P-20 Education Commission Adding Action to Process

Abstract

This paper argues that the structure of the P-20 Education Partnership (P-20) will not ensure the implementation of its recommendations or change policy. Instead it will simply result in thoughtful reports that may or may not be read. Minnesota does not need another group meeting to brainstorm ways to improve our education system. Minnesota instead needs an organization structured to implement policy changes that meet the needs of its students. The P- 20 is an excellent base but its structure must be changed and the political momentum addressed to ensure that there is ‘organizational competence’.iii Using the lens offered by the four frames in Bolman and Deal’s book, Reframing Organizations, and requirements of an effective organization in Olmstead’s book, Creating the Functionally Competent Organization, this paper will show that the P-20’s current structure as defined in statute must be changed if it is to effect policy. A legislatively designated organization that has the capacity to affect policy is a Commission. Therefore, the 4 recommendation of this paper is for the legislature to amend the P-20 Education Partnership in statute and designate it as a Commission. For comparison, I analyzed three Commissions: The Health Care Access Commission, the Commission to End Poverty by 2020, and the Minnesota Budget Trends Study Commission. Lessons learned from these Commissions, as viewed from the multi-frame perspective, will inform the final recommendation so that the best structure is defined in statute for the P-20 Education Commission. As stated earlier, this report’s recommendations are primarily focused on changing the P- 20’s definition in statute. However, the political environment also plays a role in whether a Commission is a ‘success’. In order to appropriately address the manner politics plays in influencing policy, this paper will make additional recommendations for the Commission outside of its statute.