An Evaluation of Governance Control in United States' Public Education

by


Bobby Chandler


Governance Theory in Public Education
Dr. Paul Peterson
Coastal Carolina University
Summer II, 2007


Copyright © Bobby Chandler


THE FOLLOWING PAPER WAS PRESENTED TO THE HORRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IN CONWAY, SOUTH CAROLINA, IN AUGUST 2007. ITS SUBJECT MATTER COMPLEMENTS MY CRITIQUE OF THE CARVER POLICY GOVERNANCE MODEL AND FURTHER EXPOSES THE ENTIRE "POLICY BOARD" MOVEMENT. THE HEART OF BOTH WORKS IS THE TRAGIC DECLINE OF LOCAL CONTROL.



Abstract

Local control of public education in the United States is quickly slipping out of the grasp of communities which have traditionally and by law been given the authority to vest their parental and communal concern for the educational welfare of their children in local boards of trustees. State and national concerns in the past have encroached upon that control for social, economic, and political reasons which have been encouraged by ideological and commercial interests. Some of these efforts have been welcomed as needed changes, but many have not. Although the institution of public education seems to have endured from all external appearances, the American public is largely unaware of the forces attempting to snuff out the last vestiges of their cherished belief of local control. Various reform initiatives, all garnered in rhetoric of what is best for students, are threatening to destroy the institution that has garnered much respect and the endearment of the American people for over three hundred years - the local board of education. More is at stake here than simply public education. Our very liberty is tied to the institution in which we have entrusted the minds of our children. If control is lost to forces not of our own choosing, then democratic principles and practice will be victims. The America we once knew is in serious danger. We Americans must wake up to what is happening and work to reinstate the time-honored concept of local control.


Introduction

Education has been a focal point of the American experience. Although its first public inception was in Massachusetts in the early 1600s, it was largely a private endeavor for approximately two hundred years in homes, churches, and private schools. Although slow to gain acceptance as a public institution, a significant corner was turned in the early 1800s. Many parents had been reluctant to turn their children over to a public institution for a variety of reasons. One was the fear that the state might not contribute to the religious training that they believed their children needed, i.e. Protestant Christianity. This fear was resolved with the introduction of materials and practices into the classroom that ensured that the school would be an extension of the home. Prayer, Bible reading, The McGuffey Reader, and much more made the acceptance of public education more palatable. One of the biggest hurdles was getting the public to agree that their tax dollars should be spent for the education of others, especially if they had no children in the schools or if they were Catholic, a significant minority at the time” (“Public Education in the United States”). Early opposition slowly waned, the public acquiesced, Roman Catholics went on to form parochial schools, and by the turn of the twentieth century, the institution of public education was as popular as mom’s apple pie.

Under our Federal Constitution, states were given the authority to be in control of education by default. The tenth amendment to the Constitution had reserved all powers “to the states respectively, or to the people” that were not prohibited and which were not delegated to the national government. From the beginning, however, the national government had been involved to some extent, acting under the general welfare clause of the Constitution of the United States. The Northwest Ordinance, functioning under both the Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution of the United States, set aside federal lands and contributed money for public schools in each township. The founders legislated this to ensure, from their point of view, that religious and moral instruction take place in order to provide what was necessary for the development of good government (Northwest Ordinance, Article III). This motive was clearly written into the legislation and consistent with what states, parents, and local communities desired from the institution of public education. However, times have changed.

What has not changed, though, is the American belief in the importance of local control and local boards of education. Americans turned their children over to trustees, those in whom they placed their trust to act in their place for the educational welfare of their children. The public school was an extension of the home, and the public expected local boards of education to supervise their children properly. This tradition was legally established by state legislatures, for although the state was responsible, it recognized the need to locate the greatest power and influence at the local level “Public Education in the United States”), for parents and the public would have had it no other way. Their children and their welfare were too important to allow anyone in far away places to determine what was best for them. They wanted to know those in whom they placed their trust personally, for they might need to call upon them often for assistance.

A Phi Delta Kappa International poll was conducted in 2000 that confirms the American public’s belief in local control and local boards of education. The following is taken from that poll:

The Level at Which Decisions Should Be Made

In a question asked for the first time in this year's poll, 49% of respondents indicate that the federal government has too much of a role in decisions that affect the local public schools. A plurality of 43% feel the same way about the state government. There is general satisfaction with the role of the local board of education, the school superintendent, and principals. There is some ambivalence about the role of the local teacher union. And, in the most significant series of findings, 66% of respondents believe that parents have too little say, 57% feel the same way about teachers, and 56% feel the same way about students. Clearly, the public would prefer to see more decision-making authority vested in the people who are directly affected by the local schools. This is an important finding in that it appears to run counter to many current school improvement efforts, most of which seem to be moving more authority to the state level (Gallup, Alec, and Rose, Lowell).

Control of public education by the states and the national government would begin to expand in the early twentieth century and significantly in the latter half but not before becoming firmly entrenched by law and practice in local communities (“Public Education in the United States”). This belief in local control is still highly prevalent today but is under serious attack from many directions. In fact, what was once a reality is now only a myth, for the state possesses more power than local districts over public education. State legislatures have taken back much of the control that they gave to local communities. In essence, the state has become a student’s primary trustee, an entity which has more control over his life than boards of education. The institution that had driven American public education, having been established through law and tradition for over three hundred years, has taken a back seat. In addition, the national government’s influence has increased so much that even though it contributes only about 7% of the monies used by a school district, its influence far exceeds that percentage in what is demanded of districts in return. As such, local boards of education are no longer the dominant influence in the lives of students in public schools. Should they be?

The question of who is in control of public education must be asked, but it is also essential to ask why this is the case. Why have Americans allowed this shift of influence to occur? Who and/or what forces are behind this radical change? Even more important, however, is the need to ask the question of who should be in control? In whom should the American people place their primary trust for the public education of their children?

We will start with an emphasis on the movement to reform governance in public education beginning in the early twentieth century, continue with mid-century change, and then focus on the new wave of reform beginning in the 1980s and trace its influence on governance control to the present. An analysis and evaluation of governance will be followed by a conclusion which will address the question of who should have the primary governance responsibility for public education in the United States and how this might be achieved.





Early Twentieth Century Reform


As the 1900s dawned, America was a very different place from what she had been. Although still more rural than urban, she was moving away from her laissez-faire past. The national government was growing in size and strength and taking a more hands-on role in the lives of Americans in what came to be known as the Progressive Era. Americans had feared strong central government in the past and created a government which gave much power to the states and local government. However, late nineteenth century problems experienced by average Americans with respect to interstate commerce, monopolies, urbanization, and a host of others caused many to work for an increased role of the national government to act on behalf of the general welfare. Coupled with this progressive attitude in government was a belief in scientific progress. The European university, centered in Germany, was having significant impact. Anybody who was anybody, it seemed, studied in Europe or studied under someone who had studied in Europe. These academicians brought to America a new way of thinking and new approaches to many fields. Growing bureaucracy in public institutions stimulated the application of the new science of administration. Education would not be exempt.

Woodrow Wilson was a product of much of this new thought. He received a Ph. D. in history and political science from Johns Hopkins University in 1886, an institution heavily influenced by what was coming out of Europe. That same year, he wrote an influential essay titled “The Study of Administration” which gives us much insight into how the new science of administration would influence American democratic practice and, although not specifically mentioned, the impact it would have on the administration of public education.

Wilson believed that administration was “government in action.” Due to the complexities of the age, he claimed that “it is getting harder to run a constitution than to frame one” (Wilson, 2). Although “developed by French and German professors,” and “adapted to the needs of a compact state, and made to fit highly centralized forms of government,” administration “must be adapted, not to a simple and compact, but to a complex and multiform state, and made to fit highly decentralized forms of government” (Wilson, 3). Wilson recognized that this new science of administration was not born in our very different democratic country but in more unified, hierarchical, or autocratic nations, yet he believed it should be used in our democratic-republic.

Wilson thought that America was at a disadvantage, lagging behind those European states who were taking advantage of this new science (Wilson, 4). He stated that “the field of administration is the field of business” and one in which public office becomes a public trust, “making service unpartisan” (Wilson, 7). Claiming that “administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics,” Wilson writes that “although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.” “The broad plans of governmental action are not administrative; the detailed execution of such plans is administrative” (Wilson, 8). “The administrator should have and does have a will of his own in the choice of means for accomplishing his work. He is not and ought not be a mere passive instrument. The distinction is between general plans and special means.” “The problem is to make public opinion efficient without suffering it to be meddlesome. Directly exercised, in the oversight of the daily details and in the choice of the daily means of government, public criticism is of course a clumsy nuisance, a rustic handling delicate machinery. But as superintending the greater forces of formative policy alike in politics and administration, public criticism is altogether safe and beneficent, altogether indispensable” (Wilson, 10).

Wilson’s essay hits the nail on the head as to what was going to be a revolutionary change, and his arguments became typical of those who advanced the idea that the new science of administration should be applied to the governance of America’s public schools. Experts believed that there must be a more efficient way for public education to be governed and administered and pushed states to reduce the number of local school districts. The reason for this, the experts said, was to put education largely into the hands of those who were professionally qualified, professionally trained, and professionally schooled in the new science of administration. Boards of education were no longer considered competent administrators in this complex age. Trust should be placed in a scientifically trained administration to put into effect policies created by local boards (Land, 2-3).

Since the number of people trained in the new science of administration would be much smaller than the over 100,000 school districts across the nation, states should reduce the number of districts. Consolidation would be necessary and would produce greater efficiency (Land, 4). Thus, at the beginning of the twentieth century, a revolution was in its infancy. There would be many years before adulthood, but the science of administration would only grow and mature, and local boards of education would see their numbers decrease to approximately 15,000 today (Land, 3). With the decrease, local boards of education would also see their powers diminish.



Mid-Twentieth Century Reform


Although in theory there should have been many “policy boards” of education increasingly turning over administrative tasks to professional experts by the middle of the twentieth century, such was not the case. Local boards of education, although much fewer in number, continued to have a hands-on role in the administration of their districts, despite the theoretical construct of the new science of administration. Employing superintendents and other staff in an increasingly complex age who had greater professional expertise was occurring, but the board and superintendent generally worked cooperatively in the administration of local school districts. Boards had been hesitant to turn over the control of management to hired professionals. As representatives of their constituents, and as trustees of parents and their local communities, they were still in charge of what went on in the public schools from both a governmental and a management perspective. Since most revenue was generated locally for the operation of public schools through property taxes, local communities wanted to be fully aware just how their money was being spent (Plecki, et. al., 14-15). In addition, parents and other community members were still very much concerned with the daily affairs of the schools, wanted to be involved, and wanted their trustees involved to make sure their wishes and desires for the education of their children were being addressed. They were not willing to turn the reins over to the professional experts for whom they had not voted and in whom they had not placed their trust. However, these trustees were farther away as consolidation occurred exponentially in the years following World War II (Plecki, et. al., 6).

Beginning in the late 1940s, the courts started an ideological war on what had been the exclusive domain of local communities. Decisions that began to erode local control over religion in the public schools would begin and continue, making tremendous impact in the 1960s on the question of school prayer and continuing to the present the controversy that has popularized itself in the phrase “separation of church and state.” The influence of the Court and the execution of its decisions concerning religion and a host of other issues by the executive branch of the national government have even resulted in the Court’s being called a national school board, popularized in a 1949 article by Edward Corwin (Corwin, 3).

The baby boom had produced the need for much new school construction, and the Brown decision of 1954 was the catalyst that underscored the need to address the upgrading of schools to rectify the effects of segregation. The consolidation efforts of the progressives in the early twentieth century now had practical considerations that would help in achieving the goal of finally bringing the new science of administration into public education by driving local boards of education to become, once and for all, policy boards. In South Carolina alone, during the administration of Governor Jimmy Byrnes, school districts were reduced from more than 1,500 to 92 (Study Team on Local Leadership and Quality Engagement, 16). With trustees even farther away than before, perhaps now administration could finally be given control of the means. This would not be the case.

Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and most of the 1970s, local school districts continued to fund over half of a student’s education. As long as dollars ruled, so did local boards. However, in the 1960s, the Serrano v. Priest case saw the Court declare education funding unconstitutional in a number of states, and, for the first time, our nation began to address the question of equity in educational opportunity. Largely because of the tremendous variations in property taxes, many argued that governance of public education must change. By the late 1970s, for the first time in American history, the contribution of local districts across the country dropped from an average of 52% to 43% (Plecki, et. al., 11). States were beginning to spend more than local districts. This meant that the shift of control over public education was finally being accomplished all over the country and would have serious consequences for local governance as the 1980s dawned.

During the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration greatly expanded the role of the national government in public education. His War on Poverty was taken to the public schools through The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in an attempt to increase educational opportunity for disadvantaged children. In doing so, the national government was growing in its influence on local schools by providing monies that required local school districts’ compliance. Besides race and poverty, the courts and the Congress would afterwards address issues of disability, sex, and limited English skills discrimination, among others, and would increasingly grow in its influence over local public education. Although many of these interventions were welcomed by Americans as areas worthy of national attention through application of the fourteenth amendment and the general welfare clause of the Constitution, others were very much concerned that the local control which they had cherished over the years was quickly slipping away.



The New Wave of Reform


With most states having more monetary influence than local districts and growing entrenchment of the national government in what had largely been locally-controlled school districts, the 1980s would see a new wave of reform, now not only ideological in orientation but commercially-driven. The new Department of Education under Jimmy Carter had just been created, and its first Secretary of Education T. H. Bell brought together a distinguished panel of eighteen persons from across the country to serve on a national commission to look into the state of America’s schools. It was composed primarily of business leaders, university professors, educational administrators, representatives of school boards, nonprofit organizations, and one practicing public school teacher (National Commission on Excellence in Education, “Members of the National Commission on Excellence in Education,” 1-2). After an eighteen month study, the panel concluded that we had a “nation at risk.” It made numerous recommendations to respond to what it saw as a crisis. America was falling far behind other nations and needed to embark on revolutionary change in public education. Besides numerous recommendations concerning traditional academics, it placed a major emphasis on the need for computer literacy and technological understanding, this in the very year that the personal computer was born - 1983.

By the end of the 1980s, the personal computer’s affordability and practical applications had contributed to its acceptance by many Americans. It was not, however, yet making a tremendous dent in public education. The 1983 Nation at Risk report of the National Commission of Excellence in Education had given life to the excellence movement and the accountability movement which closely followed in its wake. This necessitated the creation of standards, the measurement of those standards, and increased pressure on the states to get on board to create the conditions necessary for the success of their schools, for they were now going to be compared to other states for the first time in history on the results they were achieving in specified areas. In theory, people would be able to see just how well one school was doing in comparison to others all across the nation. If this were to be done, the role of technology must increase, and Americans would need to be on board with this new revolution. Many dollars were at stake.

Through the new concept of strategic planning in public education, first introduced by Bill Cook and his Cambridge Group in the early 1980s (Cook), many communities were increasingly developing strategic plans which encouraged a focus on technological development and use in the public schools. Innovative methods of funding and gaining the support of communities that were perhaps not convinced of the need for the massive amount of technology that would be needed to support the excellence and accountability movements would need to be considered. During the 1980s, forty-four states increased education funding and passed large-scale education reform packages (Land, 6). States and local communities would need to do much more, however, to implement such revolutionary change. Even more than strategic planning would be necessary. State legislative action of an increased variety, especially now that most were in control of the dollars, would be absolutely essential. Just how could this be achieved?

A series of national education summits, 1989, 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2005, were designed to advance national education goals, including Goals 2000. None of the goals established have even been close to being achieved. Mission statements were designed, similar to what are required through strategic planning initiatives, bold visions and goals were created, and states were expected to create the means necessary to see them fulfilled. Governors from each of the states were invited to these conferences and participated in huge numbers. Also present at these conferences were representatives of some of the biggest names in corporate America. The 1996 summit which took place in Palisades, New York, hosted by IBM’s Louis Gerstner, was especially particular in focusing on the changing role and powers of governors in the various states (IBM Archives).

A summary of the 1996 National Education Summit by the United States Department of Education included the following:

Secretary Riley joined 41 governors, 49 corporate leaders, and 35 education resource people for the 1996 National Education Summit in Palisades (NY) last week. The governors and CEOs pledged “to help states or local school districts develop a consensus on what children should know and be able to do” and “to support educators in overcoming the barriers that impede the effective use of technology,” according to a Policy Statement on the summit issued by the National Governors’ Association.

Specifically, the GOVERNORS committed “to the development and establishment of internationally competitive academic standards, assessments to measure academic achievement, and accountability systems in our states...within the next two years.” They agreed to support the implementation of standards within their states by reallocating funds to professional development, infrastructure, and new technologies.

CORPORATE leaders pledged to support the work of the governors, communicate clearly to students and parents and schools the types and levels of skills needed in their workplaces, require job applicants to demonstrate academic achievement through school-based records (such as transcripts, diplomas, portfolios, or certificates of initial mastery), consider academic standards, and student achievement as a high priority when making business location decisions, and adopt policies to support parent involvement in children’s education. Business leaders also committed to “developing and helping implement compatible, inexpensive, and easy-to-use products, services, and software to support teaching.”

Governors and CEOs agreed to begin work immediately on these challenges in their states through activities that might include:


“organizing town meetings to build support and engage parents and communities in improving student performance, reaching out to other governors and other business leaders to identify and adopt effective practices to improve student achievement and look for opportunities where states and businesses can work together, arranging for teaching professionals to visit businesses throughout states to help them develop a better understanding of the needs of employers, holding a state-level education summit to design a state-specific plan for developing and implementing standards and assessments, and reviewing current state efforts to report on educational performance and prepare for next year’s report.”


“I believe that this meeting will prove historic,” President Clinton told the governors and CEOs. He pledged his support for their efforts to improve standards, accountability, technology, and other issues; and he promised strong support for starting up charter schools and making all schools safe, disciplined, and drug-free. On the issue of accountability, the President suggested that ‘...every state...must require a test for children to move, let’s say, from elementary to middle school, or from middle school to high school, or to have a ...high school diploma’ ”(United States Department of Education, “ED Initiatives,” 2-3).


Within the two years expected by the participants, South Carolina would pass its historic Accountability Act of 1998. Referring to Goals 2000 in 1997, for which the South Carolina Accountability Act of 1998 would become a means to an end, then United States Representative Lindsey Graham, a leading South Carolina Republican in a movement to abolish Goals 2000, said the following: “I’ve got educators and parents in my district who are very much concerned about letting the federal government control education. Because when the federal government controls education, you are losing control of your children. And nobody will stand for that” (Pope).

As evidenced in Graham’s statement which typified the concern of many, the fear of the loss of local control was very real. The national government and the states had become partners through the support of almost all the states’ governors in an attempt to significantly influence the direction that American public education would take. This would have tremendous ramifications for local school governance, particularly with respect to how much control could be exhibited by district boards of education.

Besides the influence that governors would now have on the various state legislatures for the enactment of legislation necessary to bring about all of this revolutionary change, other forces of reform were making their voices heard, as well. All would impact local governance. For the first time since the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a movement to refocus attention on the need for local boards to truly become the policy-making boards that progressives intended them to be. The time had come for a new focus on administration and its role in becoming the scientific managers once envisioned, professionals taking charge of the means of achieving the ends established by policy boards.

The most comprehensive study of school boards conducted by Carol and colleagues entitled School Boards: Strengthening Grass Roots Leadership, published by the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) in 1986, was a significant catalyst (Land, 10) in gaining the support of various organizations and individuals for the idea that district boards of education should focus on the ends and leave the means to administration. Support for these policy boards came from Danzberger, Cunningham, Kirst, Usden, Reid, Goodman, Zimmerman, the Twentieth Century Fund, and the Education Commission of the States (Land, 10-11), among many others.

One of the earliest promotions for policy boards in this new wave of governance reform came from John Carver. Launching Carver Governance Design, Inc., in 1982, Carver promoted a model he conceived to nonprofit organizations, businesses, and government entities, including schools. This specially trademarked Policy Governance model gives to the superintendent of a school district the operational Means to act as he deems necessary, contingent upon a set of Executive Limitations placed on him by the board of education. This corporate model clearly delineates roles and expectations of the superintendent and the board in an attempt to be the most complete theoretical construct ever devised for board governance of any kind (Carver Governance Design, Inc.).

Policy Governance gets boards to focus on setting goals, Ends policies, for the purpose of achieving certain specified results and seeks to keep boards out of the day-to-day affairs of the organization by having them no longer in the business of “micromanagement.” Dispensing with traditional committees mainly comprised of various board members, Carver seeks to promote committees of the whole, and only utilize them as needed. Committees are to be kept to a minimum and are only to be used for helping the board, not the administration. Traditional committee work would have board members serving on certain standing committees to assist the superintendent and the entire board with the management of the district. In Policy Governance, board members are removed from administrative responsibilities, and the board’s only employee, the superintendent (CEO) is held solely responsible for administering the district (Carver, Boards That Make a Difference).

Carver significantly influenced the policy board movement in 1990 with the publication of his first book, Boards That Make a Difference. Carver’s work has been further advanced by the advocacy of many organizations and individuals promoting Policy Governance as consultants (ex. Aspen Group International, LLC., The International Policy Governance Association, Partners in Policy Governance), and others who promote the general concept of policy boards. The Carver model is a very difficult one to implement to the level that Carver envisions, and many boards across the country have one or more areas that would not be consistent with the model, calling into doubt whether they can truly be termed Policy Governance districts (Carver). This being said, an estimated 1% or less of school districts nationwide are using some form of the model, many which would have to at least be called policy boards (Chandler).

Despite the small percentage, Carver’s influence on local school districts, both large and small, from the fifth largest district in the nation in Clark County, Nevada, to one of the smaller districts in Chetek, Wisconsin, has been tremendous and is continuing to influence others, as consultants who market the model increase their clientele. Although a small percentage of school districts at present have experimented with Policy Governance, other districts across the nation are being influenced by the more general policy board concept which was being promoted at the same time Carver’s trademarked Policy Governance model was advancing (Chandler).

One of the more influential supporting organizations has been the National School Boards Association (NSBA) through its advocacy of school boards focusing on the ends that they hope to achieve for their districts, the establishment of visionary goals, and on data for accountability purposes (Land, 28-30). The National School Boards Association through its National School Boards Foundation funds various projects to promote these ideas, one which was directed by Linda Dawson, a promoter of policy boards. Dawson, along with her partner Randy Quinn, created a major consulting firm known as the Aspen International Group in 1993 which markets a particularized form of policy board in Carver’s Policy Governance model and in their very own Coherent Governance model, a user-friendly version of the model (Aspen Group International, LLC). In 2001, under Dawson’s executive direction, and while she was an active agent of the Aspen Group, this project produced “Improving School Board Decision-Making: The Data Connection” to encourage district boards of education to focus on their roles as accountability agents, a major thrust of the NSBA (National School Boards Foundation, 5, 92).

The National School Boards Association has much influence on state boards of education who have significant influence on district boards, many moving in the direction of becoming policy boards of some type. A typical example of this would be a statement made by Angie Peifer, Senior Director of Board Development of the Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB), who writes, “IASB has been informed by John Carver’s work, along with other well-established practices, in the creation of its principles of effective governance which do encourage boards to get clear about their ends, their operating parameters for the superintendent and staff (similar concept to “executive limitations”) and to then delegate authority to the superintendent to determine means” (Peifer). Illinois and many other state school boards associations have been influenced by the National School Boards Association to have their members move in the direction of becoming policy boards of some type.

Besides the very prominent National School Boards Association, much support for the advancement of policy boards and other governance reform of public education comes from other nonprofit organizations, corporate America, and various foundations. Outstanding examples include the Education Commission of the States, the Institute for Educational Leadership, the Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform, the Superintendents Leadership Network, The Broad Institute for School Boards, the Center for Reform of School Systems, IBM, Microsoft, Bell South, ETS, the College Board, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Annenberg Foundation, and the Broad Foundation, among many others (Chandler).

Goodman and Zimmerman, along with other advocates of governance reform, even called for states to enact legislation that would codify policy boards and increase powers for superintendents in “Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement” (Goodman, Zimmerman, 7-15). As an example, South Carolina’s Education Oversight Committee made these recommendations in their 2001 Annual Report (South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 33).

The most recent debate about which reform models of governance are most effective was probably initiated with the publication of “Governing America’s Schools: Changing the Rules,” a report that was issued by the National Commission on Governing America’s Schools sponsored by the Education Commission of the States. Two major recommendations of the commission were that public school governance should be based on some of the more promising trends within the existing system or based on some of the more promising alternatives to the prevailing system of education governance but with public money (Renchler, 3). This would mean experimentation. Some might want to completely bypass district boards of education and give local schools control of areas such as hiring and firing of staff, financial, curriculum and other decisions. Others might choose to adopt Carver’s Policy Governance or to become some other type of policy board. Still other might desire to be charter schools. Neither time nor space will suffice for an examination of all of the possibilities. Private money and private initiatives working in cooperation with public schools, outsourcing of services, and a host of other strategies could have major impacts on local school governance. Boards of education could become obsolete in some cases or reconfigured in some manner yet to be realized. A revolution is at hand, boards are caught in the middle in a very confusing place, and the public is largely unaware.

Perhaps one of the more innovative reform movements of the recent past which is having enormous influence on local governance is the work of Don McAdams through the Center for Reform of School Systems (CSSR) in Houston, Texas. A former president of the Houston Independent School Board, McAdams was influenced by the work of John Carver (McAdams), and although he promotes the idea of policy boards, he has a very different focus - on large urban districts. McAdams’ model is known as Reform Governance, and the major project which he is promoting all over the country is known as Reform Governance in Action (RGA).

The Center for Reform of School Systems was begun in 1999 with a $100,000 grant from the Houston Endowment, after Rod Paige, then superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, proposed the idea that a center be created to promote reform in urban school districts. In June 2001 the center became a Texas nonprofit corporation (Center for Reform of School Systems). The center has been significantly enhanced by generous financial support from the Broad Foundation.

In 1999 the Broad family established the Broad Foundation with an initial commitment of $100 million, later expanded to $400 million, expressly for k-12 nontraditional education and unconventional solutions to governance. Through several strategic planning retreats which included such notables as the director of Rand Education, a former president of the National Education Association, Rudolph Crew of the Stupski Foundation, Roderick Paige, U. S. Secretary of Education, and Don McAdams, Executive Director of the Center for Reform of School Systems, the Broad Foundation solicited ideas on how to develop policy initiatives that would have high-impact (The Broad Foundation, “Our History”).

The Broad Institute for School Boards was one of the projects designed to meet goals previously established. Don McAdams leads the Broad Institute team. It is a national school board training program which is designed especially for newly elected and appointed school board members from urban areas. The program is run by the Center for Reform of School Systems in Houston. Participants receive training in effective governance during an intensive program that last six days. At present, the institute has trained more than 150 members from 34 cities across the nation who are responsible for close to three million students (The Broad Foundation, “Strengthening Governance”).

The Broad Foundation started Reform Governance in Action (RGA) in 2005 to train entire teams of school board members along with their district superintendents. On site support continues for a two-year period. Districts which are currently participating in this program include: Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N. C.; Christina, Delaware; San Antonio, Texas; Fresno, California; Duval County, Florida, and Gwinnett County, Georgia (The Broad Foundation, “Strengthening Governance”).

Although the focus of Reform in Action is a total package to address multiple concerns faced by urban boards of education in particular, boards are exposed to many of the tenets of Reform Governance and the ideas of Don McAdams, considered by some to be the leading authority on school boards in the nation (Hoover Institution Press).

Some of McAdams ideas which are quite pertinent to our examination of policy boards include the following: “I define governance as the trusteeship of power on behalf of the owners of power. Management is the exercise of power under the oversight of governance. Governance means making the rules; management is rowing. Governing is deciding what is to be done; management is doing it.” “It is universally recognized that in crisis situations power needs to be concentrated. Given the condition of many urban school districts, concentrating power in the hands of superintendents makes sense.” McAdams shares the view that communities “must have boards that provide leadership for reform through core beliefs and commitments vision, a theory of action for change, goals, policies and astute politics” (McAdams, “Whose Job Is It to Lead Reform?” 1-2). This is done by having boards focus on data to bridge the achievement gap.

McAdams and others who share his vision have accepted the challenge of the National School Boards Association and others who are advocating that district boards of education move in the direction of truly becoming policy boards, especially that they leave administration to the professional experts. McAdams continues: “A consultant can help board members recognize that they should not get involved in personnel issues, student discipline cases, or the letting of district contracts. Nor should they try to solve management problems or communicate about district business directly with district employees below the superintendent’s cabinet.” (McAdams, “Training Your Board to Lead - The Board-Savvy Superintendent”).

At board meetings, McAdams says, “Board members should never engage in discussions with citizens or try to solve problems. The board president should simply thank citizens for their comments and refer problems to management (McAdams, “The Short Productive Board Meeting,” 2).

McAdams is also committed to the idea of the “committee of the whole,” popular among policy boards (McAdams). This nontraditional practice of policy boards relies more on oversight mechanisms of administrative performance, encourages trust and strong board-superintendent relations, focuses on good board-staff relations and teamwork, and largely allows administration the responsibility to deal with the day-to-day affairs of the district.

The influence that McAdams and Reform Governance in Action is having is enormous, especially in the expansion of policy boards, and it does not come cheaply either. Six new boards were recently selected for RGA. The cost for Durham Public Schools to participate is $400,000. Fortunately for Durham, the entire cost is being underwritten by the Broad Foundation. Superintendent Carl Harris said, “The opportunity to experience an indepth study of school governance in the effort to improve student achievement is one that we simply could not afford to pass up. The Board and I are very excited about what we will learn as we take on this project, and we plan to apply it to the important work we are doing here” (Yarbrough). Others selected for this generous underwriting from the Broad Foundation were Aldine Independent School District (Texas), Dallas Independent School District (Texas), Hartford Public Schools (Connecticut), Providence Public Schools (Rhode Island), and Prince George’s County Public Schools in Maryland (White).

Like Carver who has others such as the Aspen Group International marketing Policy Governance, McAdams has assistance from such influential persons as the former U. S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige who markets Reform Governance through his Chartwell Education Group with offices in London and New York (Chartwell Education Group, LLC.). Like Carver’s Boards That Make a Difference (1990) which started a radical move away from traditional governance and encouraged school boards to become policy boards, Don McAdams’ What School Boards Can Do (2006) just might do the same, and perhaps in a bigger way. Affecting millions of Americans and how they are governed in some of the larger school districts in the nation, McAdams’ work should cause us to ask: Who is exercising control over and acting as trustee(s) of students? In theory, both Carver and McAdams would say boards of education, for they are the ones responsible for governing, but in reality, is this the case? Are policy boards of any variety really acting as the trustees that parents desire, and what are they doing to the public’s cherished belief in local control?

Besides those who would like to see policy boards grow in number across the nation, whether they be in the form of Carver’s Policy Governance, in McAdams’s Reform Governance, or in policy board practices not particularly tied to any model, there are those who desire to see boards either eliminated completely or reduced to a point of virtual impotence. Most of this is happening in large urban districts. This is occurring, primarily, in the form of state and mayoral takeovers of schools.

Because of tremendous discrepancies in achievement and the huge problems urban areas are experiencing with drugs, violence, and much more, twenty-four states currently allow the takeover of underperforming schools. New Jersey was the first in the nation to do so in 1989 (Plecki, et. al.). Cities at present which have mayors in control include Providence, Philadelphia, Jackson, Harrisburg, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, and Boston (Moore). What happens to district boards when this happens? The state largely vests control in mayors, persons who are geographically close to public education services.

In Providence, Rhode Island, the mayor appoints a nine-member board with approval of the city council. Philadelphia has a five-member commission that has completely taken the place of the former school board. Two members are appointed by the mayor, and three are named by the governor. In Baltimore, the mayor and governor jointly appoint school board members. In Cleveland, Ohio, the board of education has nine voting members who are appointed by the mayor. At least four must have significant expertise in either business, finance, or education. Boston has a mayor appoint a seven-member school committee which then names a new superintendent (Moore).

Los Angeles is a special case. It is the second largest school district in the nation behind New York City, serving over 727,000 students. The California legislature gave partial control of the schools over to the mayor. This was supposed to take effect on January 1, 2007. A group of parents, students, and administrators formed a coalition and sued in October 2006, claiming that the law takes too much power away from the elected school boards. A judge ruled in their favor in February 2007 by saying that the law violated the state constitution. The law would have shifted some power from the seven-member board of education to a new council of more than two dozen other mayors within the boundaries of the Los Angeles Unified School District. The mayor appealed the decision (Moore). On April 17, 2007, the Second District Court of Appeals announced a unanimous decision that the California state legislature had indeed violated the state constitution, upholding local, elected control for the Los Angeles Unified School District (California School Boards Association). Even in a city as large as Los Angeles, citizens are very much wanting to maintain local control and the power of their local trustees.

With these mayoral takeovers, more power has shifted to the executive, a separate branch, unlike traditional structures which give both governing and legislative authority to the local school board. The mayor either has no traditional board at all or one which has been significantly reduced in its authority. Control is in the hands of administration. If this is local control, it is of an entirely different variety than has been in existence since our nation’s beginnings. Trusteeship has been transferred to the executive.

In a 2003 Phi Delta Kappan poll which asked what level of government should exercise control over what is taught in public schools, 61% said the school board, 22% the state, and 15% the federal government. In a 2002 poll in Education Week, the school board was cited as the single most important institution in determining quality of public schools. The school board even beat out “parents, governors, state assemblies, or the U. S. President” (Plecki, et. al).

By and large, most school districts across our nation are still operating with traditional forms of governance. Many, however, have either become policy boards or are moving in that direction, and others are either being eliminated or significantly stripped of their traditional powers and practices. Boards of education are being bypassed, minimalized, or eliminated, as control is shifting to the states through various legislative, court, and structural changes which are being driven by ideological, political, and commercial forces. For whatever reason, district boards of education do not have the power and control which they used to have. Some believe this to be good and others not so good, to say the least. Heavily influenced by the excellence and accountability movements, district boards of education will continue to feel the pressure to conform, accept inferior roles, or succumb to complete elimination. Will any of these options be the best course for the governance of our public schools? Should district boards of education allow local control to completely slip out of their jurisdiction?


Evaluation


As demonstrated over the course of the last century, many forces have been at work to chip away and then later rip away large portions of local influence over public education. Ideological change first came with the progressive movement and accompanying scientific advances that convinced many that a governance shift should involve turning over some of the governance control to authorities farther away than local communities and the placing of much greater responsibility on administrators who were especially trained in the new science of administration. Then, another ideological shift came as the national government and the courts saw the need to expand their influence by ensuring that there be no religious discrimination and that civil rights not be denied students in public education. A political and commercial shift occurred on the coattails of the technological revolution of the 1980s, especially computer related, when governors began to play major roles in getting their states to enact legislation to entice business interests to expand into their states. States which would enact accountability legislation and which would work to put into place practices that would meet corporate concerns would be rewarded with corporate relocation and other benefits that business could provide. Thus, a second ideological shift occurred, influenced by commercial and political interests, which called on local boards to finally become the policy boards which had been called for since the turn of the twentieth century. This was followed closely by a host of various reform governance initiatives, including state and mayoral takeovers, various private initiatives within public education, and the charter school movement, all which threaten the control and even the existence of local boards of education. Especially threatened is the concept of trusteeship that for more than three hundred years has been with local boards of education.

Still, with all of this change, the public is largely unaware of exactly what has happened. They still see school buildings. Students still go to school and study many of the same subjects. They still have teachers, principals, superintendents, and their trusted boards of education, at least in most cases. They can even pick up the phone and call on their board members, or see them in person, just as they always have. There is still much trust placed in all involved in the education of their children. Yes, they are aware that there have been many changes, but life is full of exponential changes today. About forty years ago, Alvin Toffler wrote about something called Future Shock. Well, we have reached and passed that point, and it is common to hear people say that nothing shocks them anymore. In this climate, however, the one thing that seems to go on, at least in its major form, is the public school, supported by its local, district board of education.

We often hear that the American public is apathetic, and that is why there is such little attendance at school board meetings. One of the main reasons attendance is poor is that meetings are often just a little too far away. Some districts are very large geographically, and this does not bode well for public attendance. One solution to this would be to have all district boards of education meetings televised. If more citizens actually knew what took place at board meetings, perhaps they would attend in greater numbers, even if they did have to drive farther than desired. At the very least, they would probably be better informed of issues and consider how they might have input and even how they might vote in the next election. It could involve a letter-to-the-editor of the local newspaper, a conversation with a friend, a discussion at the local market, or perhaps even the creation of a group of concerned citizens. Knowledge and understanding are powerful and necessary ingredients in the life of a democratic-republic. Without them, representative democracy dies.

Do we really think that the American public does not care about their children and their education? Of course, there are many who do not, for a variety of reasons. We are seeing the demise of the family and of many traditional structures, the crumbling of social institutions, monumental problems with drugs, violence, environmental decay, and are even threatened by the new war on terror. In the midst of all of this, many of us are confused, trying to live from day to day with some semblance of normality. We are very busy people, working long hours and sometimes more than one job just to makes ends meet. Time is a precious commodity, and we cherish leisure and personal time in the midst of what often seems to be chaotic circumstances. Some have even paralleled what is happening in America today to what was happening in Rome just before it collapsed. But America still cares. She is not apathetic. She stills wants what is best for her children.

Another reason why it seems that the public is largely apathetic could be that they simply trust those in whom they have given the authority to work with their children. In some cases, even, there is too much trust in this day and age. With that trust, we too have been awed by what science has been able to accomplish and the progressive nature of our democratic society. We can easily get caught up in believing that which is not true. Woodrow Wilson erred in this regard.

Wilson put much faith in the new science of administration and emphasized the need to place much trust in administration. The idealist that he was, he wanted to believe that administration would carry out policies and law enacted by the policy-makers and legislators. In his famous essay on administration, he stated, “If to keep his office a man must achieve open and honest success, and if at the same time he feels himself entrusted with large freedom for discretion, the greater his power the less likely he is to abuse it, the more he is nerved and sobered and elevated by it. The less his power, the more safely obscure and unnoticed does he feel his position to be, and the more likely does he relapse into remissness” (Wilson, 9).

We would like to think that all teachers, principals, and administrators have the best interests of our students at heart, but we must accept the responsibility to follow-up regularly. Changing times and scientific advance can help us do very many things, but they cannot change our human nature. Science can do many things, but it cannot give us integrity. Trust is a valuable thing, but we must be very careful to verify that all which we delegate to others is being properly administered. Wilson might have had a Ph. D. in history, but even he failed to heed Lord Acton’s warning that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We would do well to listen to Acton more than Wilson, at least on the subject of human nature, power, and control.

However, many today are calling for the same thing in public education that Wilson wanted to see for public administration, to have boards of education change their focus from cooperating with administration in the management of school districts to trusting administration with much more discretionary action. Governance reformers want administrators to largely be in charge of the means to the ends which boards establish. They desire for boards to change their traditional roles, focus on student achievement, and become more accountable for results. They desire this, even though there has been no substantive evidence indicating that any form of governance has made any significant difference in student outcomes (Land, 33). Yet numerous individuals and organizations are promoting governance reform that will seriously hurt the survival of district boards of education and the concept of local control.

Much of the promotion of reform governance is coming from various school board consultants who often market their own ideas. Boards are captive audiences of a particular ideology, one that always comes with a price. Many times, it is taxpayer dollars which are funding these services, other times various foundations and philanthropic interests promoting their own philosophical take on governance. Nonetheless, many are doing very well for themselves in marketing reform ideas to boards of education.

How many consultants are there who primarily market traditional ideas and work to help boards with democratic practice, who strive to keep boards in tune with their responsibilities as both governors and managers of administration with whom they should work cooperatively, who take it upon themselves to help maintain an institution that has weathered many trials through many years and has helped produce the greatest education system the world has ever known? Would boards of education hire them for their advice and help? Would any foundation fund them?

The problem is that reform sells, tradition is derided, and money usually wins. As such, we are finding tremendous reform efforts reshaping and destroying what Americans worked so hard to put into place. Many are being sold a bill of goods with the accountability movement. It was never about student achievement but was about technology sales, including high stakes testing. More dollars than most of us can imagine are driving all of this, all framed in language that focuses on student achievement and what is best for their overall welfare.

Trust is a good thing, but there is nothing wrong with verification. In addition, trust that is spread out helps keep things in balance, especially in complex organizations. That is why the early creators of local boards of education were wise in placing their trust in numbers of persons who would represent them. Even with the growing complexities of our age, knowledgeable, involved board members can involve themselves in the proper management of a school district. Of course, this is not an easy job. It never has been. It does require sacrifice, commitment, and concern. An old proverb states that there is wisdom in the counsel of many. We would do well to heed this advice before it is too late.

Have we done anything right in the shift of control that has occurred, and just where did we go wrong? Well, we were not wrong in facing up to the fact that local control of public education used to mean the denial of many American rights. There is a proper sphere of national influence through legislation and the courts in demanding equal treatment and opportunity. It is also true that we were not wrong in recognizing the power of the states over education through the tenth amendment to the Constitution. Both the states and the national government have major interests in public education. However, we did go wrong in not standing up for the primary principle on which public education was established - that parents and local communities should have the primary responsibility for governance and administration through representatives who act as trustees of our children. This fact has been forgotten or has been dismissed as no longer practical, and, as a result, many have never begun or have given up the fight to maintain appropriate levels of local control. They have done so primarily out of ignorance. They are intelligent people, but they are being destroyed for lack of knowledge. They are largely unaware of the forces that control public education. Their naivety is much greater than any argument related to apathy.

The American people have always shown their grit and perseverance in the midst of crisis and have always seemed to come out victorious whenever their backs were against the wall, but they must be convinced that they are indeed in a crisis. Although concerned about public education being in trouble, even serious trouble, they do not believe this is a crisis of the magnitude experienced in the Great Depression and World War II. If they were so convinced, perhaps they would not still be asleep. Will the masses of Americans, Yamamoto’s “sleeping giant,” ever be awakened to what they are losing?

Some who have indeed been aroused from their sleep have recognized the crisis and believe that local control must be restored but have not engaged the battle because it is difficult to fight forces that seem to be greater than themselves. They prefer comfort and leisure to personal sacrifice. They realize that it would be a tremendous struggle and would require much time and energy to wage not only a battle but a war against ideological, political, and commercial forces who have many resources and concentrated power. Only a few zealots beat their heads against a stone wall, hoping against all hope to make a loud enough noise to awaken the masses.


Conclusion

Public education has served America well. Americans institutionalized what the founders recognized as a necessity to preserve the republic which had been born with much sacrifice, for they knew that a free people would need to be educated, participant citizens in order to make this great experiment among nations work. Giving to the states the primary responsibility of this education, the states saw the need to hand it over to local boards of education for both governance and administrative authority, for they knew that education was first and foremost a concern of parents and local citizens who demanded that they oversee what happened in the daily lives of their children. They were not interested in turning their children over to powers in far away places. Instead, local representatives of the people would become trustees, those who would act in the interest of parents and others who had direct concern for the welfare of their communities. By law and tradition, local control of public education was a well-established belief. It still is. Yet, it is no longer a reality, and it is in danger of completely disappearing. If we Americans believe in the concept of local control and in the trusteeship of local boards of education by huge margins, as polls would indicate, then why are we letting them slip away? Should we be trying to ensure their survival?

District boards of education and citizens who support them have a duty to restore the primary control of public education to local communities. The principles upon which American public education is based have not changed. Parents and local communities still have the greatest vested interests in their children. Their values and concerns should be honored first. After all, students have yet to become possessions of the state. An educated citizenry is still needed, schooled in the principles of our democratic-republic that will work to ensure its continued existence.

Although utilitarian concerns are very real, they are not antithetical to these principles and can be incorporated with measured balance with choices we make, not with choices made for us by those who have agendas other than our own. Students can still explore various job opportunities, become computer literate, and learn how to face a changing world in the public schools. They need not do so, however, at the expense of the loss of local control. The greatest crime in all of the change that has taken place is that we have let ideological interests and commercial interests overpower the will of the majority. These interests have cleverly maneuvered themselves into positions of influence and have bypassed, minimalized, and in some cases even destroyed democratic practice. At what point did the public decide, by majority vote, to destroy the principle of local control?

Persons in positions of public trust, representatives at the national, state, and local levels have either intentionally or inadvertently participated in the shift of control away from local communities. Many of our representatives do not even know what they have done to participate in this loss of local control and are unaware of all the forces and interests behind it.

At the national level, perhaps the most important piece of legislation on education in our history has only been read by a very few, yet it is the law of the land. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) is an expanded, reauthorization of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) which was a reauthorization and expansion of the Johnson administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This legislation is so long and so complicated, in excess of 1000 pages, that hardly any, even its sponsors, have read it. States are largely at its mercy and local boards must comply.

At the state level, monumental acts are affecting local education. Many state legislators think they are acting in the best interest of their states and students, but even they are largely unaware of the damage they are doing to the concept of local control and the idea of trusteeship. They are also often ignorant of the forces at work behind the scenes to nationalize education and to shift power and control to distant places, first to the state, then to the nation, and some think even beyond.

Even local boards of education themselves are caught up in a whirlwind of change, a ride which never seems to stop, and is quite dizzying, to say the least. Many board members are unpaid or poorly paid and lead busy lives. They more often than not hold down full-time jobs. The confusion that manifests itself in trying to learn who is responsible for what, what law applies, and where in this maze they happen to be at the moment leaves many board members with little time or energy to try to hold onto what little control they have left.

Contributing to the loss of local control, powerful ideological and commercial forces are behind legislation and marketing of various reforms in governance, and through sheer ignorance, many of our very own trusted representatives have contributed to immense encroachment on the principle of local control. Many do not intentionally want to do harm or cause a retrenchment of local control, but the effect is still the same. Shifting control of dollars equals shifting control - period. Trusteeship follows the money.

Although boards of education now generally control less than half of the monies on which a district operates, they still have the legal authority to control where dollars go that have not been specifically allocated by the state and national governments, and that is still quite a large amount. They still have the authority over multiple decisions that have an impact on the daily lives of students. Just how much should they be involved with these? The answer to this question should be in taking a serious look at what their constituents want. It should be to them that they listen and on their concerns that they should act, not on the ideas and interests of those they do not represent who think they know what is best.

Even at the local level, many of our trusted boards of education have washed their hands of any responsibility for the maintenance or revival of local control. Overwhelmed by forces coming from many directions, they have chosen to comply rather than participate in what many see as a losing battle, that is if they have been aroused from their sleep. Many are still in a deep sleep and are experiencing pleasant dreams. Now and again some may experience nightmares, but they often quickly awaken to simply acknowledge that times have changed and that it is just easier to go with the flow. They no longer dream deeply of what once was or what could be.

How we restore local control could take a variety of avenues. It will not be easy, and it will not be quick, but it must start with the resolve of each one of us to do whatever we can. If we are not willing to make a commitment wherever we are, in whatever position we hold, then we will be responsible, to some extent, for whatever happens. What that might be could be quite alarming.

If education does not remain unfettered and free, in the hands of those to whom it is most closely situated, then a tyranny of the worst sort will likely transpire. Jefferson called this a “tyranny of the mind.” If standardized control of our nation’s education is transferred up the ladder to places farther and farther away, if it is aligned and orderly, and the trustees of our children become nameless entities that we never see, we can rest assured that safety and order will rule our lives but at the sacrifice of the liberty for which so many have fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice.

We need our local boards of education or something very close to the concept. We need local people in control and working for what they see to be in the best interest of their children, with minimal interference from ideological, political, and commercial forces that might be contrary to the desires of local communities. If the principle were ever true, it should remain true.













Works Cited


Aspen Group International, LLC. 2007. May-August 2007.
Broad Foundation. “Our History.” 2007. 28 June 2007 history.shtml>.
Broad Foundation. “Strengthening Governance.” 2007. 27 June 2007 tion.org/investments/governance.shtml>.
California School Boards Association. “Appeal Court Rules for Local, Elected Control of Los Angeles Unified School District.” 3 April 2007. 6 July 2007 index.cfm>.
Carver, John. Boards That Make a Difference. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1997.
Carver, John. Carver Governance Design, Inc. 2007. April-August 2007 rnance.com>.
Carver, John. Telephone interview. 3, 7 July 2007.
Center for Reform of School Systems. “About the Center for Reform of School Systems.” 2007.
27 June 2007.
Chandler, Bobby. Personal interview. 31 July 2007.
Chartwell Education Group, LLC. 2007. 3 August 2007.
Cook, Bill. Telephone interview. 27 June 2007.
Corwin, Edward. “The Supreme Court as National School Board.” Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol. 14. No. 1: 3-22. 1949. 5 August 2007 0023-9186(194924)14%3A1%3C3%3ATSCANS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L>.
Gallup, Alec, and Rose, Lowell. “The 32nd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.” Phi Delta Kappa International 2007. 1 August 2007< http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpol0009.htm#7a>.
Goodman, Richard, and Zimmerman, William Jr. “Thinking Differently: Recommendations for
21st Century School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance, and Teamwork for High
Student Achievement.” Educational Research Service and New England Development Council.
2000. 1-23. 21 June 2007.
Hoover Institution Press. 2006. 5 August 2007 _3_6/ai_n16610094>.
IBM Archives. 2007. 5 August 2007 ml>.
International Policy Governance Association. 2007. May-August 2007. anceassociation.org/>.
Land, Deborah. Local School Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in Relation to
Students’ Academic Achievement. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk. Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Maryland. January 2002: 1-48. June-August 2007.
McAdams, Donald. “The Short, Productive Board Meeting.” School Administrator. September
2005: 1-2. 2 August 2007 7/print>.
McAdams, Donald. Telephone interview. 28 June 2007.
McAdams, Donald. “Training Your Board to Lead - The Board-Savvy Superintendent.” School
Administrator. November 2003: 1-3. 27 June 2007 SD/is_10_60/ai_110458836>.
McAdams, Donald. “Whose Job Is It to Lead Reform?” School Administrator. May 2004: 1-3.
27 June 2007.
Moore, Martha. “More Mayors Move to Take Over Schools.” USA Today [McClean, Virginia].
20 March 2007. 31 July 2007 le=More+mayors+move+to>.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. “Members of the National Commission on
Excellence in Education.” April 1983. 25 July 2007 bers.html>.
National School Boards Foundation. “Improving School Board Decision Making: The Data
Connection.” 2001: 1-96.
Partners in Policy Governance. 2007. June-August 2007.
Peifer, Angie. E-mail interview. 18 May 2007.
Plecki, Margaret, McCleery, Julie, and Knapp, Michael. “Redefining and Improving School District
Governance.” Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. October 2006: 1-59. July 2007<
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/wallace/5RedefiningandImprovingSchool.pdf>.
Pope, Charles. “Goals 2000 Still Target for Tale of Plot.” The State [Columbia, S. C.]. 7 April
1997.
“Public Education in the United States.” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 2007. 1 August
2007.

Renchler, Ron. “New Patterns of School Governance.” ERIC Digest Number 141. October 2000:
1-6. 5 July 2007.
South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. 2001 Annual Report: 1-35. 18 July 2007 //www.scsenate.org/>.

Study Team on Local Leadership Quality and Engagement. “Recommendations to the South
Carolina Education Oversight Committee.” 19 October 2000: 1-25. 18 July 2007 sceoc.com>.
United States Department of Education. “ED Initiatives.” 2 April 1996: 1-4. 2 Aug 2007 //www.ed.gov/pubs/EDInitiatives/96/04-02.html>.
White, John. “Board of Education, Superintendent Selected for Elite School Reform Training.”
Press Release. Prince George’s County Public Schools. 3 May 2007.
Wilson, Woodrow. “The Study of Administration.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org: 1-13. 1 November 1886. 27 June 2007 print=465>.
Yarbrough, Michael. “DPS Board, Superintendent to Participate in Governance Training.” Press
Release. Durham Public Schools. 2 May 2007. 28 June 2007 hp?option=com_content&task=view&id=3863&pop=1&pa...>.