Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Experts who quit IDEAR urge Senate to pause pilots, publish criteria and create independent commission
Loading...
Summary
A group of third‑sector experts who resigned from Puerto Rico’s IDEAR decentralization effort told a Senate hearing they stepped down because implementation remains centralized. They recommended pausing the project, publishing LEA selection criteria, prioritizing merit appointments and appointing an independent commission to evaluate the pilots.
A panel of volunteer experts who withdrew from Puerto Rico’s IDEAR decentralization project told a Senate committee on May 9 that the initiative’s implementation preserves central decision‑making and falls short of the decentralization goals its designers promised.
"Al renunciar, hicimos unas recomendaciones para encaminar el proyecto hacia una verdadera descentralización," said Eneri López Navarrete, curator of educational partnerships for the League of Cities of Puerto Rico, reading a joint memorial prepared by the group. The panelists said they resigned on April 16, 2024, after concluding that their recommendations were not incorporated by departmental staff or the contracted technical assistance firm.
The experts framed their critique around three pillars they say are essential for meaningful decentralization: citizen participation, despolitization and merit‑based appointments. "La participación ciudadana debe ser medular," Enrique Colón Baco, consultant in public policy for Espacios Abiertos, told the committee, arguing that local school councils and democratically elected regional advisory councils must have real authority to act as custodians of resources and decision‑making.
Their written recommendations, presented at the hearing, urged the Senate to: (1) pause the current decentralization process and desist from establishing the first LEA in August; (2) publish the criteria used to constitute LEAs so they reflect Puerto Rico’s diverse geographies; (3) prioritize a merit‑based selection system for administrators rather than political appointments; (4) open a public process and discussion on any proposed formula to allocate school budgets; and (5) create an independent commission of experts and community representatives to monitor, evaluate and, if needed, redesign the implementation.
Panelists emphasized fiscal transparency and warned that a formula‑based budget rollout requires reliable cost data and time for public scrutiny. "Un proceso de presupuesto basado en las necesidades de los estudiantes puede ser un desarrollo muy positivo," López Navarrete said, while also noting significant data and implementation hurdles.
Senators pressed the witnesses on procedural questions — whether final reports exist, how they were invited to participate and the extent of their access to pilot evaluations. The panelists said there are multiple interim reports (90‑day and 60‑day summaries) and online materials, but no single, finalized implementation report that incorporates the third‑sector recommendations.
The committee requested that the panelists provide within five days the email correspondence and additional recommendations cited in their resignation letter. The hearing concluded with senators thanking the experts and saying the body will pursue document requests and further meetings as it continues its investigatory work.
The panel’s testimony left senators with a question for the Department and federal partners: how much of the work should be retained, and what should be reworked to ensure genuine decentralization? The committee did not vote on any measure at the hearing; senators signaled follow‑up requests for documents and potential oversight steps.
