Abstract

1. Phase I – Fall 2012: What are the goals of the system in terms of: • Structure and organization • Finance and business services • Human resources/personnel • Educational program Center on Educational Governance Mapping state education governance: Structures that facilitate and impede desired educational outcomesJoanna Smith, Nicholas Perry, Fatima Capinpin, Xiuzhi Wang and Hovanes Gasparian University of Southern California Phase II – Spring 2013: Who is the best situated to carry out the tasks necessary to meet those goals? What institutions and individuals at each level of the system (e.g. governor, legislature, state board, superintendent, state department, district boards, county offices of education, principals and teachers) should be responsible for what? • Phase III – Fall 2013: How should these institutions or individuals best induce others to implement policy? What mix is best suited to meet the goals? • Mandates • Inducements • Capacity Building • System changing • *Adapted from Brewer, D. & Smith, J. (2008). A framework for understanding educational governance: The case of California. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 24. Findings Abstract Conceptual Framework* • Bucket 1: Inclusiveness of State Board of Education • High: at least 3 members must be women and no two members may be from the same county (NJ) • Medium: 4 members elected from 4 congressional districts, and 7 members appointed (NV) • Low: all board members are appointed at large (FL) • Bucket 2: Fragmentation of agencies • Highly fragmented: Many nonstandard bodies – Dept. of Management, Board of Examiners, Area Ed. Agencies, Teacher Licensing Board (IA) • Some fragmentation/consolidation: 31 advisory boards on a wide range of topics (MO) • Highly consolidated: Dept. of Ed. oversees teacher licensure and is the sole charter authorizer (MS) • Bucket 3: Span of State Department of Education’s control • Broad span of control: preK-16 public, private, and nonpublic school systems (NE) • Medium span of control: preK-16 (MA) • Limited span of control: only K-12 (HI) • Bucket 4: Uniformity of districts • High uniformity: All districts have the same rules/designation (IA) • Medium uniformity: Different policies for rural districts (ID) • High differentiation: Community school districts, municipal school districts, school administrative districts, union school districts (ME) • Bucket 5: Partisanship of education governance system • Highly partisan: Governor appoints SBE, CSSO elected on partisan ballot, county Sup’ts elected on partisan ballot. Elections follow general election cycle (AZ) • Medium partisanship: SBE elections partisan and coincide with general election, local board elections nonpartisan, districts determine the date (MI) • Low partisanship: Governor must appoint SBE so that no more than four are affiliated with the same political party; local school board elections nonpartisan (MT) • Bucket 6: Locus of Control • Top-down: Collective bargaining prohibited, SBE member appointed by governor and courts (SC) • Evenly distributed: regional superintendents and district boards have authority over curriculum and instructional materials (IL) • Local control: district boundaries, teacher evaluations (CT) State education governance – structures and processes as well as decision-making rights – play an important role in achieving or impeding desired educational outcomes. This qualitative study uses internet research, online surveys and phone interviews to map the K-12 education governance system in all 50 states. Findings highlight six characteristics that facilitate or constrain effective policy adoption and implementation: inclusiveness, fragmentation, span of control, district uniformity, partisanship, and locus of control Research Questions • How do state and local structures impact decisions about educational governance? • How do these structures facilitate or impede state, local and school leaders’ efforts to achieve better student outcomes? • How do policy processes in different states affect the implementation of education services, programs, and reforms? Study Methods • Phase I – Internet Research • Reviewed Internet sources to identify state and local education governance structures and processes: • State Education Codes • State School Boards Associations Websites • State Department of Education Websites • School and Staffing Survey Data • Phase II – Online surveys and Phone Interviews • Electronic surveys with state education departments • In-depth phone interviews • Phase III – Data Analysis • All interviews recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using qualitative analysis program