|
|
Some
Random Thoughts on the Commission: A Keynote, of Sorts |
Keynote
Address by Terry Sanford
Former Governor of North Carolina
Co-founder, Education Commission of the States
First Annual Meeting
Chicago, June 13, 1966
This is the day on which the politicians and the educators of the American states join forces officially as a working partnership for the good of the nation.
The coming of this day is a short story. One year and four months ago several people agreed, quite unofficially, that the concept of a compact of the states, for the purpose of improving education, was worth a try. Exactly 13 months ago, on May 12, 1965, in Washington, the idea was presented to representatives of more than 100 associations and organizations whose concern is education.
The fact that this compact has grown together more rapidly than any other compact, and a nationwide compact at that, and with all segments of education in each state participating, is dramatic evidence that the states understand the role demanded of them, and that they are ready to go.
That this compact has been embraced by small states and larger states, wealthy and struggling, from the Midwest and the South, the Far West and New England, illustrates the urge and commitment to improve educational advantages are found among all people everywhere in this vast country.
This Education Commission, the product of the Compact, the agency of the American States
united in historic first meeting today, now enables the states to do together what they could not do near so well alone.
The Commission cannot do everything. That will be good to remember. It can do one thing. It can fail, and that also is good to remember. But it need not. It has such a wonderful chance to succeed. The Commission must assume leadership, but not simply for itself. For it will not be measured by what it does at annual meetings, nor in positions taken, nor studies made, nor the number of members, nor in statistics of questions answered and papers published. In the final analysis, the success of the Commission will be determined by how well it becomes the spark for developing leadership capacity within the states.
Francis Keppel, former U. S. Commissioner of Education, in his recent book, The Necessary Revolution in American Education, reminds us that this “necessary revolution” cannot come about as a matter of course. The fact that it is necessary by no means makes it inevitable. It will take farseeing and hardheaded leadership.”
I am in favor of national leadership from the President and the U.S. Office of Education. How can we do without it? But it would be dismally inadequate if that were all we had, and if all others merely stood by awaiting the bugle call from Washington.
Leadership, obviously, calls on everyone — the school administrator, the governor, the legislator, the board member and the trustee, the college president, and indeed all who can in any degree and anywhere influence the shape of educational policy. I want to see the states, and their local communities, steal the march on the national government. I want to see every state agency and institution and local school official set out to demonstrate to the national government, and to each other, how excellence and universality might be accomplished. There is no requirement that we wait for marching orders. Not only is there room for creative leadership at every level of school responsibility, there is an imperative.
No single level of government can provide the necessary impetus, the inspiration, the guidance. It takes all. James Madison called this interacting federalism — a system of government both cooperative and competitive; both diverse and unified. As Keppel tells us, “American education, that great engine of the democracy, does not drive itself. It must be guided, not by one but by many, into a future of incalculable promise.”
In its quest for leadership from the states, the Commission does not start with a disadvantage. Over the years of this century, and before, the states, or most of them, have carried the burden in the support of education. The state leadership sounded the call for universal education. The states and their subdivisions expanded from the one-room schoolhouse to the consolidated high school. The states built our great universities. The states invented community colleges. The states and their instrumentalities innovated in learning how to reach both the retarded and the talented; the states evolved the textbook, pioneered in teaching aids and instructional film and television, and almost every other method and procedure of instruction.
At this moment the states continue to furnish considerable leadership. The roll call of recent state achievement is impressive: in California, the pattern for the coordination of higher education; in Kansas, school district reorganization, where 10,000 school districts were pruned to some 1,800 in 1963 and are to be consolidated to 350 by July of this year; and in Georgia where perhaps the most comprehensive study of school consolidation has taken place; the pioneering work in New York State which enables students to validate, with possible college credit, knowledge obtained through independent study, work experience and personal initiative; the School of the Arts in North Carolina, and the special laboratory schools for underachievers and for the gifted; experimental programs in Texas for the education of migrant children and adults; the landmark programs for cooperation by the educational and political leadership in West Virginia, Utah and Oregon; the revitalization of the state departments of education which has taken place in New Mexico, New Hampshire, Washington and Delaware, to name just a few; the development of state-operated regional vocational/technical high schools in Connecticut; the financial aid formula devised for Wisconsin and the unique school finance plan of Rhode Island; the exciting developments of educational television in Tennessee and in American Samoa, where television has been used most creatively to upgrade the general level of educational instruction throughout the islands; and the great courage of governors throughout the last decade who have fought, often with fatal political results, for more money and greater tax support for education in their states.
The record, for all its failures to reach the final goal, is remarkable. But the challenge on the horizon is ever large and the shortness of time demands new initiatives and greater state achievement.
In many ways, the states are the fulcrum of the American system of government. Located halfway between the federal government and the local communities, they possess the unique capacity to look at problems with a broader perspective than local governments and with a greater responsiveness to regional variations than the federal government. They can take action at once big enough to deal with large-scale problems and small enough to protect the individual.
As full partners in the federal system, they can prevent the impersonality and remoteness that is so often the result of big, national programs; and assure the kind of vitality and flexibility and experimentation that is so important if American education is to grow and develop. The mountain of public business that is transacted in a nation of 200 million people and 3-1/2 million square miles requires active state government. For one level of government to try to cope with the myriad problems in this complex land would create an unmanageable confusion of inefficiency and error.
For the Education Commission of the States, I see a constant and cooperative relationship with the national government. I am not suggesting the role of lobbyist. The Commission’s Director should, however, make it his business to know personally and well the U. S. Commissioner and his staff, conferring with them on a frequent schedule. He must apprehend at all times all plans for projected legislation and anticipated regulations.
He must get acquainted with at least the key members of the appropriate Congressional
committees, earning their confidence for the Education Commission, making himself available to them upon call, answering their questions, assuring them of his intense interest.
His relationship with the federal government is not political. It is consultative. He will bring to his conversations with federal officials an enormous knowledge and understanding of the subleties and the capacity of education in the states. He will have an intimate and comprehensive knowledge of current state activities and future plans.
It is not likely that he would expect to offer formal testimony on bills pending before Congress, except rarely. He cannot speak for the states, for there is no single state view. However, he might be asked for the views of the states, and he might then arrange for representative Governors, chief state school officers, or local officials to come and give their views. No one would expect all these views to coincide. In fact, it would be very much in character if there were diversity of opinion. But at least the states could then participate more effectively in the formulation of national
programs.
The Director must also seek out and comprehend all other federal forces in education, as well as the Office of Education and the Congress. He must know the people involved. He must understand the relationship and educational contributions of Defense, Labor, Welfare, NASA, National Science Foundation, the Office of Economic Opportunity and all other federal agencies. He must know where they fit in, and what goals they seek, and how they complement or overlap one another. And incidentally, when he accomplishes this competence, he will be unique in American government.
These responsibilities cannot be delegated to the staff, nor to some such position as legislative liaison. The Director must be known and knowledgeable in Washington.
It would not be inappropriate for the Director to spend at least two or three days a month in Washington, letting it be understood in all places that the states are doing their part in shaping the progress of education.
The Commission should never allow itself to drift into the role of lobbyist for or against federal action. The role must be more stately — that of cooperative interest, that of senior partner seeking all the help available, conferring and advising, assuming the leadership required in its constitutional position. The Commission cannot afford to acquire the reputation as the states’ petitioner for federal handouts, and it cannot become the channel of quarrelsome complaints about the manner in which federal action is taken. Those are demeaning positions, not worthy of the Education Commission of the States.
The national government, with all its money, with its all-encompassing geographic reach, with its national interest in education as a life-giving role, can neither be ignored, stymied, nor turned back. Indeed, federal participation should be encouraged.
While keeping up with Washington is essential, it is not the major task of the Education Commission. As influential as Washington is, it is not the place of salvation. The Commission’s most constant sights must be on the states themselves. It is here that the hope of widespread and effective progress is to be found and developed. That is the justification for the Compact ... that is the reason for its existence ... that is the substance of its
purpose on the national scene.
The Commission provides the machinery for determining and recommending priorities and programs of action in any sphere of activity it might choose to examine. Thus, the states and their subdivisions need not wait for a happenchance study, nor depend on the hurried reaction to some situation of emergency.
The Commission can deliberately pick major areas of responsibility, as it is expected to do at this meeting, taking a thorough look at matters of rising concern. Thus, it will examine in detail, as studies during the coming year; taxes, pre-school training, vocational education, education beyond the high school for those not going to college, special urban school challenges, school district consolidation, and avenues for cooperation between the political and educational leadership.
The purpose of such discussions and study are several. The very selection of an item for such attention heightens the interest of all who are seeking support for constant school improvement. The fact that the Commission has decided to study vocational education, for example, should hearten those who have worked for years to make this kind of education more meaningful and far-reaching. It should capture the interest of legislators in every state, and spur them to provide additional support immediately, even before any report is put into final and adopted form. It should cause local boards, as well as state boards of education, to start looking immediately at what they are doing, and how they are going about it, so that they might compare more favorably when measured by nationwide achievement.
It will bring together the best thinking, the most successful experiences, the most vital dreams, to shape the suggested course or courses for vocational education.
Part of the function of the Commission will be to help the various state delegations, whether they operate officially or unofficially, to let the public in each state know that such studies are being undertaken.
The state delegation can add to the preliminary understanding and to the gaining of public attention in many ways. Maybe they should ask the Governor to call a series of conferences, beginning this fall, covering each month one of the topics under intensive Commission study. There not only is no justification for waiting until the study is in, such a delay would defeat the purpose of the study. Every state might well begin looking at how it stands, and how its local subdivisions or districts stand, in all of the fields of study being undertaken by the Commission. To do otherwise would mean that the adoption of a study by the Commission was cause for automatic delay of at least a year. The states should start fanning up interest, and preliminary action, and house-ordering. They can help create anticipation of each report, and heighten the public interest and prepare the way for beneficial use of the reports. Once the studies are accepted by this Commission, the ball is passed to the states and local communities. It is likely that each study will
suggest goals, and policies and procedures.
Now who seeks goals, and sets policies, and adopts procedures? Literally thousands of units. There is the state board of education, the chief state school officer, the governor, the legislative leadership, the administrative officers of schools, the teachers in some cases, the local school boards, the college and university trustees and administrators, the local governing bodies that appropriate or authorize public funds for schools. and the voting public, all multiplied by more than 50.
The reports must be able to compete successfully for public attention, with all other things being done in education — with space exploration, with difficult foreign involvements, a shaky stock market, whether Dick Tracy is going to capture Mr. Bribery, and the million other attention grabbers. Competition for the public attention is difficult. But this is a major function of the Commission, and the Steering Committee and the Director must use the expert approaches.
The report of the Commission must not become another routine document to be put in the stack of countless other routine, dusty documents. It must be a call to action. It must be a blueprint for action. It must be a demand for attention. It must furnish justification, stimulation and inspiration. It goes to where the action is. It is directed to where the action starts. It must have the aura of leadership.
And each year the Commission will select another group of topics, perhaps six, perhaps ten, or maybe a dozen. But always, I believe, a small-enough number to assure certainty of attention and follow-up action. And every study, once done, does not close the book. They will require updating from time to time.
These reports will assist the states more than we might imagine. This kind of nationwide attention will be ammunition for the bold leader who faces inertia or reaction. It will provide intelligent guidance for those who are not reluctant, but who need a clearer definition of goals and direction.
The Commission must serve, once a year, as a dynamic forum for the debate of future directions in American education. It cannot be just a gathering for the cut-and-dried ratification of Steering Committee proposals. Here, all the segments of education are meeting, not with their own counterparts, but all together and with representatives of major organizations in education, setting the stage for a comprehensive view of public priorities. Each part must necessarily look at all of education and consider the relationship of each to the other and to the needs of the country. Here also are the political leaders in education in the states, who understand the limitations of government and who want advice on practical issues they face in the arena. We have all the elements for a yearly event of far greater substance than a White House Conference on Education.
The yearly meeting should also serve as a catalyst for resolve to do better. It should give recognition to the states which are doing the best job, to the states which have turned around and which have been willing to move forward.
The Commission, through its Steering Committee, and its Director and staff, beyond the preparation of authorized studies, can constantly scan the educational skies for interesting items, reports, experiments, statistics, experiences and illustrations. While we have used “clearinghouse” to express this function, I believe that word is too broad.
A clearinghouse generally must take all items of exchange. In having all information, in knowing all, its effectiveness is lost by the very mass of material. No single administrator or policymaking group has any use for all knowledge. There is too much. It is overwhelming. It’s like trying to take a drink of water from a fire hydrant.
The Commission’s staff should evaluate what is available and then interpret it so that it is useful to its clientele. The clientele includes presidents, local school board members, governors and legislators, and all the others who have some part in the shaping of educational policy. It is not easy to present such information to such a group in a usable form. Maybe you could design a digest, an extremely brief summary of each item the staff believes is worthy of note. The item would have to be good to get on the list. Then, examining the digest, the recipient could write for additional information he might desire, which would be sent in the form of a summary paper prepared by the staff in enough detail to form the basis of preliminary action, and guiding the policymaker to additional sources. This may not be best. I’m simply trying to suggest that a device be found which would make the presentation lively, without
inundating the recipients.
In addition to the selective presentation of interesting items, the Commission should be the source of all information. It doesn’t have to have it all, but it should know where to get it all. This would be the reference service. Certainly a state wanting to know what had been done about a certain subject, say the vocational training and employment of retarded students in sheltered workshops, should be able to turn to the Commission for the latest information, and perhaps some degree of staff evaluation. Whatever problem a constituent has should be the concern of the Commission. This service would provide direct answers, and perhaps in many cases would refer the question to a professional association working in the field, with which the questioner was possibly not familiar. If a question can be answered by the Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), for example, then the Commission should ask ERIC for the answer and pass it on, giving credit of course. The point is that if somewhere else the mass of information is stored, the Commission has no reason to duplicate it. It has enough to do without duplicating.
All of this sounds like an impossible job for any organization. But let me say that in Wendell Pierce, we have an outstanding executive. His experience in education and his knowledge of its intricacies will stand the states in good stead, and give the organization a firm hand for a good start. You are fortunate to have him aboard, and can look forward with confidence to his leadership.
There will be other services, and perhaps other projects and maybe some other method of operation, which will occur to the Commission leaders in the future. I make no claim to soothsaying. I do express the hope, on this first day of official organization, that the Commission will not attempt to do everything, that it will remember its purpose is to furnish animated leadership and not to do the job for the states. The Commission is not concerned with its own action; its concern is state action, and interaction with local boards and with the national government. It is not to be doing things; it is to be prompting States to do things for the advancement of education.
I said earlier we could fail and it is important to note that the failure of this organization may not take dramatic form. We may have every state as a member and still fail. The states will have failed if the Commission, or its Steering Committee, or its Office, become a dreary, slow-moving, routine and unimaginative operation. The Commission needs crisp and easily understood methods. It has to be a fast-flowing, fresh and life-giving river, carrying its message of hope along quick currents. It cannot be a languid, lazy pool that covers all, but smothers every sign of life and spark of
interest with its deadly stagnation.
To the staff of the future, let me say that no one should see this as a lifetime job. This organization wasn’t put together to provide jobs of ease and comfort. The tone for the staff should be more like the Peace Corps, where good people will want to serve hard and learn much and join in the effervescent creation of a new spirit in education. Education is an ever-changing, ever-moving process, and the staff should constantly be seeking to refresh itself with new people, new ideas and varied points of view.
The Commission cannot sink into a hold-the-line, drag-the-feet, protect-the-established-way, organization. It must stir up trouble and make the body politic begin to itch. It must be unafraid. It must be a blue-printer and architect. It must be responsive to all good ideas. It must take the problems, assemble the best people and seek the answers.
It is important for you, as Commissioners, to see yourselves as leaders of all of education. You are not, while here, spokesmen for any point of view or level of education. You are not even spokesmen for your particular states. You are here as the leadership of all of the states, for the advancement of education.
There is no reason to insist that the Commission take a position on every issue, and certainly there should be no assumption that there is one position which can be forced by a majority. You have a duty to protect and encourage diversities.
The states, for their part, should support the Commission in good times and bad. They should shield it from unwarranted assaults by those who are shaken by the Commission’s insistence on progress. Educators must be receptive, not defensive. Universities have much to give, and cannot retreat into a world which denies responsibility for the total development of education.
This Compact set out to be a partnership. Let’s make it a partnership where those in political life and those in education share in mutual respect and helpfulness, where criticism is known to be constructive, where selfish and narrow interests are set aside for the good of the Nation.
We must come here today, united in the resolve to meet our responsibility to the American people to involve the states in the quickening pursuit of educational excellence. We come not in rancor nor reaction. We harbor not resentment nor mistrust. We seek not power nor rights. We come to dedicate ourselves to new heights of achievement in the mighty struggle for universal education.
This Compact for Education offers the most exciting promise of any educational experiment on the American scene. Its possibilities for good are unlimited; its prospect for leadership, unbounded; its potential for service in the cause of excellence, infinite.
We must build a system of education obsessed with the desire to touch every human life ... furiously unwilling to miss a single child or overlook a single talent. We must make the classrooms of this nation places of discovery, of excitement, of creativity, of sacred respect for learning, and of dedication to greatness. We need a system vibrantly committed to developing education as the kinetic force of a stretching, maturing, inextinguishable spirit of American democracy.
This is the task of the Commission. This is the place and the duty of the states. This is the promise of the Compact. For the hope of the Compact is the hope of the people of America … for their children, for their land and for the dream of high purpose which has been the guiding star of this country’s history since its beginnings.
I wish you luck and success in your venture.
|
©
Copyright 2001 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights
reserved. The
Education Commission of the States is a nonprofit, nationwide organization that
helps state leaders shape education policy. It is ECS policy to take
affirmative action to prevent discrimination in its policies, programs and
employment practices. To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications Department, 303-296-8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org. |