Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission on the Future of Public Education urges careful study; warns administration proposal risks funding cuts before governance changes
Summary
Megan Roy, chair of the Commission on the Future of Public Education, told the committee the commission is continuing its work on governance, funding and quality but has not endorsed the administration’s funding proposal and cautioned that implementation timing and equity analysis matter.
Megan Roy, chair of the Commission on the Future of Public Education, briefed the committee on the commission’s recent meetings and the work plan to study governance, funding and quality.
Roy said the commission faces a practical choice: continue the deep, recursive policy work it was charged to do, or shift to produce a focused response to the administration’s proposal. She emphasized the distinction: "The administration's proposal is not the commission's proposal," and commission members remain split on whether to take a formal position for or against the administration’s plan.
Commission members repeatedly raised three central concerns about the administration proposal, Roy said: the sufficiency of the base amount used in the proposed foundation formula, cost drivers that a formula alone would not address (notably health care and facilities), and the sequence of governance and funding changes. Members worried that the administration’s formula relies on savings from a governance structure that does not yet exist and could therefore reduce funding before anticipated governance efficiencies materialize.
The commission also discussed equity and community engagement. Roy said the group is contracting Afton Partners to help redesign the commission’s public engagement plan and to use equity impact assessments when evaluating proposals so changes do not worsen disparities. The commission intends to gather public input through meetings, virtual forums and targeted outreach and return considered recommendations to the legislature over time.
Commission members agreed that the commission does not want to preserve the status quo; rather, they seek careful, evidence-based changes that preserve educational opportunities while addressing cost drivers. Roy said the timeline and resources required for thoughtful engagement and equity analysis mean the commission will need time and, possibly, legislative direction on priorities.
Committee chairs suggested they could offer informal guidance to help prioritize the commission’s short-term work and noted the legislature might amend the commission’s charge or timelines in pending education legislation. Several committee members praised the commission’s convening role and encouraged it to continue.
