Error processing SSI file

 

 Error processing SSI file

The Faculty Senate
Gainesville, Florida 32611

AJ Layon, MD

Chairman UF Faculty Senate

 SUS Governance Issues

AJ Layon, MD

Chairman UF Faculty Senate

2 March, 2001

 

SUMMARY POINTS

 

1.       Community College and State University System governance should be separate from the Board of Education’s pre-kindergarten through grade 12 responsibility;

 

2.       Any alteration in the SUS governance structure should devolve most responsibility to Boards of Trustees, but keep a coordinating board with some of the functions of the present Board of Regents.  These functions would include, at least, programmatic planning and lump sum budgeting.

 

3.       Both the Board of Regents and the Boards of Trustees must have student and faculty members.

 

4.       To prevent further inappropriate political attempts at micro-management, a discussion should be had as to the wisdom of making the Board of Regents a constitutional entity.

 

AREAS OF CONCERN

ISSUES

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

A. K- 20 Seamless Educational System

i. BOE must have competency related to pre-K through 12, State University System & Community Colleges [SUS/CC].

ii. Coordination and cooperation between BOE, CC, and SUS excellent concept.

iii. Unlikely that the BOE can focus on needs of pre-K through 12 and, as well, have competency related to SUS and CC system

i. Separate but coordinated administrative systems.

ii. Extensive focus on pre-K through 12 reform and preparation of children for advanced education.

 

i. Pre-K through 12 recognized as needing attention and funding.

i. Goal to achieve funding at the 50th percentile for pre-k through 12 [Nationally] within 3 years.

ii. Within 10 years goal should be to achieve and remain the top 1/3 of nation for funding of pre-K through 12.

iii. This includes both capital and operations budgets.

 

i. SUS/CC will be lost in the Pre-K through 12 majority focus.  Little attention will be paid to the SUS and CC system.

i. Pre-K through 12 is recognized as being in dire need of attention.  This was the impulse of the CRC recommendations and the BOE amendment.  BOE must be charged with focus on the early education of our children so that they are better prepared for advanced education when arriving in the SUS & CC system.

Ii. Coordination/collaboration is a must.  Thus Pre-K through 12 plus SUS & CC system will need to work together but remain governed separately.

B. Discovery

i. Requires a mindset that encourages questioning of everything.  Not the same as Pre-K through 12 mind set/administration.  May result in an unintentional limitation of requirements for discovery.  Ultimately resulting in weakening of the SUS.

i. Early attention in pre-K through 12 system to teaching about and training for inquiry. This requires a discipline and skill set that is beyond the FCAT-focused processes of today.

ii. This will assist in the preparation of the scholars of tomorrow while they are in primary and secondary school.

iii. Pre-K through 12 administration must be kept separate from that of the SUS & CC system.

 

i. Discovery is a process that requires integration into the national and international arenas. City, county, and state are common vantage-points for the BOE which is usually and appropriately concerned with pre-K through 12.

i. Children in pre-K through 12 must be taught basics as well as rudiments of the investigative process.

ii. The outward-looking focus of investigators in the SUS must be nurtured. This will be most difficult with the SUS rolled into a BOE primarily focused with pre-K through 12.

 

i. Risk of limiting and then losing the top researchers and teachers that we most want for the SUS.

i. The SUS is not pre-K through 12 for “older kids”. These cultures are different but related.  Coordination is a must, consolidation is not.

C. Coordination of the SUS

i. Recognition that BOR was/is imperfect:

     -- Regents of varying quality and qualification;

     -- Chancellor a political actor;

ii. But BOR’s most serious error was political, not strategic or technical.

iii. Programmatic, strategic, and budgetary planning require non-political and systemic approach.  SUS is a state, national, and international not just a regional resource.

i. Overall policy guidelines to be set by the BOE, CC Board and the BOR, with important input from Governor and Legislature.

ii. Coordinating, budgeting, and strategic planning should remain a centralized BOR function.

iii. Devolve appropriate powers to local Boards of Trustees, who with the President will manage the day-to-day functioning of the campus.

iv. A student and faculty member should serve on each BOT.

v. Student and faculty members should serve on the BOR, with appointments rotating from each campus of the SUS.

D. Political Influence

i. Legislature and Governor have legitimate and important roles to play in the SUS/CC:

     -- Budget discussion, review, approval or denial;

     -- Appointments;

     --Planning with the BOR/BOR equivalent.

ii. Inappropriate influence in the SUS/CC will result in the minimization and denigration of the real and important roles that the political process plays in the management of this resource.  There are examples:

     -- The Johns Committee;

     -- As noted in the Space Era Educational Study;

     -- Latest threat being that to with-hold funds to the University of Miami’s Medical School because President Donna Shalala had been a member of the Clinton Administration.

iii. Inappropriate influence will result in the exodus of the best students and faculty.

iv. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools [SACS], one of our accrediting bodies, has already raised the issue on non-accreditation related to political interference.

i. Inappropriate influence by the Governor and Legislature must be kept out of the CC/SUS.

ii. BOE, BOR, and BOT members must have staggered appointments of from 6 to 12 years, not the 4 years presently proposed.

iii. Criteria for appointment must exist other than the appointees are not felons and donors to the Governor or his/her party. These criteria ought to include, minimally, interest, expertise, and experience in education.

iv. The Governor should only be able to remove BOE, BOR, BOT members for cause. Presently the Governor can remove an entire Board at his/her whim.

v. The SUS CC System must have a “firewall” between it and the political process. For this reason, a BOR ought to be retained with the above-noted responsibilities.

vi. The Governor and Legislature must get serious about adequately funding pre-K through 12, the Community College System, and the SUS.  All problems are not solved by “throwing money” at them.  Florida’s education problem, however, is centrally a financial one.  We are the second or third from the bottom in terms of funding effort for education in our country.

E. Competition for Funding

i. BOR/BOR equivalent required for coordination of budgeting and programs.

ii. Chaos will ensue if each of the 10 SUS campuses circumvent the appointed Chancellor to get programmatic and funding support from the Legislature.  This is already a recognized problem.

iii. Legislative “delegation rich” areas would overwhelm “delegation poor” areas in terms of funding and programmatic support.  Again, this will result in educational chaos, not improvement.

iv. There is the potential for proliferation of expensive programs [Law, Medicine….] to the detriment to both the State and the programs.

v. The battle at the Mag Lab, several years ago [FSU and UF] should place a damper on the assertion that the Presidents would not engage in “cut-throat” competition for funding when the BOR is not around to limit this type of activity.

i. Resources are too scarce to be thrown away.  New programs ought have more rationale than the desire of a legislator.

ii. The maintenance of the BOR with the planning, budgeting, and coordinating functions noted above, will help to ensure that competition for funding is based upon educational and programmatic quality, not political expediency.

F. Faculty Recruitment/Pay

i. Bargaining units on each campus instead of the present one system-wide unit will make it harder to reach compensation equality.

ii. There could be a “bidding war” for the best faculty.  This is not good for the SUS, even if for the individual faculty it is pleasant.

iii. Ten different bargaining units will be wasteful for all concerned [EGRTF, Recommendations, p. 1].

i. One bargaining unit is required.

ii. This would be one of the functions coordinated by the BOR.

iii. Adequate funding must be provided by the Governor and Legislature for pre-K through 12, the Community College system, and the SUS. Presently UF obtains only ~ 20% of it funding through the State.

G. Board of Education/Board of Trustees

i. BOE will have inadequate focus on the SUS:

     -- Pre-K through 12 need attention and appropriate funding;

     -- SUS/CC require some reforms;

     -- Attention will be, of necessity, to the Pre-K through 12 educational system, while the SUS risks becoming a backwater.

     -- Hence the need for a BOR/BOR equivalent to focus on the SUS.

ii. Governor appoints all members of the BOE, BOT:

     -- Staggered terms of 4 years [EGRTF, p. 3];

     -- Criteria for BOE/BOT are remarkably vague: demonstrated leaders, successful, “…have been in some way involved in educational policy issues…”, have strong character and personal integrity [EGRTF, p. 3];

     -- Terms limits: 2.

iii. Board of Trustees

     -- Hires President.  Search out of the sunshine until one final selection is made and sent to the Chancellor/BOE for “ratification” [EGRTF, p. 2]. Thereafter the search is in the sunshine. A good discussion point, but this may be abused.

     -- Performs annual reviews of the President and fires.  What are the reasons that the BOT may fire a President ? Unclear/not stated.

The issues noted here are commented upon and recommendations made in section D.

H. Legality

i. Really only one issue here.  As discussed in the report: Cramer, WC Jr: Jurisdiction of the State Board of Education under the Constitutional Revision of 1998— A Judicial Perspective and the Consequences for the Governance of Education in Florida.  Prepared for the Commissioner’s Blue-Ribbon Committee on Educational Governance. 7 January, 2000.   Is this change legal ?

 

 

 

I. General Issues:

i. There are phrases that appear without any definition throughout the report of the EGRTF:

     -- What is a “Seamless Educational System” ? [p.8];

     -- What does “Student Centered” mean ? [p. 8];

     -- What does the term “Maximize education access and academic success for all Floridians” mean ? [p. 9];

     -- What does the term “Safeguard equity” mean ? [p. 9];

     -- What does the phrase “Refuse to compromise academic excellence” mean ? [p. 9];

     What does the phrase “Maximize local control” mean ? [p. 9];

ii. Are these bromides, buzz-words, or policy statements ?  What do they mean and how are they made operational ?

i. Catchy terms do not make an educational system.  If the Governor and Legislature want a world class educational system, they will have to find the resources for its creation.

ii. The reorganization we need to carry out should be focused on the pre-K through 12 component of the educational system in Florida.  The SUS requires some revision, as well, but not the radical surgery being proposed by the Handy Task Force. Recognized leaders in the field of education must be brought into any Task Force that seeks to overhaul the State’s Educational System.  This has not been the case to date.

iii. Not withstanding the good intentions of Mr. Handy and his colleagues, the proposals they recommend will not reform our educational system, but bring it to its knees.

 

back to HotTopics