Kappan Home PDK Home
Saving Public Education for the New Century By Chris Pipho Illustration © 1998 by Mario Noche

GOVERNANCE -- including all the mechanisms that manage public education -- has been the subject of numerous surveys, some research, and much speculation. The fact that states control education has produced, as might be expected, several variations in governance among the states. State boards of education, for example, are not uniformly structured, and two states have no state board. (Wisconsin never had one, and Minnesota recently abolished its state board.) In the other states, some boards are appointed, and some are elected; both approaches are combined in Ohio. The position of chief state school officer is also filled by election and by appointment, with governors, legislatures, and state boards doing the honors in the latter case. The assignment of the governance function at the local level to local boards of education is almost universal, with Hawaii's single district as the one notable exception.

From the perspective of citizens, when a family moves from one state to another, parents find little discernible difference in how local school boards are perceived. And while elections are sometimes spirited and recall elections of individual board members are known to happen, governors, legislators, and state boards have shied away from changing the standard governance model except in a few large urban districts. It is rare indeed when a policy maker even suggests changing or abolishing local school boards. Local districts and boards might just as well be draped in the flag.

A National Commission on Governance

In January 1998, when the Joyce Foundation announced a multi-year grant to the Education Commission of the States (ECS) to examine K-12 public education governance, the award immediately drew the attention of the National School Boards Association and some local boards of education. The project initiated by ECS was labeled the "Governing America's Schools Initiative." The major purpose of the project was 1) "to produce information about public education governance to help policy makers, educators, and the general public make informed decisions about how to improve governance" and 2) "to promote a national dialogue among policy makers, educators, and the general public about how to improve governance."

In order to meet these objectives, ECS formed a National Commission on Governing America's Schools. Seventeen members -- representing a wide range of perspectives on school governance -- were appointed by Gov. Paul Patton of Kentucky, the chair of ECS for 1998-99.

Critics of the project were concerned; they saw the need for more input from the organizations they represented. In their opinion, having one person represent a particular point of view was not sufficient. The ECS leadership felt that, if all such demands were to be met, the commission would produce only a defense of the status quo. Gov. Patton pressed on and named a broad, eclectic group. As the work progressed, it drew considerable attention. At the ECS annual meeting in the summer of 1999, hearings on the progress of the deliberations were especially spirited. Four models of governance were under discussion, and observers suggested that local boards were responding to reform needs with many innovations that should be included in the report.

When the final report was released last November under the chairmanship of Gov. Jim Gerringer of Wyoming, two models were suggested for future debate. Media reaction was swift and generally positive, but most of the print media simply summarized the two proposals.

Since this first national commission is of historic importance, giving it full coverage in this first Stateline of the year 2000 seemed important. For that reason, I offer a full list of the features of the two models. The first model is a system of publicly authorized, publicly funded, and publicly operated schools; the second is a system of publicly authorized, publicly funded, and independently operated schools.

Model One

The state creates a context for schools and districts to excel. State leaders possess unique opportunities to express public expectations for schools and to establish a policy framework that supports these expectations. The state

• promotes high expectations,
• establishes academic standards,
• provides adequate financial resources to districts,
• manages education information and reporting systems,
• develops the state K-12 public education infrastructure,
• holds districts accountable for student performance, and
• aligns education codes with the demands of performance-based accountability.

The district creates an environment that allows schools to focus on teaching and learning. The school district directly operates public schools, but it also allows the creation of some independently operated public schools, such as charter schools. The district hires the superintendent and principals, recruits teachers and other school staff members, bargains with unions, provides services, and holds schools accountable for results. School board policies provide guidance and direction to the district and create a framework within which the superintendent and other district employees work. The school district

• creates a vision for the district;
• establishes districtwide standards and strategically aligns resources and policies to support them;
• monitors, analyzes, and reports school performance;
• creates incentives for progress and consequences for failure for all decision makers in the district as well as for students;
• gives parents the right to choose any public school in the district; and
• engages parents and the community and establishes partnerships with public and private organizations.

The school creates an environment focused on teaching and learning and is held accountable for results. As schools increase their ability to meet district standards, they gain increasing freedom to accomplish results. They assume more direct programmatic, professional, and financial responsibility for management of the school's instructional program. The individual school

• develops, implements, and continuously fine-tunes plans for improving student learning;
• hires, evaluates, and fires teachers and other school personnel;
• writes its own budget and receives funding on a weighted per-pupil basis;
• raises private revenue (up to a limit);
• allocates resources as it sees fit;
• determines staffing patterns and class sizes;
• determines employees' salaries; and
• purchases services from the district or from outside providers.
  

Model Two

The state creates a context for districts to excel. In a system of independently operated schools, the state

• promotes high expectations,
• establishes minimum content and performance standards in a limited number of areas,
• provides adequate financial resources to districts, and
• holds districts accountable for student achievement.

Because the roles and responsibilities of schools, districts, and public and private organizations are quite different within this system, changes in state statutes and education codes are necessary. Some possible changes include:

• providing for the transformation of local school boards into chartering boards empowered to authorize, fund, and oversee schools and to hold them accountable for performance;
• reducing existing state restrictions on the use of both operating and capital funds;
• amending collective-bargaining laws so schools can hire and negotiate with principals and teachers;
• authorizing public school real-estate trusts and allowing schools to lease space from them; and
• granting parents the right to choose any publicly funded school for their child.

The district creates an environment that allows schools to focus on teaching and learning. Independent entities -- individual nonprofit or for-profit organizations, cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and the like -- operate most public schools in a district, under contract to the chartering board. Only in special circumstances does the district operate schools. Specifically, the district

• authorizes, distributes public funds to, and oversees schools;
• educates, recruits, and refers staff for schools;
• provides timely, accurate, and reliable information about schools;
• rewards schools that fulfill their charter requirements and removes funding from those that do not; and
• engages in active partnership with public and private organizations.

The school creates an environment focused on teaching and learning and is held accountable for results. Each school is an independent legal entity, bound to a chartering board by its charter. Schools occupy their own buildings, share buildings with other schools, or provide children access to learning opportunities throughout the community. Each school defines its mission, curriculum, and instructional program. In this system the school

• sets standards, writes curriculum, designs instruction, and controls use of time;
• writes its own budget and receives funding on a weighted per-pupil basis;
• borrows and spends money, purchases and leases space and equipment, buys insurance, and purchases advice and assistance;
• raises private money (up to a limit);
• hires and evaluates principals, teachers, and other school staff members and negotiates their pay, benefits, and responsibilities;
• establishes standards and processes for student admission; and
• is free to impose requirements related to student effort, attendance, and conduct.

Next Steps

The final phase of the ECS governance project is to generate debate and action at the state level. On the agenda for ECS is the convening of state, regional, and national meetings to discuss the proposed models. The second model is certainly a bold proposal -- something that could perhaps blunt the force of voucher proposals and keep the concept of public education alive. It will be interesting to see how these proposals fare under the spotlight of public discussion.

PDK Home | Site Map
Membership & Chapters | Kappan Magazine | Professional Development
Educational Research | Bookstore & Giftshop | Student Services

Last updated 8 December 1999
URL: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpip0001.htm
Copyright 2000 Phi Delta Kappa International