School Boards Essay Example

The establishment of formal school boards first appeared in written law in 1789 in Massachusetts (Berliner and Biddle, 1995).

School boards were given the responsibility to collect and levy taxes, hire teachers and supervise instruction, acquire and maintain school buildings, and certify teachers (Levin, 2002). As school districts grew, board members began to see the necessity for an administrative and operational figure that could spend more time running the schools, thus superintendents were hired (Spring, 2001).Approximately 50 years after local school boards were formally recognized, the first state board of education was founded in Massachusetts in 1837 under the direction of Horace Mann (Good, 1998). This board was created to assist local communities in providing improved education for their children. States became involved in education and required each district to accept fiscal and administrative responsibilities and to create rules and policies to dictate the goals and operations of the school (20th Century Fund Task Force, 1992).

This was the first of many steps toward a growing educational bureaucracy (Bendiner, 1969).The late 19th century brought many changes to the school board. The United States was becoming increasingly urban, the economy was adjusting from an agrarian base to industrialization and the public was condemning local and state governments for their corruption. Additionally, the scientific management methodology popular in the commercial world was making its way into public education (Spring, 2001). The focus of this new system would remain the school board and superintendent (Todras, 1993).

Americans wanted independent school boards that fostered the involvement of laymen instead of professionals in order to keep them democratic and free of corruption (Danzberger, Kirst and Usdan, 1992). Also, to combat

perceived corruption in government school boards were kept independent from other bodies of government. Elections were held separate from local, state and national elections to receive individual attention and less political influence. They were also made nonpartisan (Kirst, 1972).

It was at this time that most school boards migrated from a single-member district to an at-large the electoral system (Engstrom and McDonald, 1986). It was perceived that this change would make the boards more professional, exempt them from corrupt government, and isolate them from unpopular, uneducated minority groups in segments of the community. Structural reformers wanted to avoid tainting government by allowing lower class and minority group members to serve (Davidson and Corbel, 1981). Leaders were interested in keeping elite members of society in school board positions. At the turn of the 20th Century, most school boards used at-large districts.In the late 1950s, accompanying the civil rights movement, another major shift in the electoral system of school boards occurred (Kirst, 1972).

After the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the subsequent 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed, local elected bodies began to restructure school boards and other local bodies through reapportionment (Blacksher, 1997). The Voting Rights Act was passed to avoid minority vote dilution and subsequent court rulings gave state and local governments authority and reason to restructure the electoral systems (Blacksher, 1997). Single-member districts were used to increase minority and urban representation (Todras, 1993).It is argued that the at-large terms of school boards were deliberately designed to impede direct representation (Martin, 1970). At-large districts also depressed levels of competition by scaring away potential candidates and forced minority candidates to run city-wide races and compete against the

majority group with limited resources (Fraga, Meier and England, 1986).

On the other hand, at-large the electoral systems were criticized because candidates were too busy trying not to antagonize any one group of constituents (Martin, 1970).The heterogeneity of interests across the whole district resulted in a lack of substantive actions by the school board. Single-member districts however, were much more homogenous and members could develop a sense of what is right for their community. It has also been found that, in at-large districts, constituents may feel that they have no representative responsible to them (Davidson and Corbel, 1981).

Additionally, at-large districts limit community action to reaction, such as the defeat of bond measures.While single-member districts did initially lead to increased minority representation, they created new problems. Opponents claimed that they led to gerrymandering. The districts were narrowly tailored to represent a racial minority and serve a compelling state interest (Blacksher, 1997). Further, it has been stated that single-member districts increase the Balkanization of issues (Mulroy, 1998). School board members become delegates of the various interest groups in their district.

Further, many thought that issues of representation were exacerbated in single-member districts because there is an obligation to represent the people they serve, and may conflict with the best interests of the entire school system (Blacksher, 1997).The issue is made worse because of court decisions in the last decade. Several court cases found that minority majority districts were unconstitutional. Supporters of at-large districts maintain that they serve the purpose of unifying the school district and promote the best interests of the school district as a whole (Lawton, Scane and Wang, 1995). School board members should be

elected at-large to serve broader interests and issues instead of fragmented constituency groups (Danzberger, Kirst and Usdan, 1993).The 1970s witnessed additional changes for school boards as the environment was again shifting.

The fight for civil rights and individual rights clouded the mission of education and for the first time a national consensus was lacking (Webb, Metha and Jordan, 1992). There was growth, rising enrollment, and mounting social issues. Additionally, the school districts reactions were limited by the tacit recognition that an economic crisis was looming.   The school boards were further challenged by the atmosphere created in the shadows of the Vietnam War and Watergate that left a public largely distrustful of government.

A period of confusion resulted and schools were seen as the solution. Attempts were made to expand the traditional basic curriculum. For example, the 1975 Handicapped Children Act was passed that required disabled children to be included in public education (Webb, Metha and Jordan, 1992). Also, the changing economy demanded more vocational training for students. Both changes represented modifications in the schools preparation and curriculum. School boards had to promote change in a constrained and business like operation.

However, conservative minds prevailed.The 1980s was ushered in with general suburban decay, inflation, and rising costs, for school boards this translated into crisis. Coupled with declining enrollment, an aging population, highly unionized staff with new demands, shrinking curriculum and excessive administrative turnover, school boards faced new challenges. The 1983 publication, "A Nation at Risk" by former secretary of education, Terrell Bell, served as a national call to arms that our nation was at risk because of the declining performance of America's students. (Webb, Metha and Jordan,

1992)A reform movement swept the country calling for quality education and a more structured learning environment that focused on math and science. States moved to establish higher standards.

School boards focused on curriculum matters and the testing of students (Danzberger, Kirst and Usdan, 1993). One of the biggest problems with this reform movement is the role of the school as an elixir to all social and political problems. People, professional educators included, rushed to identify a problem and search for a quick fix; often ignoring the fact that public schools have evolved over time and cannot grant instant results to either national or local problems (Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, 1992).The succeeding decade continued quality reform and standardized testing as well as new challenges, ranging from a new economy, a vastly diverse population, and increasing demands from individual citizens and groups. The global economy underwent vast transformations with regard to the skills needed in the workforce (Spring, 2001).

Though the country was aware of the new global market, our natural tendency towards independence prevented the changes necessary for a new, knowledgeable society.Not only has the United States' role in the world changed, but major changes have also occurred internally.  The country as a whole has a much more diverse population with children coming form populations that are historically more difficult to educate due to their economic and social circumstances (Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, 1992). This is particularly true in urban areas, where those school districts are faced with immediate needs and a high concentration of the economically disadvantaged (Lawton, Scane and Wang, 1995).

Further, diversity has caused school leaders to deal with complex, loosely

coupled organizations pursuing multiple goals and diverse interests.  As a result, attempts have been made to address these inequalities, and develop school accountability measures. This has included actions to achieve equity through integration, revision of finance formulas, adjustments to special education programs and evaluating the educability of all students.The 1990s debate about the future of education in America has focused largely on "..

.school choice, school based management, classroom size, teacher preparation, and student assessment not on the governance role of school boards." While these are critical issues, reform efforts will have only limited impact until the role of governance is addressed and the question of how basic decisions are made is answered (Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, 1992). Thus, the question has become what is the role of the school board in light of these new challenges? School boards are independent and self-sufficient and were created at a time when communities were linked by narrow trails, and local control was the obvious choice to people who were born and died in the same community. Now however, with high mobility, a diverse population and global economy, circumstances are much different. Politicians and educators alike are unsure of the role of the school board.

School Board ResponsibilitiesIn the United States, school boards have become symbols of the democratic ideal of local control. The states have formal authority and in turn have relinquished most of that power to the local school board and their diverse communities. The school board is elected and functions locally but is a legal agent of the state and thus derives its power from each individual state's constitution, laws and court decisions. School boards are

quasi-municipal corporations with the sole purpose of locally administering a state system of public education (Lawton, Scane and Want, 1995).

Board members have no individual authority and have leadership only as a group with balance and consensus.The breadth of school board responsibilities is overwhelming. They must function as legislative, judicial and executive entities concurrently (Danzbergber, Kirst, and Usdan, 1992). School boards must serve as the policymaking body for the school district. In this capacity they provide leadership and guidance in every aspect of local public education.

School boards are also charged with administrative duties and are required to attend to the overall operation of the schools within its boundaries. The school board often acts as human resource director providing oversight of staff and hiring and monitoring of upper level positions, including that of a superintendent. The school board is also a democratic body charged with representing the community on all education issues. This is its most important role.

There is often conflict between the roles of school board members, such as administration and policymaking, and the amount of time that they can devote to each. Increasingly, administration has taken over the majority of school board members' time. In fact, it has been reported that only 3% of their time is dedicated to true policymaking (Todras, 1993).Representation and responsiveness have always been the two key factors of school board member responsibilities. Responsiveness is the consideration of community participation and how responsive board members are to their constituents. Representation is concerned with who they serve.

Both issues are particularly important because schools represent the key to social and economic success. Responsiveness is usually measured in terms of voter

turnout and community participation (Garman, 1982). Representation is most often measured by demographic composition of school board members and whether or not this mirrors the composition of the citizens they are elected to serve.It is argued that the public is not a continuous or annual participant and doesn't have a genuine effect on policy (Martin, 1970). Even though they are given the opportunity to participate annually in elections, voter turnout is alarmingly low.

It is argued that there is a danger in the eroding ability of Americans to participate in the political decisions that effect their lives (Yankelovich, 1991). The timing of elections and reduced candidate competition is in large part responsible.Traditionally, school board members were middle to upper socioeconomic status, white businessmen. With more diversity in the community, and the Civil Rights Act, representation became a greater issue. Research has shown that school boards are not representative of society at-large (20th Century Fund Task Force, 1992). Minority representation on local elected bodies has been the focus of many studies.

Some have conclusively found that at-large the electoral system limits minority representation and that single-member districts improve minority representation (Davidson and Korbel, 1981).School boards serve as liaison between the schools, the community and other levels of government. While they are directly accountable to the electorate, they must also provide for and protect children, and carry out the regulations of other bodies of government. Their interaction with federal, state and other branches of local government is critical (Garman, 1982). Additionally, their role with the superintendent and community is decisive. It has been found that the relationship among board members, between board members and the superintendent, with

other administrators and teaching staff is more important in determining how a community perceives its board of education than the actual policies that the board adopts (Carol, et al, 1986).

School board members must also develop working relationships with each other in order to be successful. They must work together and cooperate to operate effectively (Garman, 1982).School Board Governance StructureThe structure of educational governance in the United States is the unique product of tradition born of the independent spirit of early education pioneers. The result is a contemporary model of school system governance predicated on individual communities set apart from the larger world of politics and intent on focusing on a coherent set of goals rooted in public consensus (Viteritti, 1986). The United States does not formally recognize education at the national level and thus all authority is vested in the states.

The states in turn, have relinquished most of that responsibility to the local school districts and diverse communities.National authority, hi the United States, school boards have become symbols of the democratic ideal of local control. This decentralization of education is a phenomenon unique to the United States. For example, in England, school boards were abolished because it decided laymen had no business meddling in the affairs of professionals (Zeigler, 1972). France is very regimented and nationally centralized with each school expected to engage in the same curriculum and activities, and follow the same guidelines and standards (Danzberger, Kirst, and Usdan, 1992).

Japan has a governance structure based on the French model, nationally centralized through its Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, but with some local involvement (Ibid). One governance structure sharing some of the

same qualities as the American system is Canada's. Similarly, they have local boards (Ibid). In fact, with its local education agencies, Canadian education often exhibits the same tensions common in the American governance structure regarding accountability, professionalization and representation.State authority.

The state retains formal authority over education in the United States as stated previously. School districts were created by the state through their sovereignty over education, in order to efficiently operate local schools. States delegate power to these boards and the amount of power that is shared varies by state (Kirst and Mosher, 1969). All states except Hawaii have this two-tiered governance structure giving authority to the local districts.

States also govern through a state board of education, an administrative department of education, and a chief state school officer. However, state boards are fairly passive except in New York and California (Renchler, 2000). In most states the Board of Education and the Department of Education limit their role to certifying teachers, data collection, and oversight of local compliance with state and federal laws (Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, 1992).Local authority. There are five sources of control over local school boards: Constitutional provisions; legislative enactments; rules and regulations of the state board of education; court interpretations; and societal demands (Cistone, 1975). A school board is elected and functions locally, but is a legal agency of the state and thus derives its power from each individual state's constitution, laws and court decisions.

School boards have the power to develop policies to control operation of the schools, including organization, location of sites, financing, equipment, staffing, attendance, curriculum, extra curricular activities, and other items concerned with the day-to-day operation

of schools within its boundaries (Wiles, 1975).  The structure of local influence over education is often blamed for an overall lack of innovation and support (Cistone, 1975). School boards are quasi-municipal corporations with the sole purpose of locally administering the state's system of public education (Lawton, Scane and Wang, 1995). Board members have no individual authority and have leadership only as a group with balance and consensus.

There are approximately 15,000 local school districts with 97,000 school board members responsible for 90,000 schools (National School Boards Association, 1987) and 42 million students (Wiles, 1975). This is a tremendous change from pre-World War II days, when small school districts were created in every town and rural area. From about 130,000 districts in 1920 the number was reduced to 101,400 in 1945 and finally to approximately 15,000 (Wiles, 1975). Each state's representation of local governance varies tremendously. Some states have a large number of school districts, such as California, Texas, Illinois, Nebraska and New York, which have nearly 1/3 of all the school districts in the country and some have very few districts such as Alaska and Hawaii which combined only have 3 school districts (Renchler, 2000).  Some school districts are very large such as Clark County (Las Vegas) and Miami-Dade.

However, most are small. Approximately 80% of the districts have fewer than 3,000 students (Ibid).Types of Governance StructureThere are seven basic types of local governance structures for education in America. The most unique model is the state district. Hawaii is the only state that constitutes one district. The second model is county school districts with boundaries coterminous with the state's county boundaries.

This is most common in

southern states, where the plantation economy necessitated geographically large districts. Additionally, it was an ideal way to resolve conflict over the location of schools during the contentious period of reconstruction. Nevada and Utah also follow this model.The third model is the common school district, popular in small rural areas particularly in western states but also occurs in New York, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina and Mississippi.

The fourth model is the city school district. This is when states allow large cities to create their own school districts. This model occurs with no real pattern across the United States. The fifth model is the original township district still common in New England states and also in Indiana. The sixth model is the regional school district. Under this model, local school districts run elementary schools but several small local districts may combine to form a single larger district to operate high schools.

The final model is the intermediate units, which is one large organized school unit that combines several school districts for operational purposes. These units have one school board and one Superintendent that oversees assistant superintendents in each of the old district boundaries. This is used in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut. States may use multiple models for their school governance, and may also have overlapping districts.

Local school boards may also overlap the territory of other local governments (Iannacone and Lutz, 1970).The School Boards TodayIn light of such changes, the future of school boards is uncertain. Some, such as Chester Finn, have proposed eliminating school boards altogether. Finn believes that school boards are a "legacy of our agrarian past that does not fit into the high-tech future of

education." (Finn, 1990). He cites such alterations in our public schooling as the increased participation of states in school finance and structural reform of education; growing popularity of parental and student choice; a shift toward individual needs instead of district needs; and issues such as site based management.

Additionally, some believe that school boards have become an obstacle instead of a force for educational reform, and have a tendency to micromanage (Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, 1992).The role of the contemporary school board is the product of over 200 years of evolution yet very little has changed, particularly in the last 80 years (Danzberger, Kirst and Usdan,1992). Therefore, some argue that the school board has not been able to adjust to meet the needs of a changing society, and thus should be eliminated. Critics say that the school board is incapable of providing leadership that can result in real reform, and instead are simply another level of administration, and are divided by special interest groups, They are not well educated in current issues, alternatives and consequences, and they are not in a position to successfully work with the superintendent and other government agencies in a productive way (Danzberger, Kirst and Usdan, 1992). A recent RAND Corporation study found that because school boards have a guaranteed clientele and govern a modern monopoly, they have no incentive to institute basic reforms. The study found that they seldom invented or motivated the school improvement efforts (Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, 1992).

A more moderate perspective is that school boards should be replaced with local education assemblies in which anyone who's going to be affected by a decision has a

hand in the process. This would allow parents, and other individuals to be directly involved (Sewall, 1996). An example is the Chicago school district which replaced the school board with a business board and a superintendent. The superintendent manages the daily operations of the district and the Board maintains some policy oversight, but real authority (curriculum and programming) lies with school councils. The business board is a board of trustees which oversees the large financial interests of the district and addresses issues such as facilities maintenance, strategic planning relative to transportation and other general business functions (Sewall, 1996).

However, there are three primary factors that have kept school boards alive, and will continue to do so. The first item is that the school board has been resilient and very adaptable. The school board has the ability to survive massive changes and will continue to meet the needs of a wide variety of constituencies (Martin, 1970). School boards have moved front and center in recent education reform debates for many reasons, including the appalling state of public education in the cities, an apparent inability of urban boards and their superintendents to develop working relationships, and an average tenure of superintendents in urban districts of less than 3 years (Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, 1992).

Second, even though school boards have lost power to increased state and federal roles over the last 30 years, they remain a vital part of school governance. Regulations must go through the school boards as do decisions regarding daily operation. School boards are where policymaking and implementation meet.The third factor is the role of the school board in a democratic society. School boards

are deeply embedded in grass roots American political values (Danzberger, Kirst and Usdan, 1993).

The American public is not ready to turn over education policymaking for their children to professional educators or to political officeholders in units of general purpose government for whom public education is but one responsibility. They do not want to eliminate school boards. Thus it can be successfully argued that "The future of public schools and of our society depends on the quality of board governance. In point of fact, no other body in American society has more power to effect change to maintain our country's preeminence in the world of tomorrow than does the local school board." (Poston, 1994).