The Grasmick Thing

I hope some will share my dismay at the lack of understanding there is on "the Grasmick thing."

First - the board. The membership changes each year. The Governor appoints, or reappoints, members each year. Governor O'Malley made three appointments last year and will make three (announced this week) this year. There is no new board that is waiting in the wings to engage the Superintendent on July 1. Every four years, the board has the opportunity to retain or replace the superintendent. This system was designed to minimize the direct influence of politics on the choice of education CEO. The last several boards saw fit to continue Grasmick in this role. The board is the public representative who evaluates the job of the CEO. By having these citizens make the choice of superintendent, we pray that some politician doesn't appoint a political hack to run the schools. The progress of the state system during the past 16 years has pleased them with their choice.

Were we displeased with the state of education we would vent ourselves at the Governor who would determine if the problem was with the board or their management and act accordingly. There are laws to restrict purely political reactions or retribution for real or perceived slights. If a poor performance is turned in, then the responsible party or parties replace the performer.

Each of the counties and Baltimore City select the CEO for their systems, putting control of education in the hands of the people closest to it. In some counties, these people are elected, and in others, they are appointed. In Baltimore County, for example, there was great dissatisfaction with the system that has the Governor making direct appointments. Anecdotally, the legislature tried to enact specific legislation to make at least one Ehrlich appointment quit either the board or other employment. They also proposed a number of complicated systems that did not meet with legislative approval. If the appointments were bad or the elected choices failed to perform – vote the bums out.

The state board has the responsibility for making statewide policy. They have responsibility for meeting the Maryland constitutional requirements regarding education. They run the show. They evaluate the performance of the superintendent. Near the end of the superintendent's contract, the make a decision to offer a renewal to an effective superintendent, or begin the process of selecting a replacement. If the decision was not made until the last month of the contract, they stand to lose and effective executive or face a period without an executive as they seek the replacement. The replacement pool will look askance at a system that does not plan for leadership transitions. In any event, this invites instability to the system, which will harm the system. Subdivision boards have similar responsibilities at their level.

Next - the superintendent. This is the CEO of the whole of Maryland's schools, not just Baltimore City, not just the core counties, and not just primary and secondary education. She works under a contract for the board. The board under Governor Schaffer, appointed mostly by Governor Hughes, selected our current superintendent. Her personal relationship with him was advantageous during his terms in office. A board consisting of mostly or all Schaffer appointees twice chose to continue Grasmick in this role under Governor Glendenning. Mostly or all Glendenning appointees twice renewed Grasmick's contract. Which brings us to the current board, most of which was appointed or reappointed under Governor Ehrlich, and at least one-quarter of which was appointed by Governor O'Malley.

Most to comments to InsideEd blog cite a lack of knowledge of any accomplishments by Superintendent Grasmick, but then cite examples of problems with local systems. Greater understanding and information on the state system can be found here. I suggest that people check their county education website for basic information about strictly local issues.

Having looked through this information about the State Board of Education, each of us will find it easier to determine why there seems to be a different sense of the responders to this blog and the responders to Jay Hancock's. Oversimplified, Hancock's responders are focused on the product of the entire educational system – members of the workforce. They measure the system by the quality of applicant they receive. That is different, it seems to me, from the focus of the responders to InsideEd.

There is nothing to lose by opening ourselves to the other's perspective. Additionally, too much reliance on the reports in the papers, on television and on radio, will only continue to muddle the issues. With the resources available to each person commenting here – a computer with internet access – it is too easy to become informed and to discuss issues from a position of strength, i.e., knowledge, and not from a position of demagoguery and confusion.