USVI Public Records

Document text

ED 234 511 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION PUB DATE NOTE AVAILABLE FROM PUB TYPE DOCUMENT RESUME EA 016 098 Burnes; Donald State Structures of Elementary/SeConeJty Governance. Issuegram 30. _ Education Commission of the Statet, Denver; Colo. 1 Mar 83 10p. Distribution Center; Education Commission of the States; 1860 Lincoln Street; Suite 300, Denver; CO 80295 ($2.00_prepaid; quantity discounts; add $1.00 on non-prepaid orders tO__cover invoicing). Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *AdMiniSttatOrt; Bulletins; Elementary Secondary Education; *Governance; *Leadership; *Organization; *State BOards of Education; *State School District Relationship IDENTIFIERS Appointive Positions; Elected Positions; State Governors ABSTRACT Understanding the differences between_ education governance structures is important to_understanding the entire education policy process. In almost all statest fiscal responsibility for education rests with the governor and the legislature. State education governance structures differ; falling into four basic models; In the first model the governor_ appoints the state board of education;_and_the chief is then appointed_by the_board; 15 states follow this model. In the second model; followed-by 11 states; the board of education is elected at large and then appoints the chief; this reduces_the_governor's_influence. The third model has a govenor-appointed board with the chief state officer elected_at large; plaCing_a_premium on a cooperative working relationship._ Twelve states f011OW this model. In the five states using_the fourth model the governor appoints the board members and the chief state school offitet._Theremaining states; Puerto Rico_and the Virgin ISlandt; have structures that are variations of these four mOdelS. Eighteen states have legislatures that are able_to exert inflUence through their authority to confirm the governor's_appointmentS. The abgente of major structural changes in educational governance since 1973_SUggests that these structures are relatively Stable. Four stratejies are presented for state offiCialS to consider in increasing leadership in education. (MD) **k******************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * A service of the Education CommLssion of the States 3 State Structures of Elementary/ Secondary a Governance U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAI INtilit H 01 EDUCATION I!, ,7,1k,kmAti()% "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS EEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 5( INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." ISSUEGRAMS are summary reports on Majoi- ethieatiOn issues written for state leaders. They include background information. analysis of differing views, lists of sources and references all written for busy. readers. Each is updated periodically. For more information, see inside back cover or call ECS Distribution Center at (303) 830-3820. .ers _ issuegram- Education Commission of the States Distribution Center 1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80295 4%1 First Class U.S: POSTAGE PAID Denver, Colorado Permit No. 153 This Issuegram was prepared on March 1, 1983, by Donald Burnes, director, _Education__ Governance__ Center. For consultation or more detail, call 303=830=3830. State Structures of 30 Elementary/Secondary _ Governance The Issue The "new federalism" and its decentralization of elementary/secondary education policy leadership to states and school districts raise important questions; What are the state governance structures currently in place, and will they allow state officials to play a more central role? What are the individual components of the state education policy establishment, and what are the relationships among them? Outlined below are some of the circumstances that have expanded the opportunities for states to provide leadership in education. Then, described in some detail and illustrated in charts, are basic models of state education governance structures, structures that shape the ways in which states can exercise leadership; What Are the General Characteristics of State Structrires? Education governance structures differ from state to state in ways that directly affect how state education policy leaders can act or interact; Whether one structure is better than another is a question for which research has no clear answer. But understanding the differences between structures, which often reflect differences in political _philosophy,_ is important to understanding the entire education policy process; Some very general structural relatiOnthips are common to all the states. Fiscal responsibility -for education rests with the legislature and the governor. In almost all states, the governor develops_an education budget and presents it to the legislature. The legislature in turn_ has formal responsibility- for reviewing this budget_ and passing it in some fOrM. State boards and state departments of education must then administer the- budget: State boards also establish requirements to guide the administration of other pcilidie§ that have been enacted by the legislature and_the governor, and _state departments administer these_ policie§.= State boards and state departments also perform qu§Si=judicial functions in some instances. How Do Governance Structures Differ? Model One In 15_ _stateS the governor appoints the state board of edudatitni WhiCh_then appoints the chief state school officer.. The state legislature has no formal authority for appointments, AlthOUgh it retains broad responsibility for setting State eddCation policy. The power to appoint would seem to give the -state board and the governor considerable influehde, but the power of the governor is limited in two ways. First, board members are frequently appointei5 for staggered terms; so a governor may appoint only a minority of the board. Second;-board members in many of the_15 states serve for_ longer terms than the governor. In 12 states, terms range from five to nine years; only in Connecticut, Minnesota and Rhode Island are terms leS§ than five years. Model Two. _In 11 states, the state board of education is elected at _large, which tends to reduce the governor's influence in education governance; The board in turn appoints the chief state school officer. In 7 of 11 states, the elections are partisan. In more than half of the 11, board members serve four -year terms; in all but 4 states (Alabama; Michigan; Nevada and Texas), the chief _serves at the pleasure of the board rather than_for a specified term. Since the electorate participates diredtly in education policy making by electing the state board of education, decision-making is politicized to a -greater degree than in Model One. In summary, polidyiliakihq_ih_MOdel Two flows from the legislature and the state bOard Of education. Model Three._ In 12 states, the chief state school officer is eledted large, usually on a bipartisan ballot and almost always for a four-year term. The governor appoints state 4 board members, usually to staggered terms_ of five years or longer. Since this structure establishes_ two diatindt sources of education_ leadership; the eledted chief arid the appointed_ _board, it places a premium on cooperative working relationships. Model Four. Relatively recent developments in five states and American Samoa emphasize the role of the governor, who appoints_ board members and, independently, the chief state school officer; In New Jersey and American Samoa, the term of the chief state school officer is Ionger_than that of the governor; in the other four states, the chief serves at the pleasure of the governor. In all states except Virginia, board members are appointed for terms of five _years- or longer. The extended terms of board members reduce what would otherwise be the substantial influence of the governor. Structures_ in the remaining states, Puerto Rico and the Vitgin Islands are variations of these models. In Florida, the state board of education is composed of 7 elected members of the governor's cabinet, including the chief state school officer; _At present,_ Mississippi uses a similar system, although the board has only 3 members: the governor, the chief state school officer and the attorney general. This structure will change in July 1984: the governor and the legislature will appoint a 9- member board_ which will have authority to appoint_ the _chief state school officer._ In Louisiana, the state board is composed of 11 elected members and 1_ ex officio_member;_the chief state school officer is elected._ In WaShingtbh the state board is elected by local school board members, but the chief is elected at large; In New York and South Carolina, the state legislature-appoints the state board. Wisconsin has no state board, and the chief state school officer is elected; In Puerto Ricoi_there is no state board, and the chief is appointed by the governor. In the Virgin Islands, the state board is elected at large and the chief is appointed by the governor. Some interesting interrelationships cut across models. _In 18 states_the legislature exerts influence through its authority to confirm the governor's appointments to the state board. State departments of education interact with the state boards of education in a variety of ways. In 15 states, the chief state school officer is an ex officio member of the state board and in 3 of those inst-,inces chairs the_board;_in_6 states; the superintendent is executive officer of the board; In all but 8 states some staff of the state department of education work either full-time or part-time for the state board of education. 3 MODEL 1: GOrernor Appoints Board: Board Appuints Chief Electorate Governor -I appoints State Board of Education app-sints School Officer Chief State _l IS States: Alaska Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Illiiinia lOwa Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri New Hampshire Rhode Island_ South Dakota Vermont West Virginia MODEL 3: Appointed Board. Elected Chief. 12 States: Arizona Californiai Georgia Idaho Indudi- Ken_t_UckY Montana North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Wyoming Electorate Governor Chief State School Officer appoints State Board of Education MODEL 2' Elected Board. Board Appoints Chief. Electorate Governor State Board of rducition appoints Chief State School Wider I I States: Alablita Colorado Hawaii Kansas Michigan Nebraska Nevada New Mexico Ohio Texas Utah MODEL 4: Appointed Board. Mmlntrd Chief Electorate elects Governor appoint- State Board of Education Chief State School Officer S States: Maine Nrw_lersey Pennsylvania Tennessee Virginia The diversity of education governance structures is long-standing. Although there have been suostantial_changes in overall structures since 1900; few major changes have occurred during the last 10 to 15 years; even though state responsibilities for education have increased; Among recent minor changes-have been adjustments of board size and length of terms. Hawaii; Kentucky and Maryland increased state board membership in the last 10 years; Colorado__and Mississippi _expect to_ increase- membership in 1983 or 1984. Utah will decrease the size of its _state board in January 1983. In Connecticut and Minnesota, the termS of state board members have been reduced within the last 10 years. Whiz e_of State Govezn-anoe? The _absence of _major structurai_changes_over -the last 10 years; _despite major changes in the intergovernmental system and society at large; suggests_that governance structures at the state level are relatively stable. The real question is; however; whether various segments of the structure will provide the leadership iL education that will be necessary for statesand_ districts to adjust to the changes that will take place in the next 10 to 15 years. Education is a complex policy arena; there are few right answers, many wrong ones and many powerful interests that take sides on virtually any issue; There are few political rewards; even for the most astute; and many potential pitfalls. There are; however; some strategies that state officials might consider to increase leadership in education: o InCreaSe the incentives or decrease the diaincentives for governors and legislators to assume leadership in 6dd-cation. o Reorganize State departments of education so they improve their abilities to _provide technical assistance, especially in the area of school improvement. o Ihcreage state board access to independent information and policy analysis; Reduce -the time that state board members spend dealing with administrative detail; thereby increasing their opportunities to address policy issues. 5 Increase the salaries and authority of chief state school officers so highly qualified people will be attracted to these top state education leadership positions. Create Mechanisms to improve the working relationships of educators, legislators and governors. What t-tbRea-d Education Commission of the States. State Goverriande of Educat_i_o_n_:: 1983, forthcoming. Rosenthal, Alan and Susan Fuhrman. Legislative Educa_t_i_on Leadership in the_States. _WaShington, DC: The Institute for Education Leadership, 1981. 6 Name Address Coy. Slate and Zip ORDER FORM (See reverse side for list of Issuegrams) Price: Single copies of lssuegrams are free upon request to the seven ECS Commissioners in each of the 51 member lurisdictions. For others, each Issuegramis_ $2; i,,cluding postage and mailing. Orders for 10 or more copies are $1.50 per copy. Order8 are sent first class mail. Prepayment is requested: Please make checks payable to the Education Commission of the States Phone orders and non-prepaid orders are accepted at $2.50 per lssuegram (to cover invoicing). TO order by phone, Call Terry Shinkle at (303) 8:30-3820 Check here if you are an ECS Commissioner Issuegrarn Number Number of Copies Price Total Cost For Order Mail this order form to: Distribution Center EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES 1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80295 9 Please bill me Payment enclosed Total Due .ecs issue rams A service of THE EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES ISSUEGFIAMS are summary eports on ma/or education issues written for state leaders. Thej include background information, analysis of dit'ering views, fists of sources and references all written for busy readers. Each is updated periodically. Issuegrams currently available: 1 Research Findings on Effective Teaching and Schools 2. Achievement Trends in the Arts 3. Collective Bargaining Issues Continue 4. Adult Learning: A Major Trend 5. Low-Cost School Improvement 6. Achie,rement in Mathematics and Science 7. Testing for Teacher Certification 8. Energy Education: Another Passing Fad? 9. How Well Can Students Read and Write? 10. Special Education and the Law 11. State Programs of School Improvement 12. Compulsory Schooling and Nontraditional Education 13. Education for Economic Growth 14. The Four-Day School Week 15. Setting Up Blue Ribbon Commissions 16. Student Achievement in Public and Private Schools 17. Information Society Challenges Education 18. School Programs To Prevent Drug Abue 19. Tuition Tax Credits 20. Student Minimum Competency Testing issuegrams available March 1, 1983: 21. State Budget Incentives for Quality Improvement (Postsecondary Education) 22. State Licensure/Authorization 23. Recruitnient, Selection and Retention of Teachers 24. Teacher Shortages 25. School Finance Equalization 26, School Finance Reform 27. School Finance Litigation 28. Programs for Special Populations 29. State Education Roles and Missions 30. State K-12 Governance Structures 31. The State Legislative Voting ProcesS in Education 32. Block Grant Implementation 33. Prayer in the Schools 34. Curriculum and the First Amendment 35. Sex Equity in Education 36. Legal Issues in Education Testing 37. Student Skills for a Technology Economy 38. State Strategic Planning for Technology 39. Migrant Edutation 40. Program Review in Postsecondary Education it is the policy of the Education Commission of the States to take affirmative action to prevent discrimination in its policies, programs and employment practices. Please turn page for ordering information.