State Education Commission. House Bill 229 successfully passed the legislature with the required two-thirds vote. Because the legislation requires an amendment to the constitution, the proposal will be placed on the ballot in the form of a referendum in the 1996 general election.
We have maintained, and the Legislature has provided, that this change, if approved by the voters, should not become effective until the year 2001 in order to allow for an orderly transition and so that the current occupants in elected and appointed positions would not be affected? given statutory and contract term limitations. Our intent is to construct a more efficient, accountable, and persuasive governance structure for the University System and not to remove power or authority from those presently performing assigned public responsibilities.
Why would we endorse this measure when it is only one part of the proposal to untangle an otherwise confusing and cumbersome education governance structure? Because we believe
the public has lost its sense of ownership of education. We believe the public feels distanced and disenfranchised from education governance. We believe the public deserves the right to be informed and to decide upon the appropriate form of education governance. We recognize that the replacement of the Board of Regents and the Commissioner's Office with a Department of Education and an Education Commission will not fully resolve the matter. However, we are committed to bring back--perhaps in increments--ownership and accountability to the student and to the taxpayer.
Could Montana's current board of education model provide the leadership, direction, resources, and incentives that have been lacking for over 20 years? I have doubts. If it has not consistently done so in 20 years. it is likely not to do so consistently in the future.
Our office has long been aware of the possibilities that exist under the current structure as outlined in Article X, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. We are also aware of the responsibilities of the Governor as outlined in Section 20-2-101, Montana Code Annotated. While this office has been dedicated from the beginning to performing, in a serious and collegial fashion, its responsibilities to education, we have been cognizant of a number of barriers some of which are outlined herein, that prevent us from fully addressing: a) long range planning; b) coordinating and evaluating policies and programs; c) reviewing and unifying the budget requests of the Board of Regents and the Board of Public Education; and d) submitting a unified budget request to the Budget Office. The barriers are not only constitutional and statutory, but they are the result of past practice, tradition and philosophy which has long been embedded in the education structure. I refer you to the Legislative Council's legal memorandum of 1989 (see Appendix 10), as an example of the statutory and constitutional conflict regarding a unified budget. Further, a review of the past agendas and minutes of meetings of the Board of Education clearly demonstrates that very little of its attention and effort has been focused on the significant responsibilities outlined in Title 20.
Do not misunderstand. I do not condemn recent efforts at change in education. I commend numerous high school teachers and university professors for their cooperative efforts in such programs as the Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science (SIMMS). SIMMS is an excellent collaborative program earned forward by teachers and professors who have a vision to improve the way students learn math and science. l also commend the participants in the collaborative negotiations and quality agreements that are being implemented on each campus. These agreements signify a new direction and a new era of cooperation among professionals on the campuses. They signify a new era of accountability to the taxpayer and students as well. They are examples of positive change beginning at the practitioner's level--precisely where it should begin. However, there needs to be a unified. consistent effort put forth to ensure that all schools and campuses are afforded the same opportunities to improve learning and working conditions.
Montanans want cooperation that results from shared vision, joint long-range planning and combined resources h not just in special project areas. Collaborative efforts and cooperative agreements under the current education model have not ensured, in and of themselves, the efficient use of tax dollars nor will they ensure quality. Montana needs an education governance structure that requires accountability and efficiency. This means one locus of responsibility for budget determinations and distribution of funds, as well as for policy development and technical program assistance. That governance structure needs to be responsible and responsive to the people through their elected officials, school district trustees, legislators and governors.
I suggest that the missing components of an efficient seamless system are: a) a single locus of responsibility and authority; and b) accountability. The importance of these critical components have not been embraced in the period after the 1972 Constitutional Convention.
Current educational and labor market data tell us that we need to focus on educating Montanans from early childhood through grade 12 and beyond. New national programs such as school-to-work opportunities, as well as new directions in our state such as the university restructuring that has taken place, demand that we consider our educational institutions as part of a K-16 and beyond system. Students need to make well-informed decisions regarding their career plans in light of their knowledge and skills and the course offerings at each of the respective higher education units. Any perceived stigma of two-year education and technical education needs to be replaced with a keen understanding about the jobs of the next century and the kind--as well as level--of knowledge and skills that will be required. One critical ingredient of economic development, that is workforce preparation, needs to be intertwined with business and industry demands. Our future workforce, our students, should be encouraged to begin thinking about their career interests, their personal talents, knowledge, skills and abilities in the early grades. The educational system needs to prepare a curriculum that provides a solid basic foundation of knowledge, along with career preparation and the learning of skills that will transfer from one job to another. Economic developers need to keep constant vigil with the schools to inform them of workforce needs. It seems that this kind of dynamic partnership would best take place in a seamless system that is well-coordinated and in which all levels of education are equal.
To provide a new framework and leadership to accomplish that end, we need more than ever to begin looking at long-range, unified and consistent planning; we need to advocate for the best education system Montana has ever had; we need to put into place a more comprehensive education budget; and we need to continue to provide responsible and responsive management. The position that performs those responsibilities should be placed on equal footing with other cabinet-level positions, and the chief executive should have overall supervisory authority and responsibility to deliver results.
There are those who may be concerned about preserving professors' and students' right and freedom to express their opinions should a Governor appoint the Director of the Department of Education. The classroom is the laboratory for exploration and free expression. It is also the ideal arena for challenging ideas. That right is not only protected by our constitution, but it is reinforced by the Wrongful Discharge Act.
Will all potential governors of the future care about the education governance system? They must. A full 60% of the s general fund budget is spent on education. Economic development depends on workforce preparation. Workforce preparation is a primary mission of our education s stem. The education community recognizes that it does not exist in isolation. Rather, it is an integral player in attracting and retaining businesses, enhancing family health and well-being, preventing crime, conducting research, and contributing to the economic well-being of our state. Governors should be held accountable for education spending as well as education policy.
As I noted earlier, the most important mission of this article is to encourage the public to reclaim ownership. responsibility. and authority for education in Montana. I encourage readers lo exercise their responsibility to inform themselves and to decide for themselves by casting a vote in November 1996 as to how education should be governed in Montana.