March 22, 2005
Dear President O'Neill and Members of the Board of
Education:
On
Our reasons for this request are numerous and are rooted in the very history of
this policy. When Policy FAA was first adopted in 1986, the Board of Education,
Those hearings were packed with PTAs, civic associations and others concerned
about our schools. The result was a unique public document investing parents
and other interested community members with a critical role in shaping the
development of our school communities. The policy set a standard for
parent involvement which other counties held up as a model. The current policy
is clear, predictable, and understandable and has served the community, the
schools, and the Board of Education well. Indeed, the current CIP process,
combined with the advocacy of PTA, motivates more citizen participation than
almost any other aspect of school management.
We believe the proposed action on Policy FAA will irrevocably damage a core
purpose for which Policy FAA was developed. It removes the underpinnings of
cooperation and inclusion that previous boards embraced. It does so without
allowing for the broad based public participation which factored so
significantly in the policy's creation.
To be specific, the draft Policy FAA eliminates all reference to parents,
students, PTAs, and civic associations as critical stakeholders in the design
of school facilities, rendering them superfluous. The wording of draft Policy
FAA streamlines the preferred range of enrollment for schools, out of written
existence. The appropriate student-to-classroom ratios for capacity
calculations and facility utilizations, the need for public hearings on
facility decisions and the right to appeal to the State Board of Education - are
all made invisible in this policy.
We are not moved by assurances that our concerns will be addressed in a
regulation in whose promulgation or future amendment we may not participate.
As parents and citizens we have no right and no guarantee of the opportunity
to be heard before regulations are promulgated. Moreover, we have no
opportunity to comment when regulations are amended. This is the profound
difference between policy and regulation. Guidelines for parent participation
set forth in regulation may be changed without our input. Similarly, relegation
of such critical substantive issues as capacity calculations and facility
utilizations to regulation takes them outside the requirement of public
comment. Proposed regulation FAA-RA, as outlined, anticipates significant
increases in the preferred range of enrollment for all school levels and yet we
as MCCPTA may never have the opportunity to express our concerns about this
crucial topic because there is no guaranteed opportunity for public input on
MCPS regulations. Simply put, the loss of our guaranteed participation in the
process is unacceptable to MCCPTA. We as MCCPTA feel that it is our
responsibility to diligently protect these guarantees.
The proposed transfer of procedural guidance from Board of Education policy to
regulation strips away critical safeguards and their public illumination
through notice, comment, testimony and decision-making in open meetings.
Although we recognize that boards of education are being encouraged to
distinguish between overarching policy considerations and details which belong
in regulation, this policy represents a unique blend of both public policy and
framework for public participation. Policy FAA differs from other policies
precisely because it governs how the Board receives input from its constituency
with respect to educational facilities. Defining this critical
relationship should not be cast off to regulation outside the Board's purview.
While we understand the theory of public policy that separates regulation
from statements of intent, we urge you make an exception with Policy FAA in
favor of a more evolved tradition in
The draft Policy FAA cannot protect the existing process for PTA input or
guarantee that the status quo will continue because the transfer of procedural
authority from policy to regulations removes all assurance. Though the draft
policy asserts that it is designed to "encourage community members to
identify and communicate their priorities and concerns to the Superintendent
and the Board", by failing to enumerate the procedures that will ensure
this becomes a reality, the policy rings hollow. Irrespective of today's good
intentions to continue to encourage public involvement, it is undeniable that a
regulatory scheme comes with no guarantee that robust public involvement will
be preserved. This is not merely a change in process as much as it is an
elimination of due process.
We believe this proposed change injures our ability to seek recourse or remedy
from our elected board. The transfer of authority from policy to regulation
removes due process protection for our schools, our parents, our communities
and our children. The proposed revision will dissolve openness in decision
making that the original policy established, and undermine the ability of the
board to exercise its statutory oversight role.
The implications for parents, PTAs and other community members are enormous. If
you as our elected officials minimize the value you place upon public and
MCCPTA input by failing to protect it in policy, then our voices as citizens
will be reduced. If you, as our elected officials, diminish our
opportunity to participate by abdicating your role, you minimize the right of
parents to participate through their PTAs. Parents will feel increasingly
powerless rather than being empowered to express their views. At a time when
the schools have to defend their budgets and their roles in the community, it
is a mistake to diminish the ability of citizens to be advocates for education.
We urge you to reevaluate the purpose served by undermining this critical
policy that forms the bedrock of the collaborative decision making process in
our communities. We recognize that changes must be made in the policy to
address processes not now addressed by current Policy FAA, such as consortiums
and student choice assignment plans. However, these changes do not require the
diminution of the existing procedural protections by their transfer into
regulations. The policy can be revised without forfeiting the protections
it affords. Respect the history and the success of this policy and undertake
a process that brings stakeholders to the table to discuss any necessary
revisions. Much like the advisory committee process adopted for reviewing
the special education policy and the family and community based partnerships
policy, we urge you to allow the community a voice at the outset. We ask you
appoint a similar advisory committee to review Policy FAA. In addition,
we ask that you hold public hearings on the proposed revision.
And, finally, we urge you not to rush. The current timeline to revise the policy
is arbitrary. The existing policy was painstakingly crafted over many months,
with numerous public hearings and opportunities for public comment. It is not
necessary to hastily implement any policy revision, let alone one so profound,
without ample deliberation and collaboration with the community. To that
end, we strongly urge that the Board defer formal consideration of any changes
to Policy FAA until the fall of 2005. This would allow all stakeholders
adequate time to consider the need for changes and alternative approaches and
for public hearings and testimony to occur. It would also ensure that no
changes are made to this critical document while parents are away for the
summer, or preparing for graduation or back-to-school. As always, MCCPTA stands
ready to participate in a process that can lead to the development of a revised
policy which serves the interests of all students by maintaining the Board's
oversight authority and preserving the valued participation of parents,
teachers and students.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Kerr, President
On Behalf of the
MCCPTA Executive Board