This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.
Illinois School Board Journal
September-October 1999
School governance proposals misguided
by Peter S. Weber
Peter S. Weber is IASB Deputy Executive Director for Advocacy.
In the ongoing debate about school reform, the nation's governors have turned their attention to school governance. The National Commission on Governing America's Schools (NCGAS), a task force impaneled by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), has been working to research and develop "useful options for strong, forward-thinking school organization and management." These options, once identified, were to answer how states and communities can "organize themselves to effectively educate their young people." The task force was convened in February, 1999, financed by a multi-year grant from the Joyce Foundation.
The NCGAS presented an early draft of its findings at the ECS National Forum in Denver. The controversial recommendations on new approaches to school governance included the presentation of four models of school governance. These models have not yet been adopted by ECS -- the group's final report is due in November -- but reflect what the working groups are currently pro-posing.
The Illinois Association of School Boards, along with other school boards associations and the National School Boards Association, is working to provide information and feedback to the NCGAS, to ensure that the final report is based on an accurate understanding of the nature and work of school boards.
Following is a discussion of the preliminary proposals that we heard in Denver. (For more detail about the preliminary report itself, see "ECS Task Force Studies Governance.")
Model #1: Improvement of the existing system. Essentially, the preliminary report recommends shifting school district authority to the state level as a solution to the problem of dispersed authority. Ironically, the report also acknowledges that the multiple decision-making sources at the state level are one of the greatest contributors to the governance conflict the commissioners disparage.
Seattle school board member Michael Preston testified before the commissioners that it was hard to imagine that giving more authority to the state legislators, state board and staff, certifying boards, and other state bodies, would bring more clarity and less bureaucracy to the system. This report also assumes that the state is less influenced by political trade-offs, union pressure, and special interest groups than decision makers at the local school district level -- an assumption that is incredibly naive.
The authors of this report missed an opportunity to examine school districts where effective governance was a contributing factor to student achievement. Models for improved school governance should identify effective school board governance principles and suggest ways to strengthen local leadership that is perceived to be deficient or misguided. The commission's report doesn't really examine governance at all, other than to identify areas of conflicting jurisdiction and the resulting confusion and inefficiencies.
Model #2: Decentralization and site-based management. This model seems to flatly contradict the first model by moving decision-making authority in the opposite direction. It urges increased decentralization to the school site level. It provides adequate resources to schools through a weighted per-pupil formula, offers performance incentives for school improvement and gives discretion to schools to hire and fire teachers and make decisions about school design.
Although the movement toward added local decision making is a more reasonable option, evidence is lacking to support the argument that site-based management has improved education. Lack of progress results from a lack of clarity over the role of the district in site-based management. This report falls into some of those same traps.
This model gives the district oversight of accountability and equity issues, but ignores the significant operational issues such as the information, knowledge and reward systems that make local school sites effective. It also largely dismisses the school board's key role in setting broad goals and providing necessary services. It is hard to imagine a principal becoming an effective CEO without adequate training. Similarly, it is unrealistic to expect teachers to work differently without coordinated professional development opportunities.
Model #3: Charter districts. Remarkably, in the absence of evidence indicating that charter schools are successful at providing an improved general education program, this report recommends universal conversion to charter schools within school districts. Individual charter schools might make sense. However, they are typically organized for special purposes (i.e., at-risk students, alternative education programs for the behaviorally disordered, etc.). Charters that provide a general education program were originally conceived as ways to identify alternative methods of delivering education that can be replicated if they effectively improve student achievement.
Michael Preston, in his remarks to the commission commented that, "The report does not envision any affirmative support role by the school district to build the capacity of the local school site or meet community values. On this latter point, while parents have a paramount stake in education, so does the community -- including the taxpayers who are footing the bill."
Preston further commented that, "Although the school site would not be governed by individuals legally sanctioned by election or personally accountable, the school district would be liable for their legal and financial liabilities."
Model #4: Education Development Boards (EDB). This proposal would create a new education authority to oversee all education programs. The report recommends that EDB's be unencumbered by regulations. Preston observed that he assumed these inhibiting regulations included "the various unused or minor reports and accounting procedures required by the state, or the various rules that structure how schools are organized and require the teaching of extraneous subject matter." If that were true, Preston correctly asserted that, ". . . we shouldn't need an EDB as a rationale for the state to free school systems from those kinds of unneeded regulation."
The EDB proposal also seeks to broaden the role of the local governing authority to include coordinating with other social service agencies and promoting private investment in schools and facilities. These are very positive areas for school boards -- many of which already are extensively involved in such cooperative activities -- but they do not require the establishment of EDB's or any other new education authority. Examples of collaborative arrangements are becoming increasingly numerous and are having a positive impact on the quality of education in the represented communities.
At the ECS opening luncheon, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb spoke passionately and eloquently about the priority his administration is giving to the educational needs of his city's children. Webb described several programs and initiatives designed to raise the standards of learning, celebrate the students that succeed and support those that struggle. He and the city are working with the local school board to provide increased educational opportunities for Denver's children. The city is leaving the instruction of children to the professionals in the schools and is augmenting the public school effort with social, educational and financial support for children, their families and the community. The city and the school board are working together to articulate a student achievement-focused vision and a coordinated plan to make their vision come alive in the hearts and minds of the people of Denver.
Interestingly, when asked by an audience member what role state policymakers could play in making similar things happen in other cities and towns, Webb only said that, "When people of goodwill get together, I've never seen them unable to address a problem." Further, he suggested that leaders must disregard legal jurisdictions and partisan affiliations to be effective. He used a pothole as a metaphor. If there is a pothole in the road, it can be either a Democrat or Republican pothole, depending on whom you ask. The state, county or city might argue about whose responsibility it is to conduct the repair. Still, the pothole needs to be fixed! Leaders will set aside the arguments about how the pothole got there and who should fix it. They will simply acknowledge the hole exists and work to fill it.
What education needs is more leaders who understand that education can be improved with a change in attitude rather than a change in governance structure.
Mayor Webb understands the benefits of collaboration and the motivation that comes from cooperation. Some at ECS, however, haven't achieved that level of understanding. The draft report from the ECS Commission suggests options "for strong, forward-thinking school organization and management," while almost entirely ignoring the role of the public school board in providing high quality education for children.
The draft report is essentially a collection of four opinions. None of the proposals is grounded in any research and they are, at times, in direct conflict with each other. In various forms, the ECS Commission is recommending that boards either relinquish authority to the state or to site-based teams. In neither incarnation is it clear from where the new governing bodies would come. Are they appointed? By whom would they be appointed? One report even suggests that the governing bodies should work under the "leadership" of a local superintendent appointed by the state board of education!
The draft report from the National Commission on Governing America's Schools ignores some very important elements of elected school board governance. Democracy, citizen participation and equal opportunity are crucial elements of local school leadership that are maintained by an effective school board. Nat LaCour of the American Federation of Teachers noted the teachers' union cannot support "every school doing its own thing" or endorse a policy that supports the removal of a government authority overseeing public education. LaCour called such a move "a recipe for disaster."
The Education Commission of the States
The Education Commission of the States (ECS) was established by a unanimous vote at the 1966 National Governors' Conference which called for a nationwide alliance for the improvement of education with the active leadership and personal participation of the governors. The motivation behind the organization of ECS was to provide the states with a tool to become more deeply involved in shaping education policy. The initial concept of an "interstate planning commission for education" was proposed by James Bryant Conant, president emeritus of Harvard University, in his book, Shaping Educational Policy (1964).
Since its inception, ECS has been a very active participant in the development of education policy in the states. Governors, legislators, state education policy leaders and key staff participate in the programs, study commissions and deliberations of ECS. Many education reform initiatives have either been developed or made increasingly popular through ECS involvement. Their work with charter schools and vouchers, for example, have given state policymakers information, background and support to move the issues forward in their states.