On Oct. 4, the state Joint Education Committee met to discuss recommendations for school funding after a review of the education adequacy study. The House proposed something the Senate did not adopt, and Missy Irvin, chair of the Senate Education Committee, made much ado about taking more time to collaborate thoroughly.
I was there; the Senate seemed unprepared, except for an impressive proposal by Joyce Elliott. But I was heartened by the expressed desire to gather more input and work together as a functioning bipartisan body.
That is not what happened. Some members of Irvin's party collaborated and fashioned a plan. Irvin scheduled a meeting for Oct. 18, and instead of staff members notifying everyone well ahead of time, the meeting was posted 24 hours in advance on the website, which normally serves to let the public know, not members.
The Senate Education Committee met without collaboration with its Democratic members, who ironically are both former public-school teachers. Linda Chesterfield managed to make it to the meeting nine minutes before it ended when a Republican colleague--teacher Jason Sturch--let her know about it.
There's a story here. I wanted to know about the process issues and why everyone was not included in the discussions. I wanted to know why the chair of the committee would choose to do it this way, which seems deliberately disrespectful. I wanted to know if I was missing something. I also wanted to talk about the proposal, the recommendation the committee will pass along to the Legislature in January. There are some good things in it I appreciate. I also have a lot of questions.
On Oct. 18 I emailed Senator Irvin and asked if she would meet with me. She answered the next day that she'd be happy to do so. As soon as I received that reply I offered to travel to Little Rock to meet with her and asked her to send me some dates she already would be there on legislative business. I said I'd accommodate her. When I did not hear anything back, I emailed again on Oct. 21, 22, 25, and 27. Finally, on Oct. 27, she responded and informed me she was in Little Rock and could meet.
As it was already too late for me to arrange to make the trip (I am still unable to drive such a distance), we decided to meet the following week on Tuesday because she was going to be there again.
On Monday--Halloween--I emailed her to ask when and where in Little Rock she would like to meet the next day. No response. I emailed her again very early the next morning, still thinking I'd manage the trip. She replied that she was "stuck at home" because of car trouble but could reschedule for Wednesday or Thursday.
I replied that I could make it Thursday, and again asked for a time. Heard nothing back, and nothing Wednesday. Late Wednesday night I emailed again and asked what time and place she wanted to meet in Little Rock the next day. At the moment of this writing I still have heard nothing. I don't expect to.
During this same time frame I got into a conversation on Twitter with Republican State Rep. Aaron Pilkington. A teacher friend wrote an op-ed for this paper outlining her concerns about public education under Sarah Sanders, and giving her reasons for supporting Chris Jones.
Pilkington posted the article with his take that the writer was a liar. I asked specifically what he thought she was lying about; we went back and forth a bit, then he attacked my character. I thought if he could say what he said, he clearly had no idea what was in my heart, and maybe if we met face to face he could see I wasn't his enemy. Maybe I would even find out he wasn't mine. So I shot him a direct message and asked to meet. He immediately said yes. We planned to meet, and he kept his word.
Pilkington is a devout Catholic who clearly adores his family. He told me about his accomplished wife who has chosen to be a stay-at-home mom. They plan to home-school their children. I asked him about his stance on vouchers, and he explained that he has "a lot of Hispanic constituents who want their children to go to Catholic school" and vouchers would help them afford it.
While I am completely against public tax dollars spent on religious education, a heart to help others live the life they want is not a bad thing. I don't believe Pilkington has nefarious purposes for supporting his party's platform.
In fact, as we talked for two hours, I could see that he is genuinely frustrated with the shortcomings in our education system, as I am. He wants it to be better, and does not believe throwing more money at it is the answer. Same as me.
He asked me about regulations that cripple public schools, showing an interest in reducing them, which was refreshing. I said there are some regulations that are ridiculous, but also good ones that keep public schools in compliance with the Constitution, like providing services so that every student has a chance to learn, regardless of background or disability. I said private schools and many charters do not have these regulations. And that is why they sometimes perform better--or appear to, because they are not held to the same performance standards, such as standardized tests.
Pilkington listened. He said he wants every kid to get to go to the school that best meets their needs. I said I want that too, and that we need to fix public schools so those needs are met. That is the goal of public schools. I told him it drives me crazy when bureaucrats talk about "failing government schools" because they are the ones in charge of government. So if schools are failing, fix them. Don't defund them and put the money in places with no accountability.
He said he thinks competition breeds innovation and success. I said that's fair when everyone is playing by the same rules. But private schools, home schoolers, and many charters don't have to play by the same rules as public schools.
He said: What if we attached regulations to the money and made everyone play by the same rules? I said that would make things fair and also never happen because home schoolers, private schools, and charters won't want the money in that case. They exist to do what they want without government interference. That is the whole point. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't get public tax dollars.
Round and round we went. All in respectful tones, all friendly, both trying to understand the other and find points of agreement to build on and work toward solutions. I don't know where it might lead. But here's what I do know: It was a whole lot better than not showing up, and exponentially more pleasant than Twitter.
In fact, he apologized for his unkindness there. He agreed that educators should be tapped for ideas on solving problems, not just told what to do by bureaucrats. And he invited me to send him any proposal we develop through Arkansas Strong in Education for fixing problems in public schools. He said that if I took nothing else away from our conversation, he wants me to know that he is for well-funded, robust public schools in Arkansas.
Cynics will say this conversation didn't matter, and that Pilkington will vote the party line regardless of how it damages public education. Time will tell. My job as a citizen is to be watching that. And engaging, and keeping him accountable, and expecting him to keep his word. Calling him out if he doesn't. Listening when he wants to talk about solutions. Supporting him when I can.
This is how a democracy functions. I can work with anyone who is humble enough to recognize it is the right and responsible thing to collaborate rather than dictate. Even if you're in the supermajority.
Gwen Ford Faulkenberry is an English teacher and editorial director of the non-partisan group Arkansas Strong. (http://arstrong.org) Email her at gfaulkenberry@hotmail.com.