My Guv'nah Is Stronger Than Your Guv'nah

Governors are an interesting group. Always. They are not interchangeable spirits. Just think of some of the characters and personalities amidst their ranks: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rick Perry, Bill Richardson, Jennifer Granholm, Ed Rendell, Haley Barbour.

With regard to education, governors do not come to the job with equal chances to impact the policy agenda. I grew keenly aware of this when I worked for the National Governors Assoiciation (NGA) from 2001 to 2004. Some of this is due to personalities and individual capacities, such as whether they effectively use their bully pulpit and engage in policy conversations. And some is due to politics, such as whether they campaigned for office on education. But much of the reason for this variation is out of governors' control: It is due to widely varying nature of state educational governance systems.

This Education Commission of the States brief [summarized below] maps four models of state educational governance, present in 40 of the 50 states. (The other 10 states utilize hybrid models, furthering confusing the situation.) The most important fact is that ONLY 13 governors directly appoint the chief state school officer. That gives one pause in considering how empowered chief executive officers really are to tackle changes to public education. Most certainly cannot go it alone - and perhaps that's a good thing in certain ways, but it certainly doesn't produce direct reform trajectories.

Model One: The governors appoints the members of the state board of education. The state board, in turn, appoints the chief state school officer (variously called the State Superintendent, Commissioner, Education Secretary, etc.) Twelve (12) states utilize this model: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia.

Such state systems do not provide the governors much power over education governance. They accrue it over time as they appoint state board members -- usually with staggered terms -- and eventually gain a majority if they remain in office long enough.

Model Two: In this model, the state board of education is elected and the board appoints the chief state school officer. Eight (8) states utilize this model: Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.

Clearly, this model generates extremely weak gubernatorial control over public education, although chief executives in these states still wield the power of the purse, vetoes, and the like.

Model Three: In this model, the governor appoints the members of state board of education. The chief state school officer is elected. Eleven (11) states utilize this model: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Wyoming.

Again, this is a governance blueprint for weak gubernatorial influence, although right-to-work states with histories of strong state influence over education -- such as North Carolina -- challenge this general assumption. Former NC Governor Jim Hunt has a lot to do with this, I believe. In his case, the power of personality transcended a weak governance structure. Differences also can be caused by differential continuums of power between state boards of education and chief state school officers.

Model Four: In this model, the governor appoints the state board of education and the chief state school officer. Nine (9) states utilize this governance model: Delaware, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.

This would appear to be a template for strong gubernatorial control over public education, but of course it doesn't always turn out that way, depending on personalities, political choices made, and state education systems with a strong history of and preference for local control (here I'm thinking Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire). However, this group of states has certainly produced recent governors that were strong leaders in education -- Tom Kean of New Jersey, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mark Warner of Virginia, Dick Thornburgh of Pennsylvania are examples.

The remaining 10 states function under modified versions of the above four models. Models A (Louisiana and Ohio) and D (Texas) are relatively strong pro-governor structures, while Model B empowers state legislatures over governors in New York and South Carolina. Model E as implemented in Minnesota and New Mexico also provides those governors with significant power; not so much in Wisconsin, although the Badger State governor historically has had very strong veto powers. (Ever heard of the Frankenstein or Vanna White veto?)

A. Elected and Appointed State Board; Appointed Chief

In Louisiana, eight board members are elected and three are appointed by the governor. In Ohio, 11 board members are elected, while the governor appoints eight members.

B. Legislature Appoints State Board; Appointed or Elected Chief

In New York, the state legislature appoints the board members and the chief state school officer is appointed by the board. The South Carolina legislature appoints the board, but the chief is elected.

C. Joint Appointment of State Board; Appointed or Elected Chief

The governor, lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House appoint members to the state board in Mississippi. The state board appoints the chief state school officer.

In the state of Washington, the board of education is made up of 16 members ­—­ five of whom are elected by district directors (three for the western half of the state, two for the eastern); one at-large member elected by members of boards of directors of state-approved private schools; the superintendent of public instruction; seven members appointed by the governor; and two student members (non-voting). The chief state school officer is elected. Washington moved from a model whereby the state board was elected by district directors (local boards) to this model in January 2006.

D. Elected Board; Governor Appointed Chief

The governor appoints the chief state school officer who also serves as the executive secretary of the elected state board. Texas uses this model.

E. No State Board or Advisory Only; Elected or Appointed Chief

Minnesota and Wisconsin do not have a state board of education. New Mexico has an elected body (Public Education Commission), but is advisory only.

Minnesota and New Mexico – chief state school officer is appointed by governor

Wisconsin – chief state school officer is elected.

As Education Week's Alyson Klein reports, in this recent blog post about the just-completed NGA winter meeting, governors of both parties are AOK with the Administration's initial movement on ESEA reauthorization. NGA Chairman and Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, however, did invoke the word 'flexibility,' which is a tried-and-true part of the NGA mantra and which is being peddled far more aggressively by the NGA's sister organization, the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In today's meeting, which was part of the National Governors Association's Winter Conference, governors voiced "zero" concerns about federal intrusion in state business when it came to the Title I proposal, Secretary Duncan said in an interview with reporters outside the White House.

"This is being lead by the governors," he said. "We have to educate our way to a better economy. All of the governors understand this."

That's all well and good. But, the fact is, that some governors' opinions matter more than others, and some, while not wholly irrelevant, are hardly decisive actors. The fact that Race to the Top has empowered governors to take the lead in education reform conversations and to lead states' applications for these competitive dollars has changed the dynamic somewhat. Because they are not directly in charge of public education in most states, however, most governors cannot expedite change along the lines that the Obama Administration is calling for without attending to building relationships, cajoling, convincing, and achieving reform one step at a time.

Fight The Power!

Dana Goldstein raises some serious questions and concerns in her American Prospect article ("Testing Testing") about the process of developing national academic standards. The process is dominated by three organizations--two (ACT and the College Board) with a proprietary interest in ensuring that assessments are a featured component of any final product.

The problem is that the initiative's co-signers aren't just state governments--they are also testing groups: Achieve, a nonprofit that advocates for more effective standardized tests; the College Board, maker of the SAT; and ACT, which administers a competing college-entrance exam. Right now, the College Board and ACT have little engagement with the K-12 education sector. They do, however, have ample experience creating and administering national exams. And there is little doubt that one goal of this national-standards process is to create standardized tests--not one single national test but perhaps two or three options from which states can choose.

As oligopolists, it makes total sense for the College Board and ACT to be eyeing, together, expansion into the immense K-12 assessment market. But given these testing companies' track records, it is worth asking if this is a wise idea. A number of studies have found SAT scores are far less effective than high school grades in predicting how well students will perform in college, and professors say standardized-test prep does little to teach students the research and critical thinking skills they will need at the college level. Because of these shortcomings, an increasing number of colleges--led by the giant University of California system--have made standardized test scores optional for admission.

It would be a shame if national education reform further cemented a system in which passing standardized tests is the goal of learning.

While others (including Dan Brown) have pointed out that only one classroom teacher has a seat at the table, Goldstein follows the money, so to speak. I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the national organizations leading this effort have basically turned it over to Testing, Inc. The corporate boards of both the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association are littered with representatives of the student assessment industry--ETS, McGraw Hill, and Pearson in the case of CCSSO; and ACT, the College Board, ETS, and Pearson in the case of NGA. To their defense, both CCSSO and NGA list these organizations directly on their respective web sites. As a former employee at NGA, I also can honestly say that their funding did in no way impact the substantive advice provided to the nation's Governors when I worked there. But does it provide these companies ready access to Governors and their senior staff at regular meetings? Sure. Does it raise questions about their role in this standards-setting process and create the appearance of bias? Absolutely.

Of the 29 slots on the mathematics and English-language arts Work Groups, 15 are taken by employees or affiliates of ACT and The College Board. Another seven slots are occupied by Achieve, Inc. (Some individuals serve on both Work Groups.) Of the remaining seven slots, two are filled by America's Choice, two by Student Achievement Partners, and single seats by a communications firm, a consultant, and a professor. In addition, 37 individuals serve on twin Feedback Groups for both math and English/LA standards. They are overwhelmingly higher education faculty. Of the 19 members of the math feedback group, 15 represent higher education with a single k-12 teacher in the mix. Of the 18 members on the English/LA feedback group, 14 are professors and there is one "instructional performance coach" from a public charter school as well.

The decision to cut k-12 educators out of the standards development process contrasts sharply with the rhetoric of President Obama and Secretary Duncan about including educators in the development of education reforms. Indeed, it would "be a shame" if Testing Inc. rode this gravy train to the (hopefully not) inevitable conclusion suggested by Goldstein's article. Of course, in the end, it is the product rather than the process that really matters. In this case, one can hope that some of the participants' potentially parochial and proprietary interests don't define the outcome or the intent of the entire effort. The standards should be developed based on what is best for students and how such standards can best be utilized by educators -- not to ensure their ease in being converted into multiple-choice tests.

Hat tip to TWIE.

UPDATE: See Education Week story (7/30/2009).