The Politics of School Boards Sample

Introduction:

Local school administration for school territories in the United States is provided through local boards of instruction. State legislative acts and ordinances passed by provincial boards of instruction provide and operate public schools, bearing down local school boards with the duty of administration.

It is the map of the provincial board to put general school policy and set up guidelines that will guarantee the proper disposal of the local school plan. State board policy has been progressively influenced by federal school betterment enterprises. These enterprises trickle down to the local policymaking boards and may erode local school board administration authorization.

Constrained by these authorizations, local instruction boards find that many determinations concerning policy have already been made by the federal authorities. If local instruction boards are losing policy and administration authorization to federal school betterment enterprises, there should be concern that local instruction affairs are not being addressed.

Federal instruction enterprises bespeaking a one-size-fits-all approach may not represent and address community issues faced by local boards.

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) (1994) stated, “The board’s primary function is the constitution of policy” (p. 8). If the federal authorities directs policy determinations, local school boards may be moving away from meaningful decision-making.

If this is the case, what areas of decision-making and policy are most influenced by the federal authorities? If so, there should be concern for the functionality and place of local school boards in the current political and instruction environment.

This paper focuses on the role the federal government plays in influencing local school boards. A lot of sources have analyzed school board writings and research to evaluate the effectiveness of local school boards in creating, following, implementing, and maintaining policy in the face of federal accountability and federal instruction betterment enterprises.

This paper focuses on elements that have influenced school board administration. It argues that the federal government’s engagement in public instruction has continued to increase over the past century and is poised to increase further due to public and private demands for accountability and a first-class instruction system.

It discusses the influence of federal and state instruction betterment enterprises on local school administration. The paper accepts the position that the dominant ideological current seems to be headed toward greater decentralization and a lessened role for government.

The Rise of Federal Involvement

While the local displacement of decision-making was changing, state departments of education began to grow in importance and size as a means of providing uniformity of practice within a state and ensuring that districts met certain minimum standards.

The main role of state education departments included consolidating rural districts, eliminating decentralized ward commissions in cities, giving legal standing and certification to new professional specialists in areas such as counseling or special education, setting standards for buildings and sanitation, mandating new subjects, and reducing disparities of school finance (ECS, 2002).

Federal government involvement in education increased as a result of several events in history that made it evident that the elite professionals could not deliver the education structure they promised. The Soviets’ Sputnik success prompted the federal government to pass the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which emphasized math and science curriculum. The Economic Opportunity Act, which originated in the 1960s, fueled the community-control movement.

The premise for this movement was a shift in educational decision-making from teachers and administrators to the layman. In conjunction with division administration, the community would take part in deciding how the local schools should be run.

The purpose was to bring disenfranchised urban groups into the realm of educational decision-making at the local level. This movement died, however, when funding was stopped following the election of President Richard Nixon in 1968.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954 had a tremendous effect on public education, establishing that deliberate segregation in schools was inherently unequal and in violation of the equal protection guarantee in the Constitution of the United States.

This decision spurred new social movements and provided the framework for an educational reform agenda whose goal was massive institutional change (ECS, 2002).

Congress and federal agency began to exercise greater influence on public education administration. The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 brought about dramatic change with respect to the needs of disadvantaged students.

“In an attempt to secure compliance, federal and state policymakers stretched an ever-tightening regulatory net over schools, and state education departments became the enforcers” (ECS, 2002, p. 8).

In the mid-1980s, the report A Nation at Risk painted a dire picture of America’s educational landscape and its ultimate international industrial demise in the absence of educational reform. This prediction created frenzy at the state level, where governors, who traditionally were not central actors in K-12 public education administration systems, began to play a central role in school reform activities.

“States across the nation established more than 300 committees and commissions in the early 1980s to address education, and 44 states implemented large-scale school reform packages during the decade” (ECS, 2002, p. 8).

State Intervention

According to Timar and Tyack (1999), many forms of local administration diminished in the steady march from decentralization to centralization. State departments of education and the federal government assumed increasingly active roles in public education.

Iannacone and Lutz (1970) reviewed constitutional agreements between states and local authorities showing that education was tied to state control to a greater degree than other public service areas such as public works and police.

As of 2002, 23 states had passed legislation allowing them to intervene in a district with chronically low-performing schools; since 1988, at least 12 of these states actually intervened and charged the state department of education or another designated entity with managing the schools (ECS, 2002).

On the other hand, some states have reevaluated their state education codes. In 1995, South Carolina abolished about 100 state statutes and more than 500 regulations governing K-12 education. Michigan eliminated 205 and modified 65 sections of its education code, while adding 25 new sections.

Texas wholly revised its education code and reduced the number of state directives by one-third (ECS, 2002). Of particular importance, in 1997, the Connecticut legislature enacted a law to eliminate the locally elected Hartford School Board and to authorize the governor to name a new board.

This action enabled the appointed guardians to have complete control over the district’s 32 schools, including finances and union contracts, which were labeled as a partial blame for the lack of successful reform implementation (American School Board Journal, 2005).

The guardians were required to implement 48 recommendations developed by Connecticut’s Education Commissioner. Senator Thomas Gaffey, co-chairman of the Legislative Education Committee, said, “It’s time to bring this school district out of the abyss of failure” (American School Board Journal, 2005, p. 14).

Some legislators said they were concerned about a loss of local control; Senator William Aniskovich stated, “This measure sounds the death knell of self-governance in Connecticut” (American School Board Journal, 2005, p. 19). This coup d’etat of the schools was not the first such action for Hartford’s public schools. In 1994, Education Alternatives Inc. was hired to manage the school system; however, a disagreement over finances in 1996 ended the enterprise.

In a state coup d’etat, the federal court, state legislature, or state school board is charged with managing a local district. Coups d’etat occur for a variety of reasons, from poor student achievement to budget misfeasance. A more controversial approach, a mayoral coup d’etat, occurs when a city mayor assumes authority over a district.

The mayor may appoint a school board, choose the superintendent, or become the primary decision-maker for the district. Villegas (2003) asserted that the public sees school boards as formless and believe, therefore, that they cannot be effective organizational leaders.

Reformers advocate switching authorization from the school board to an external actor who can prosecute stakeholders and utilize their input to inform territorial determinations. Opponents of mayoral coups claim that city managers might not have the knowledge or time to adequately lead territorial reform (Villegas, 2003). Still, others worry that mayoral coups increase the chance for state officials to intervene or take over low-performing urban territories.

From New York to California, city managers and state legislatures are fighting local school boards’ control over public education. In 2003, 23 states had passed laws authorizing state or city intervention (Howell, 2005). Kirst (2002) suggested that city managers and states are realizing that education is the key to the growth of the cities, and they are becoming more aggressive.

The big losers are the local school boards. Early coups, such as those in Boston (1991), Chicago (1995), and Detroit (1999), were due to financial or administrative breakdowns of the local board. The most recent pressure for coups is based on drooping pupil accomplishment.

The Baltimore (1993) and Philadelphia (2001) coups were engineered by the states. With the states surpassing local communities in support for education, as reported by the U.S. Department of Education, state legislatures want more in return for America’s tax dollars (Kirst, 2002).

Ziebarth (1999) indicated that little research exists on the effects of state coups, asserting that gains seem to be more in the central office than in the classroom. States have a role in education administration that, some argue, has always been embedded in their constitutions. Most states, however, have delegated their constitutional authority to local territories, thus establishing a powerful grasp of local democracy over education.

In a 1999 study by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), Ziebarth wrote about a progressive movement toward regulatory flexibility that stems from the belief that liberty is an important component of school success. Many states, therefore, have limited regulations that dictate who makes decisions; in turn, decision-making authority is granted to local boards.

Ziebarth (1999) cited such actions as school-based management, open enrollment, charter schools, and tax credits or vouchers. Counter to this idea, some states have become more proactive in the “goings-on” at local levels. Ziebarth contended that there is still very little evidence specific to public education and how administration affects organizational outcomes.

In 1989, the New Jersey Board of Education assumed control of the Jersey City Public Schools because of “academic bankruptcy.” This state coup d’etat was the last measure in a process involving opportunities for aid and guidance. In the Jersey City Public Schools coup d’etat, the local board and high-level decision-makers were removed from their responsibilities.

Ziebarth (1999) noted that according to advocates of state coup d’etats, they are a necessary extension of a state’s constitutional duty, putting school boards on notice that personal agendas, nepotism, and public spats can result in serious consequences.

Opponents of this approach noted that it represents a thinly veiled attempt to reduce local school board control and increase state authority over school districts. State coup d’etats have produced unintended effects, namely violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in that these coup d’etats might have violated local voters’ rights to elect local officials to run local schools (Ziebarth, 1999).

In 1988, the Illinois legislature passed the Chicago School Reform Act, which placed school improvement responsibility directly in the hands of individual schools. Local school councils gained authority to manage the schools. That same year, the Illinois legislature passed the Chicago School Reform Amendatory Act, which gave school management authority to the mayor (Ziebarth, 2002).

In state constitutions, “education” clauses articulate a primary state function and responsibility regarding the provision of K-12 public education. In fact, in 49 of the 50 state constitutions, states are charged with providing public education in a “uniform,” “efficient,” or similar manner (ECS, 2002, p. 6). As long as the United States Constitution and the state constitutions are respected, states have almost complete power over local education matters.

School administration today involves the influence of many stakeholders and decision-makers, from federal and state courts and Congress to special interest groups such as the NEA.

School boards are faced with dual responsibilities: to both the common values and beliefs of the community and to the authorities of government; this situation is leading to many national recommendations for improving local board impact and function as well as responsibilities.

Because of micromanagement and local boards’ short-term response to issues, many stakeholders argue for systematic reform and restructuring of school boards (Schlechty, 1992). Still, others wish to return to the “golden age” of democratic engagement when parents and patrons shaped schools to suit their particular needs or tastes, and bureaucracy and regulations were unnecessary (Timar & Tyack, 1999).

Based on that position, Timar and Tyack (1999) argued that local citizens are right to defy consolidation and province ordinance, for they already have schools that serve them well. Others believe that local control produces unfairness among schools and that a centralized system will provide the standardization necessary to improve public schools.

Danzberger (1994) asserted that the province must assume a larger role in reform because the province controls the local level with authorizations and codifications, making school boards responsible for everything. Timar and Tyack wrote:

“The imperativeness for decentralization today is quite different from decentralization in the last century. While the public’s contempt for authorities remains, they are today less afraid of distant government—the immediateness of memory and experience of British colonial regulation has been distanced by history. More importantly, though, is the differing political nature between the past and present versions of decentralization and local control” (p. 23).

ECS (2002) reported:

“At the same time that provinces created these centralized administration attacks, territories moved to decentralized attacks through deregulation, school pick, and site-based direction. While these decentralized attacks increased the decision-making powers of certain establishments and individuals within the K-12 systems, the province still had the ultimate authorization to establish and alter administration agreements” (p. 9).

Past to Present Federal and State Influence

It is important to understand the predecessors of this law. During the nineteenth century, provinces began to enforce standards on local territories. State departments of education were small and largely ineffective at enforcing standards. As late as 1890, the average size of a province education department was two individuals, including the overseer (Timar & Tyack, 1999).

The battle to bring education under the control of the government was essentially a battle over the schools’ role in shaping the character of the American people: “The end, implicitly religious, was social integration through the ingraining of certain common beliefs selected for their ‘uplifting’ character” (Brouillette, 2001, p. 8).

Reformers endorsed states’ having an active role in promoting a uniform education system. Brouillette (2001) stated that voluntary efforts of reform lost ground to province coercion as the diversity of local schools was defined as a problem.

Religious and political groups tended to polarize society and schools. Mann and other reformists worked at having provinces define what schools should be doing; the aim was to bring education to the larger population.

As provinces assumed a stronger role in school finance, their policymaking strength increased. Until 1979, the local portion to public education still exceeded the province portion. By 1983, “the local portion had dwindled to about 42 percent while the province portion had risen to 50 percent,” with federal dollars filling the gaps (Doyle & Finn, 1984).

Goldhammer (1978) suggested that the federal government had been neither apathetic nor unresponsive. Federal engagement in education had changed dramatically over the past 40 years, becoming more influenced by public and global economic pressures.

Few took notice or opposed the federal government’s engagement in public education with the land grants in the eighteenth century. Federal involvement in public education in the nineteenth century was characterized by more and more support.

The idea was that if extra money were given to educators who were doing the right thing, the money would improve schools. The twentieth century was marked by increased federal influence with the creation of voluntary national standards and assessments.

The first federal “accountability” law was the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (ESEA). President Johnson’s Great Society and the War on Poverty law provided funds to local school districts to meet the needs of disadvantaged children (20 U.S.C. 1965, Sec. 2701).

This law was aimed at increasing educational opportunities for impoverished children. Doyle & Finn (1984) reported that the law included significantly increased accountability and reporting efforts on behalf of school districts. With the law came increased federal engagement in public education; the law has been revised nine times.

The findings by Fuhrman and Elmore (1990) involving the degree of change required of local boards to comply with new state education reform policies suggested that districts sometimes leverage state authorizations by using local influence to reinforce the local political agenda and engage in local policy entrepreneurship.

The findings could be interpreted as reflecting the overwhelming importance of local matters. There was no indication of whether or not districts accepted federal policy outright. This issue could represent key implications concerning school board behavior if boards believe they have no alternative and must comply and solely accept federal authorizations without protest or discussion.

Decision

Public education is political, particularly at the local level. Controversy over local versus federal control of public education has existed since the writing of the Constitution. The Constitution does not specifically state who is responsible for public education, and the Tenth Amendment leaves to the states those things that are not enumerated in the Constitution (ECS, 2002).

Although the focus has shifted from extensive support of public education to focusing on its consequences or end products, the federal government has become a far greater influence on the public education policy process than was the case in past years. America demands accountability for tax dollars.

The creation of national standards, not federal standards, is perceived by many to be from the “public” and for “public good,” rather than being issued from the government. Making these standards voluntary, albeit for federal dollars, creates the situation in which states feel they must comply because of the national spotlight on the issues.

Although some states may not comply because of the cost involved and the lack of federal aid, most states have fully adopted the federal standards and assessments, thereby creating a sense that the government is less directly involved in the process. We accept the position that the dominant ideological current seems to be headed toward greater decentralization and a lessened role for government.

Mentions

1. Brouillette, M. (2001). Government schooling comes to America: The origins of government schooling in the United States. Retrieved March 2008, from http://mackinac.org.
2. Doyle, D. P., & Finn, Jr., C. E. (1984). American schools and the future of local control. The Public Interest, 77, 77-95.
3. Education Commission of the States. (2002). Regulating America’s schools: Changing the rules. Retrieved from Education Commission of the States website: http://www.ecs.org.
4. Fuhrman, S., & Elmore, R. (1990). Understanding local control. Education evaluation and policy analysis, 12(1), 94.
5. Goldhammer, K. (1978). The proper federal role in education today. Educational Leadership, 35(5), 350-353.
6. Iannacone, L., & Lutz, F. W. (1970). Politics, power, and politics: The governance of local school districts. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishers.
7. National School Boards Association (2005). NCLB action alert: Tools and tactics for making the law work. Retrieved March 2008, from http://www.nsba.org.
8. Howell, W. (2005). The local school district in American law. Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
9. Kirst, M. (2002). Mayoral influence, new governments, and public school administration. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.
10. Schlechty, P. (1992). Deciding the destiny of local control. American School Board Journal, 189(12).
11. Timar, T., & Tyack, D. (1999). The invisible hand of ideology: Perspectives from the history of school administration. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved March 2008 from https://www.eu.org.
12. Ziebarth, T. (1999). Education administration issues taking center stage. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved March 2008 from https://www.eu.org/clearinghouse/33/56/3356.htm#edgov.
13. Ziebarth, T. (1999). The changing landscape of educational administration. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved March 2008 from https://www.eu.org.
14. Ziebarth, T. (2002). State coups d’état and reconstitutions. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved March 2008 from https://www.eu.org/clearinghouse/13/59/1359.pdf.
15. Villegas, M. (2003). Leading in Difficult Times: Are Urban School Boards up to the Task? San Francisco, CA: WestEd.