Learning community membership could be changed, reduced

The Education Committee heard testimony Feb. 22 on a bill that would reduce the number of learning community coordinating council members by half and discontinue their public election.

In 2006, the Legislature created a learning community comprising the school districts in Douglas and Sarpy counties. The law created a mechanism for learning communities to be governed by a coordinating council consisting of 18 members, with 12 members publicly elected from the six school districts and the remaining six being school board members.

LB548, introduced by Omaha Sen. Beau McCoy, would reduce the coordinating council to nine members who are school board members of districts within the learning community.

The learning community has 18 voting members, McCoy said, making it the second largest governing body in the state.

“I believe this bill would enhance both the efficiency and effectiveness of the learning community,” he said.

Under the bill, each school district within the learning community would choose one school board member to be appointed to the council.

The remaining three members would be appointed at-large, regardless of the district in which they reside, by a vote of all the school board members residing within the learning community. The at-large members would be nominated and appointed from school boards of school districts without a member on the learning community coordinating council. The at-large members would be appointed after election of the learning community coordinating council members.

LB548 also would eliminate the learning community’s six achievement subcouncils. Currently, the subcouncils are responsible for developing diversity plan recommendations, administering elementary learning centers, approving poverty and limited English proficiency plans, receiving community input and holding public hearings in response to issues raised by residents.

Under the bill, these responsibilities would fall to an advisory committee composed of superintendents from each member school district or their representatives.

Mike Pate, a member of the Millard School Board and learning community, testified in support of the bill, saying there is a lack of collaboration among members.

LB548 would bring those involved in the educational process together with a better understanding of the issues affecting each of the districts, not just one, he said.

“The collaboration that needs to exist, particularly when we talk about our children, is missing in the current environment,” Pate said.

Rick Black, superintendent of Papillion-La Vista Public Schools, also testified in support of the bill, saying changes to the learning community’s structure are needed.
The learning community is trying to bring the school districts together, Black said, but the districts have no input on decisions that are made.

The school districts are charged with meeting students’ achievement needs, he said, not the learning community. However, it is difficult for superintendents to meet those needs without direct involvement in the learning community, he added.

Rick Kolowski, chairman of the learning community, testified in opposition to the bill.

The learning community has been in existence for less than two years, he said, so it is too early to make changes to its structure. Further, he said, some communication problems already may have been addressed.

“I think we’ve made great strides in improving all communication,” Kolowski said.

Freddie Gray, a member of Achievement Subcouncil No. 2, also testified in opposition to LB548, saying it would eliminate local authority, oversight and community involvement.

Achievement Subcouncil No. 2 represents parts of the third highest poverty area in the country, Gray said. It is the only local governing body that reflects the proportionate African-American make-up of the geographic area that it represents, she said.

Having at-large subcouncil members would almost guarantee that there would not be a fair number of minority representatives, Gray said.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.