But the Superintendent has duties that overlap with other, top appointed California officials: the Secretary of Education, State Board of Education, and State Education Department. A state senate subcommittee discussed a possible separation of duties for these policymakers at a hearing in San Diego last week chaired by local State Senator Carol Liu (participants listed below).

The hearing focused on two reports’ recommendations: the 2002 California Master Plan for Education, and the 2007 Governance Committee on Education Excellence findings.

Apart from changes in duties, the only downsizing proposal targeted a second-tier Executive Director and staff for the State Education Board within the Department of Education.

Notes from the discussion:

Paul Warren reported on current responsibilities: The governor, legislature, Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), State Board of Education (SBE), Commission on Teacher Credentialing, State Allocation Board, (and the list could go on) all have a say in education policy, the education budget, or other aspects of K-12 administration. There is too much separation between many of these offices and the education system, and too many decision makers. This 1) reduces the transparency of the system, 2) increases the state’s role (at local expense), and 3) increases chances for conflict.

Both the SPI and SBE are responsible for education policy. Dede Alpert commented, “When everybody’s in charge, nobody’s in charge.”

Ted Mitchell commented, “The system is the problem; no piecemeal reforms will work; and any reform must recognize teaching and local leadership with decisions made closest to students. Money should go directly to districts and schools, with the state holding them accountable for results.”

Mitchell criticized current (and conflicting) accountability measures, which focus on both inputs and outputs, “It creates annoyance in the field with too much compliance checking.” He advocated a focus on outputs (results) only.

Mitchell also noted that the SPI has a conflict of interest when the office is both responsible for administering education, has fiscal responsibility, and serves as a public advocate. “What we need most is honest accountability around the outcomes; we should free the SPI from running a department that it is also responsible for evaluating.”

State Senator Gloria Romero (currently a candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction) praised the proposal to refocus the SPI’s role, and said that the relationship between the SPI and the Secretary of Education would be a key to improving governance. Dede Alpert suggested that the politics and timing for implementing this suggestion were right, as a new SPI would be elected in the coming year, while Mitchell likened the project of changing roles and duties to a “base closing commission – we are not minimizing the politics of this!”

Panel members recommended starting a system of school inspections (later, during public comment, the cost and intrusiveness of this proposal was questioned. The commenter suggested that instead, schools and districts should be required to post all financial, program, and testing data online in one consistent format).

As new chair of the Subcommittee on Educational Governance and Accountability, Senator Liu moderated the discussion and gathered recommendations. Panel members suggested a bipartisan committee charged with improving governance as the first step.

Participants in the subcommittee hearing:

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

Senator Gloria Romero (D-East Los Angeles)

Senator Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad)

Paul Warren, Legislative Analyst’s Office

Dede Alpert, former legislator and Chair of Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Education

Ted Mitchell, President, State Board of Education and Chair of Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence

Fire Chief Harold Scoggins did a good imitation of a controlled burn at yesterday’s city council meeting, when he defended his department’s salary and overtime compensation. His presentation can be seen on the video archive of the meeting -1 hour, 36 minutes into the meeting. Scoggins forcefully defended the department’s structure and compensation levels, and rebutted claims that Glendale crews are overstaffed and overpaid compared to LA County’s Fire Department. He also informed listeners that some overtime payments (which were reimbursed) went to Glendale crews who fought wildfires in other parts of California last year.

Scoggins voiced this defense before the council ratified Glendale firefighters’ voluntary offer to forgo $3 million in pay raises over the next two years, and after speakers Mike Mohill and Herbert Molano again criticized current salary levels. Today’s Glendale News Press reports that city council members “railed against Fire Department critics for what they said were unsubstantiated and malicious attacks.”

The battle over firefighters’ compensation, and activists’ focus on firefighters and other city staff receiving salaries over $100,000, is really a proxy war. The larger, unmanageable conflict is between private citizens and what they believe is bloated, irresponsible government at all levels. But how do citizens fight the state of California’s budget, or lack of effective oversight in the U.S. Congress?

At the state level, the populist answer is not to vote for the state budget propositions. But our representatives are warning us that dire consequences will ensue. State Senator Carol Liu said at her March 28 Town Hall meeting that their passage is crucial to ensuring that California doesn’t end up looking like a Third World nation. When asked about cutting waste from state government (”starving the beast”) instead, Liu didn’t directly address the point of her constituent’s question. She answered that without the new taxes, the DMV might not be open five days a week, and other services currently provided would have to be cut.

At the national level, here in Glendale we can only listen to House Financial Services Committee members (whom we can’t vote out of office) rage against the executives and companies they were supposed to be supervising all along. Just recently, they proposed retrospective legislation limiting “unreasonable and excessive compensation standards”. The Atlantic Business blog reviews the legislation and some of its critics. For those who might enjoy rants on the subject, this blogger wonders if we could apply the legislation to Committee chair Barney Frank, and this one suggests that we start with members of Congress.

Finally, today’s Wall Street Journal feeds the flames with its article about bonuses awarded in 2008 to U.S. Congressional staffers.