• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Education Program

Shifting Roles in Governance

Over the past decade, public education has restructured around the notion of accountability3/4 asking students, educators and institutions to be responsible for education outcomes. A significant impetus for this accountability reform is coming from state policymakers; including legislators, governors, state boards and chief state school officers.

Education Week reports, "accountability programs that combine state academic standards, mandated tests, and related systems of rewards and penalties have been the state's most powerful lever for change." Currently, 49 states have implemented standards of what their students should 'know and be able to do' and established statewide tests to assess student performance on a common yardstick. Approximately twenty states issue overall ratings for schools based on their performance. State Senator Steve Stoll, who has served in the Missouri Legislature for eight years and witnessed this state directed reform, contends "we (state legislators) are no longer just tinkering around the edges of reform, we are leading in a new direction." Senator Stoll is a part of a growing movement in which state policymakers are initiating comprehensive accountability reforms, and thereby shifting traditional governance structures in education policy.

These governance changes are also occurring at the local level. In large urban districts, like Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland, mayors have been granted greater control and are brokering accountability systems in their own city schools. From administrators to teachers, there are increasing pressures for schools to achieve and demonstrate high levels of student achievement. As states move to implement sweeping accountability systems, there is a need to address and determine how policymakers and stake holders balance management and local control with a state role that ensures equity, adequacy and replication of best practices. This report will look at how state and local policymakers are shifting governance roles with accountability reforms.

As a constitutional mandate states have the responsibility to provide and maintain a public education system for their students. While the language differs from state to state, the constitution includes a provision that calls for the state government to establish and maintain an "adequate" or "appropriate" education system. For state legislators, this translates to establishing education-funding formulas, enacting statewide parameters for personnel hiring and evaluating procedures, and other measures to ensure quality and oversight. Historically, state legislators have been satisfied to set these statewide parameters and have maintained a strong tradition of grassroots control, leaving many site-based decisions to local school boards and administrators. Throughout the past two decades, states have begun to play a larger role in education, moving beyond setting wide parameters and establishing standards and accountability measures for districts, schools, teachers and students. This expanded role is due to many factors, including, but not limited to, litigation, increases in state funding, and standards and accountability reforms.

Education funding has undergone dramatic changes in the last twenty years, with the state increasing the percentage of its general fund going to education. In 1970 local districts provided 52 percent of a school district's funding, while state funding was just fewer than 40 percent. By 1980, local contribution dropped to 43 percent while the state contributed 47 percent, and from the 1990's to present, states are providing a large proportion of funding for education, with a national average for states comprising 50 percent. Increases in funding have permitted state legislators to demand results and/or education reforms. In 1997-98 New Mexico provided 73 percent of total funding3/4 indicating a high percentage of state funds going for its education system. Cathy Fernandez, Principal Analyst for the Legislative Finance Committee, says, "the Legislature in New Mexico plays a significant role in public education, especially in terms of funding. They have become increasingly concerned with accountability in education. Putting more resources towards making our public schools better is not really the issue, but rather what are the citizens getting for the money." New Mexico's comprehensive accountability program includes appropriated state funds, $1.9 million in 1999, for schools deemed high performing and state assistance for low-performing schools. Increases in state education funding3/4 alongside public pressure to increase student achievement3/4 have further spurred state legislators to demand accountability and results from their state school system.

Missouri made a contribution to the accountability movement in 1993 when the legislature enacted the Outstanding Schools Act. Lawmakers called for the establishment of 75 academic goals for students to meet by graduation, new assessments aligned to those goals, and model curriculum frameworks to spell out expectations in detail for districts that ask for assistance. The frameworks are voluntary, enabling school districts autonomy in both the time and development of their curriculum goals. The assessment program will be fully implemented this year and the 1993 legislation gives the state the power to shut down any school district that does not meet state accreditation standards. Missouri Senator Steve Stoll asserts, "since 1993, the systemic reform effort has given us more focus on a multifaceted plan." Stoll believes that the difficulty of this statewide effort has been maintaining a balance of local and state control. He said, "maintaining a balance between local and state control isn't easy. I believe the legislature and state department sets the broad areas of education policy, standards and assessments. We leave the 'how to get there' to the local district. I think setting the policy goals concerning teaching and learning, giving schools the policy tools they need and then holding them accountable is what we (state legislators) need to do." In addition to holding schools accountable, policymakers are finding that accompanying high stakes systems are questions over whom and how to ensure equity, tackle potential remediation and provide adequate support.

How to make certain that all students meet these standards and how to tailor policies to meet the needs of diverse students- including students from different socioeconomic backgrounds, language diversity, and special education students3/4 are issues intensifying in several states. Professor of Education at Rutgers University, Margaret Goertz contends that, "states must address inequities in student opportunities to learn. Ensuring that all students have comparable learning opportunities is perhaps the most politically challenging issue that states face. As high stakes assessments measure more rigorous content, students need access to teachers who have the content knowledge and pedagogy required to teach challenging content to a diverse group of learners." Goertz believes students need access to an academic program that addresses the standards and concomitantly, access to supplemental help as they move through the system. For example, in the past few years, Maryland has worked to help traditionally lower performing students through tutoring and remediation programs. In 1998 the State Superintendent of Schools appointed an Advisory Council on Education and Multicultural Issue (ETM) that reports on the scope of the minority achievement gap, issues recommendations, and monitors state action on these recommendations. After enacting a more rigorous high school graduation test, the State Board of Education directed the State Department of Education to develop a comprehensive state and local K-12 program of remediation to ensure that students have the assistance they need to meet the state's standards.

Another governance issue that state legislators are considering with accountability reforms is state intervention. As part of larger accountability reforms, approximately twenty states have enacted legislation that allows them to intervene in districts deemed low performing. Thirteen of those states include the assignment of state staff as part of the assistance. In North Carolina, the state assigns teams of five to six members to work in a low-performing school for a year and in New Mexico special teams are sent to analyze and diagnose problems in failing schools. Throughout the next few years, questions will continue to surface over when and how a state should intervene. State legislatures are also faced with coordinating accountability policies with different education institutions in the state.

The role of the state board of education differs greatly; however, most boards are the 'hands' of the executive and legislative branches3/4 developing rules to implement the education laws enacted by state legislatures. For example, the Texas Education Code originally established the state boards' authority to "take actions necessary to implement legislative policy for the public school system of the state." Arizona "vests general conduct and supervision of the state's public schools to the state board of education" and Idaho gives the state board "general supervision of the public school system." Thus, state boards are responsible for providing direction for the public school system and implementation of legislative decrees. With accountability systems, this language often translates to developing performance levels, mechanisms to grade schools and districts, and/or setting appropriate improvement targets.

Who boards are responsible to in implementing accountability reforms centers on whether or not they are elected or appointed. According to the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) 34 states appoint state education boards. Ten states have elected state boards with four states3/4 Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah3/4 using non-partisan elections and six states3/4 Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, and Texas3/4 using partisan elections. Three states, Louisiana, New Mexico and Ohio have a combination of elected and appointed members and local school board members elect the state of Washington's board of education. Those who argue for an appointed board content that the members who have a greater sense of accountability and common mission from the governor who appointed them and the legislators who confirmed them. The appointment system can potentially allow cooperated between board members rather than divisiveness over elected officials who run on specific platforms. On the other hand, elected positions have the potential to reflect the community and their constituent needs. Furthermore, an elected board represents a wide range of viewpoints, invariably leading to better policy, supporters contend. However, on a state board, it becomes difficult to be representative due to the small number of members serving larger state populations.

With accountability reform, there is potential for the state board to be at odds with the legislation handed down from the capitol. Brenda Welburn, Director of the National Association of State Board's of Education (NASBE), believes, "the biggest problem that board's face in this era is the problem of having the governor or legislature using their authority to pass accountability policies, but requiring that the board govern the implementation. The board is frequently held up to ridicule for implementing policies that it does not pass." While the board is charged with implementing policies, they have little input on the type of legislation or program passed by the state executive and legislative branches. For example, the state board in New Mexico approved a school rating system, under a legislative mandate, to grade public schools. When 172 schools were named "probationary"3/4 meaning they are under notice to improve3/4 the board came under criticism. Parents, teachers and administrators spoke out about the board's rating system, with some feeling that it was too rigorous and others believing it was set too low. By establishing unprecedented targets and baselines for performance, state boards are the targets of public reaction to accountability policies. "Education policymaking has become too fractious," Welburn contends, and this is a major concern to state board members."

Another issue for state boards is adequate resources. In some accountability reforms, states are required to provide technical assistance to low-performing schools and this requires ample funding and support. Brenda Welburn maintains, "now that boards are placing new demands and expectations on local education agencies, they must have the resources and authority to respond to the results. A board cannot raise the stakes on schools, districts, teachers and students without anticipating the consequences and what if means for subsequent policies." For example, if a board implements a policy that includes a state take-over as an option against low performing districts; it must be prepared with the appropriate resources- financial, human and skill levels- to make a difference during the take over phase. Welburn sees a distinction between the boards that have the authority over budget decisions, "those boards that cannot impact the budget allocations for education often find themselves in the position of passing policies without the money to truly effect change." Because state boards are often instrumental in determining various and critical aspects of program implementation, it will be important to determine and consider resource capacity.

The chief state school officer is either appointed or elected as the state board's executive officer and has primary responsibility for the oversight and direction of the department of education. Chief state school officers implement state board and department policies and can act as a liaison between school districts and the state. The selection of the chief state school officer varies from state to state. In twenty-five states the state education board appoints the chief school officer. The governor is responsible for appointing the officer in 10 states and in 15 states the chief school officer is elected- with nine using partisan ballots and six using nonpartisan ballots. Jack Mac Donald, former state education chief and long time staff of the Council of Chief State School Officers, notes that the relationship between the chiefs and the state boards is affected by the method of selection. He asserts that "it can be dicey" when the governor appoints the chief, "as the chiefs must also interface with an elected or appointed state board. This can work well when the board is also appointed by the governor, but if not and they are elected and of different parties this can be troublesome for all concerned."

Similar to teachers and superintendents, chief state school officers are facing new pressures with accountability systems. However, in each state system it depends on how much power the chief is given and their designated role in the accountability reform. Mac Donald concurs, "increased pressure is still open to the kind of accountability system being implemented in the state. The chiefs that have implemented the most stringent high stakes accountability systems are the ones getting the most backlash from disgruntled parents, legislatures, unions, etc." This scenario is exemplified in Massachusetts where student and parents are protesting high stakes accountability system. The critics of the Massachusetts assessment program (MCAS) believe that the statewide exams and the stakes attached are too rigorous. Several hundred students protested the exam by boycotting the test and parents have organized in coalitions across the state to demand changes. Although the state board and commissioner are coming under fire, they are remaining steadfast in their support for the exams. Education Commissioner David Driscoll asserts that the state needs to continue with the MCAS agenda while concomitantly addressing low performing schools and failure rates.

It's impossible to talk about state school boards and chief state school officers without looking at the role of state education agencies. As significant bodies of policy implementation- state departments of education oversee a myriad of programs including, but not limited to, standards and curriculum, teacher licensure, charter schools, and professional development. State departments are often liaisons between the district level and state level. While there has been a recent streamlining process in employee numbers, state departments are taking on new responsibilities. In Colorado, representatives from the state department expressed a need for more full time employees and funding for programs, especially for evaluation and monitoring. Thirteen states, in their accountability policies, include the assignment of a state education staff to low-performing schools. Illinois created a new division in its education department to aid schools that were low performing schools. In New Jersey, the legislature passed a bill in 2000 that created an inspector general to oversee financially troubled school districts. Thus, accountability policies have increased the scope of responsibility for state education agencies and chief state school officers.

Similar to state legislatures, governors are taking unprecedented roles in an era of accountability reform. Where legislatures enact the state laws impacting education, governors mainly serve as 'initiators' of education reform. Governors, as the top elected official in the executive branch, are in a unique position to create public and political support for statewide initiatives and reforms. Furthermore, governors are attracted to issues that are popular with the citizenry and education has moved into the forefront of the public agenda. This year, national and state public opinion polls put education as primary concern for Americans.

Education was a principal issue for governors in the 2000 session, with Mississippi Governor Ronnie Musgrove proposing to raise teacher salaries, Governor Roy Barnes in Georgia highlighting his statewide accountability proposal, and New Mexico's Governor Gary Johnson's proposal to institute merit pay for the state's qualified teachers. Georgia's Governor Roy Barnes initiated a comprehensive accountability reform dubbed as the "A-Plus Education Reform Act." By establishing accountability as the cornerstone, this reform establishes a system of graded schools, from A to F, based on student performance on statewide tests and eliminates tenure protections for new teachers. Schools that perform well will receive rewards and those that consistently earn a low grade will face sanctions. Although Barnes received support from the legislature, the Georgia Association of Educators, the affiliate of the National Education Association, has been a vocal critic of his elimination of tenure for teachers. This accountability package is similar, minus the elimination of tenure, to Governor Jeb Bush's comprehensive accountability bill in Florida 3/4 enacted in 19993/4 and Colorado Governor Bill Owens instigated reform to grade schools this legislative session.

In California, Governor Gray Davis is exemplifying the 'initiator' role of the executive branch with accountability reforms. In the 1999-2000 legislative session Governor Gray Davis' proposed to hold schools accountable for academic results and on January 25 a statewide academic-performance index was implemented. This comprehensive rating system assigns all schools a score ranging from 200 to 1,000 based on student performance on the Stanford Achievement Test-9^th Edition. The index shows schools how they measure to other schools and provides an academic-growth target to meet in order to qualify for monetary awards. These state examples show a movement among governors to move educational accountability to the forefront of their state agendas.

For California, Colorado and Georgia the governors were able to secure enough support from the legislature to enact their statewide reforms. However, differing agendas and partisan politics often put the legislature at odds with the governor3/4 sometimes making it difficult for education reform to be enacted. For the past few years Democrats have dominated the New Mexico legislature and have continually been at odds with their Republican Governor Gary Johnson. New Mexico has a thirty-day legislative session and constitutionally they are mandated to pass their state budget each year. However, in 1999 the Governor vetoed the budget twice forcing a special session and this year, Johnson vetoed both budget proposals and the legislature was forced into a special session. The contention was driven by a governor pushing for educational vouchers and a Democrat legislature aiming to increase funding into the public education system. The Legislature wanted to appropriate $90million to fund schools and Governor Johnson felt the amount was too much. The differences between the legislative and executive branches will continue to impact education reform, especially as high stakes accountability reforms are implemented across the country.

 Mayors

With new accountability reform, some states are looking to local policymakers to provide leadership. One of the most dramatic changes in governance structures has recently occurred where states have handed city mayors control of the school district. Approximately half of the states have laws or statutory procedures that allow a state to intervene in a local school administration. In several urban districts, management is extremely difficult with a large, diverse student-body facing special needs, a considerable budget and bureaucracy. Proponents of mayoral control contend this establishes a clear point of accountability and can reduce inefficiencies. On the other hand, opponents of mayoral control fear that abolishing locally elected school boards weakens direct democracy and limits the diversity of views inherent in a multi member school board.

In 1995, the Illinois legislature transferred control of the Chicago public schools to Mayor Richard Daley. This gave the mayor control of the budget and the responsibility to appoint school board members, the board president and the district's chief executive officer. Mayor Daley appointed Paul Vallas as CEO, adopted a business management model for the new administration, and instituted an ambitious accountability agenda that provides both pressure and support for school system. The reform package included ending social promotion and mandating summer school for students who did not pass their grade. System wide the Chicago reform has posted gains in student achievement. Student tests scores have improved incrementally over the last four years, as students have neared the national average on math and reading scores. The Consortium of Chicago School Research 1999 study found that the "Chicago school reform has precipitated substantial improvements in achievement in a very large number of Chicago public elementary schools. The governance reforms of 1988 and 1995 have significantly advanced the learning opportunities afforded to literally hundreds of thousands of Chicago's children." In Chicago, since the governance change to relinquish control and increase accountability, the education system is seeing improvement in student achievement.

Following Chicago's example, other urban locales, including Oakland, California and Detroit, Michigan, are experimenting with governance changes to improve their public schools and raise student achievement. While the overall impact of mayoral control remains to be seen, this governance model has allowed states to intervene in low-performing school districts and still ensure a certain degree of local control.

The day to day experience of education occurs at the school-site with teachers, administrators, and staff working to create an effective and safe environment for students. Thus, with state and local policies fostering new curriculum, assessments and accreditation, it's important to understand the perspective from teachers and administrators.

The accountability and standards-based reforms have created unique pressures on teachers. While some teachers support raising standards and keeping schools accountable, there are aspects of high stakes systems that have caused concern among the teachers. The public scrutiny of school report cards and resting student promotion and graduation on a single test, have definitely raised criticisms among some teachers. A 1999 survey of elementary school teachers across North Carolina found that more than three-fourths (77.2 percent) surveyed felt their morale was lower since North Carolina's accountability program had been enacted. Seventy-six percent reported that they believed the accountability program would not improve their schools and more than seventy six percent felt their jobs were more stressful since the program was implemented. The study reported that teachers felt anxious, pressured and guilty with these external tests and were embarrassed when their school's scores were published in the newspapers. Furthermore, teachers were wary that the tests did not accurately measure student growth or consider factors outside the teacher's control (Phi Delta Kappan, 11/99). The wariness teacher's feel about some assessments reflects a general concern for the validity and usefulness of the assessment.

A recent survey of teachers nationwide by Education Week found that teacher behavior was changing, to some degree, because of state standards. When asked to compare the current picture with standards to three years earlier, almost eight in 10 teachers said the curriculum was "somewhat" or "a lot" more demanding of students. More than six in ten said the expectations for what students would learn were "somewhat" or "a lot" higher. However, seven in 10 teachers said there was not enough time to cover everything in their state standards, a problem that is worse for elementary and middle school teachers.

Similar to many states, Colorado is immersed in the standards and accountability based reform. Kent Williman has been teaching high school social studies for twenty-five years in Longmont, Colorado. He believes the standards have allowed for a "common direction and continuity among students and teachers across the state, a benchmark that was not there before." The state began its standards-based reform in 1993; implemented assessments aligned to these standards in 1997, and in the 2000 legislative session passed an education accountability program. The most recent package will grade schools (A-F) based solely on the statewide assessment. While Williman sees strength in tying standards to assessments, he is concerned over how the state is utilizing these scores. He said, "I am puzzled at the way the state is reporting and using the statewide assessment, this is of grave concern for me. You have to look at how you assess and accredit schools, looking at broader factors, rather than just using results from a single test, this is bordering on criminal. " While some teachers agree with the move to raise standards and increase accountability, many are apprehensive over how the state is measuring the assessment and using the scores in reporting, sanctions.

Administrators have an immense responsibility in leading the varied and complex issues facing schools and school districts. Similar to teachers and other administrators, superintendents are facing new demands with accountability reforms, including, but not limited to, the accreditation process, assessing state or district performance goals, and dealing with the public response from reporting. Don Kussmaul serves as superintendent for a rural school district in southwest Illinois. In his twenty-two years of service he has witnessed dramatic changes in governance in his district. There is difficulty, Kussmaul argues, in the process of correlating local standards- set by community members and parents- to state standards and assessments. "In a school district where we had standards and developed them based upon the yearly developed goals (staff, board, community leaders, parents, and school administration involved in a weekend retreat) it is difficult to change and meet state standards which may differ from what is developed at the local level. While much may be the same there will be differences. The format and presentation of how one is accomplishing the standards will be state developed not local. So, all local standards must be converted to reflect the form wanted by the state." Kussmaul believes these mandates create an extremely time-intensive process, "the time involved is much more enormous than most can imagine. The process totally involves staff and this takes away from planning time for classes to meet the proper paperwork."

The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) reports that superintendents are increasingly voicing their opposition to using results from a single standardized exam. Edward Kelly, superintendent in Virginia's Prince William's County, joined a group of superintendents and community members in a rally against the Virginia Board of Education's graduation and accreditation policies. The plan states that by 2004, any high school student who does not pass six of the Standards of Learning Tests will not receive a diploma. Educators and community members are angered at the use of a single measure to determine graduation.

Administrators and teachers are undeniably facing new and increased scrutiny and pressure from high stakes accountability systems. Furthermore, with high stakes assessments, questions are arising about how to raise standards for students and at the same time ensure equity and validity in these systems.

With states and localities implementing comprehensive and often times, high stakes, accountability systems, many issues regarding governance are surfacing. Cathy Fernandez, legislative staff in New Mexico, sees a delineation of local and state responsibilities resulting from accountability reforms. There is a certain relationship between the state and local control in New Mexico where, "local districts maintain local control for programs but also are held accountable. Legislators believe that locales know what is best to meet the needs of the students in the local community and do not want to get involved with daily operations. However, they do expect results and are growing concerned when they do not see them." Effective accountability reforms hinge on creating this balance of state leadership and local decision-making.

State policies and governance changes in public education should consider several issues and questions, including, but not limited to the following:

• How are the lines of communication and coordination among different groups drawn clearly?
• What types of governance structures, given the unique political context of your state, will best support student learning and improve public education?
• Is the reform policy aligned- from the classroom to the state level? Moreover, is there a clear understanding among policy makers and educators of the goals and outcomes, modes of implementation, effective communication, etc.?
• How does the interaction between state policy and classroom practice play out, is it disjointed or connected?
• Be mindful of the uniqueness of districts and communities and how strict external systems impose on local district decision making.

The success of accountability reform is dependent on communication and coordination among the different actors in our public education system. The question over local roles and responsibilities will continue to increase as state and local policymakers weigh the balance of power and responsibilities in sustaining this systemic reform.

Visitor counts for this page.

Education Home Page