November 1, 2005

Recently, many opponents of the elected school board referendum in Charlottesville have been making arguments against elected school boards. Many of these criticisms such as the loss of diversity, lack of adequate candidates, prohibitive costs of elections, politicization of school issues, and lack of responsiveness and ineffectiveness of elected school boards are unfounded in research. In fact, when strung together these claims resemble the same arguments made by the British to American Colonists in the 1700s.

This review was written in response to a paper circulated by Dr. William Lucy entitled "Elected School Boards: Are they Effective and Responsive?" ( October 17, 2005). I read the paper with great interest. The Lucy paper, a selective summary of the political science literature about school boards concludes, through its selective and abridged summaries, that elected school boards are not effective or responsive. That paper's conclusions are marred by methodological problems such as restricted range of articles reviewed. It presents a biased and inaccurate view of the topic of the effectiveness of elected school boards. Most importantly, the Lucy review presents indictments of the entire system of locally controlled education, which, if read carefully, apply to both elected and appointed school districts even though they are presented as critiques of elected school boards.

Below I will summarize the problems with the arguments presented in the Lucy paper and its conclusions and then present some conclusions from a more thorough review of the educational literature on the topic.

Flaws in the Lucy Paper on School Board Effectiveness

The Lucy paper leads to flawed conclusions about the lack of responsiveness and effectiveness of elected school boards because of the following problems:

1. Its summaries are presented out of context of particular studies
2. Its summaries come from books and book chapters and ignore peer reviewed journal articles
3. Its summaries are drawn from the literature on the demise of local control of education rather than the literature on the effectiveness of elected vs. appointed school boards. Most of the literature from which Dr. Lucy's conclusions are drawn pertain to state control and takeovers of local urban school governance, not the literature on the effectiveness/responsiveness of elected school boards.
4. Most of the excerpts and negative conclusions about elected school boards drawn are from studies about large urban school district governance not comparable to or relevant to Charlottesville
5. Most of the negative conclusions in the paper, presented out of context of the entire studies, apply to appointed as well as elected school boards, but we are made to believe that they apply to elected school boards only
6. Some of the conservative authors cited are hostile to local control of education and call for the abolition of all school boards, elected and appointed, though this is not pointed out in the paper.
7. The review fails to specify that massive resistance to desegregation in Virginia was accomplished by appointed school boards.

A Review of Educational Research about the Effectiveness and Responsiveness of Elected vs. Appointed School Boards

A review of the literature on elected vs. appointed school boards provides conclusions very different from the ones presented in Dr. Lucy's paper: Elected school boards can be both effective and responsive. For instance Hill (2003) reports that it is not whether a school board is elected or appointed that is important, instead arguing that mode of selection is less directly responsible for board success than clarity and focus about its mission and its role. The review of the following studies does indicate that elected school boards can be effective and responsive.

Hill, Paul T.(2003). School Boards: Focus on School Performance, Not Money and Patronage. Progressive Policy Inst., Washington, DC. ERIC Number:ED477345.

This paper lays out a performance-based model to better leverage the mission and power of school boards toward improving student learning. It moves beyond discussions about whether boards should be elected or appointed, instead arguing that mode of selection is less directly responsible for board success than clarity and focus about its mission and its role.

Lands, D. (2002). Local School Baords Under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students' academic achievement. Review of Educational Research 72(2), 229-278.

In the most comprehensive review of school boards found in the peer-reviewed literature, this article reviews research and writing on the effectiveness of local school boards. Lands reports that "approximately 95,000 school board members serve on 15,000 local public school boards in theUnited States…. The majority of school board members live in small towns or suburbs, followed by rural. Then urban, areas"(p. 232).
"Although in the 1970s urban school districts began moving toward subdistrict, away from city-wide, elections in an effort to have school board members more closely reflect and represent the racial/ethnic groups within their cities, most elections across the nation still occur at large. The vast majority of school board members, approximately 96%, are elected by local citizens for 3-4 year terms" (p. 233).

"…School boards continue to be valued and supported, as evidenced by the following comments by school board authorities; School boards 'provide the crucial link between public values and professional expertise (Resnick, 1999, p.6); they are the 'epitome of representative governance in our democracy' (Shannon, 1994; p. 387); and 'school board membership is the highest form of public service' (Carol et al., 1986, p. 14). An extensive national survey of school boards found that local citizens, parents, community leaders, and educators support the local school board as an institution in close proximity to the citizens it represents (Carol et al., 1986). Thus, while the institution of local school boards has generated much criticism, it still engenders public support" (p. 233).

"Alteration of selection procedures has been a popular target of school board reforms since the mid-1950s, but experts still have not reached consensus regarding which procedure is best" (Danziger, 1992, cited in Land, 2002, p. 236).

"Nearly all school board members are elected at large (i.e., city/district-wide), elected within Subdivisions of the city/district, or appointed. …Reformers and school board experts have advanced various arguments for and against elections and appointments. The focus has been on which procedure is superior for effective educational governance rather than which procedure works best under which circumstances or how the negative aspects of each procedure can be minimized." (p, 236).

"At-large elections, the most common selection procedure, are more likely to retain demographically homogenous individuals who are members of the professional elite- individuals who are well educated, successful, and tied to local business and community power structures (Boone, 1996; Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, 1992, 1994; Ianaconne & Lutz, 1994; Robinson, England, & Meier, 1985; Thomas, 1993; Urban & Wagoner, 1996). Subdistrict elections tend to increase the cultural, ethnic, racial, and political diversity of school boards and draw members who are more similar and responsive to subpopulations of constituents (Carol et al., 1996; Danzberger, 2994; Danzberger et al., 1987, 1992; Kirst, 1994; Robinson et al., 1985, Wagner, 1992)."

"Thus appointed boards probably are more closely aligned with local government than elected boards, which could have both negative and positive consequences. One of the more frequently advanced arguments against appointed boards is that they are less directly accountable to the public and more directly accountable to whomever appointed them (Danzberger, 1992). … While those who appoint the school board would, in most cases, be elected by and accountable to the public, they would not be responsible only for or judged solely according to their impact on education. In this respect, the public's voice in education would be muffled" (p. 238).

"The arguments for and against at-large and subdistrict elections and appointments, as well as other proposed selection reforms, do not point to a clear solution as to which selection procedure would produce the most effective governance" (p. 238) "…Danzberger (1992, p. 47) stated that 'one true method' of selection probably does not exist ands recommend that state and communities choose their selection procedures based on their perception of which will work best for them" (p. 239).

"These examples provide evidence that appointments do not guarantee success for urban boards" (p. 239).

"Insufficient research that includes situation variables such as district size and location, student demographics and achievement levels, community concerns, state and local government support, and district resources has been conducted rule out the impact of selection procedures on educational governance and, more specifically, students' academic outcomes" (p. 239).

Title: School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: conditions and challenges of district governance. Author: Frederick Hess. 2002.

In this national study board members in 2000 districts were surveyed. Among other findings Hess concludes:

"In general, board elections are relatively apolitical affairs, with little money spent on most elections, few incumbents unseated, and few board contests deemed 'very competitive' by board members." (p.5) …

"While the vast majority of school board elections cost the candidate less than $ 1,000, roughly 40 percent of the elections in large districts cost $ 5,000 or more. Respondents also indicate most board campaigns are self funded or are supported by contributions from friends and family… ."(p.5)

"School board election turnout is substantially higher when board elections are held at the same time as elections for state, federal, or general municipal offices" (p.5).

"The mean length of board service among respondents is 6.7 years. A significant number of board members serve long enough (6 years or more) to become familiar with the issues and lend continuity to the board. The patterns hold across districts of all sizes." (p. 5)

Title:The Concept of Control Related to Decisions Under Appointed and Elected School Boards.Author(s):Michel, George J.Publication Year:1975

This study examined a school district before and after its school board changed from appointed status to elected status to determine if there were significant differences in the board's handling of constituent demands. School board minutes were examined and demands were analyzed for a six-month period under the appointed school board, then compared to demands for six months under the elected school board. Results of the analysis showed significant differences in the control functions of the appointed and elected school boards in 6 of 15 demand areas. Of these, the elected school board was more responsive in the three areas of new teaching methods, student behavior, and community services. There were distinct differences in the control functions performed by the appointed and elected boards. …There was strong evidence that the school board does exert political control in processing its decisions. This seems to disagree with some earlier studies, but the earlier studies concentrated only on money demands. (Author/JG)Clearinghouse:Educational Management (EA007823) Number:ED117786

Title: School Boards and the Communities They Represent: An Inventory of the Research. Final Draft. Zerchykov, Ross; Institute for Responsive Education, Boston, MA., 1984 (ED251920)

Abstract: The findings of 22 significant and accessible studies of community involvement in school board policy formation, selected from over 130 relevant studies, are analyzed in this report to provide lay activists with information that could prove useful in efforts to influence policy-making. This information is organized in a question-and-answer format, with relevant findings cited as supporting evidence for the answers provided to specific questions in the following broad categories: (1) do administrators follow school board mandates? (2) do school boards follow voters' wishes? (3) is electoral support the major source of power? (4) how is board responsiveness measured? (5) does board organization affect responsiveness? (6) do all community interests have equal impact? (7) are boards equally responsive on all issues? and (8) are boards equally responsive to all influencing strategies?.

Title:Responsiveness in Local Politics: A Comparative Analysis of School Boards.Author(s):Tucker, Harvey J.; Zeigler, L. HarmonPublication Year:1977.

This paper applies the Eulau and Karps framework for explaining the responsiveness of legislative bodies to public school boards. Eulau and Karps argue that responsiveness deals with a complex, multidimensional set of transactional relationships that can be analytically divided into four components. A high level of responsiveness in one component can go together with unresponsiveness in another. …. Individual boards are inconsistently responsive across components, components are independent of each other, and operational measures within components are independent of each other. Sponsoring Agency:National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, DC. (BBB06621)Clearinghouse:Educational Management (EA009559)Number of Pages:41

Title: Response Styles and Politics: The Case of School Boards. Jennings, M. Kent; Zeigler, Harmon, 1970 (ED043127)

This study tests the assumption that social complexity hampers the representative function of decision-making bodies. Data for the study were compiled from interviews with a national sample of 572 school board members in 96 districts. …Results indicate complexity operates both to strengthen and to impede the representative function. In more populous districts, board members tend not to define their roles as representing the public's wishes irrespective of personal values. The relative strength of the "delegate" as opposed to the "representative" role orientation of board members in less populous districts may be laid to the relatively undeveloped group life of smaller, more homogeneous communities. In general, perceived conflict with public expectations is highest in large cities. Further, criticism of school boards, personal contact with the board by community organizations, and activity by interest groups (including teachers) are consistently greater in large districts. (Author)

Title: Systemic Change and the Role of School Boards. Brown, David W.; And Others, 1996 (ED399105)

…. School board policy audits examined the adopted date of new or revised policies and analyzed current policies related to organizational structure, decision making, resources, professional development, and instruction. Secondly, a review of school board minutes from prior to project implementation through the first 2 project years examined what issues were addressed and what kind of decisions or actions took place. Data indicate that the SSI program impacted local policy makers as evidenced by a decrease in budget actions and an increase in personnel and academic/curriculum actions at board meetings; an increase in the number of policies adopted or revised related to communication, decision making, and instruction; and increased board interest and time spent discussing the Beacon project and systemic change. The findings suggest that school boards can be responsive to programs supportive of systemic change and that boards themselves, through their policy-setting mandates, can play a positive role in engendering systemic change. Includes data tables. (LP)

Title:NSBA Q&A: Elected v. Appointed School Boards
Question & Answer: Elected v. Appointed
CAROL BROWN
President 2003-2004
National School Boards Association ndchool Board Member, Wynne, Ark.

Q.What are the pros and cons for each side of the elected/appointed school board debate?
A.Advantages and disadvantages can be cited for each method of selecting school board members.
The election of school board members makes the board more accountable to the public. An elected board is responsive to the community and is directly responsible to the taxpayer. Also, an elected board creates a sense of closeness between the people and the board that may not be possible with an appointed board.
A school board election campaign can generate discussion of issues and provide an opportunity for the public to directly affect educational policy. Public interest in the schools and educational matters are increased when people have a direct vote in the selection of the school district's governing body. Elected school board members . . . owe no allegiance to any government official.
…
There are a number of valid arguments on both sides of the elected-vs.-appointed issue. There is no definitive research showing that one selection method is the best governance system or attains the most competent school board members. All school board members, elected or appointed, should focus on improving the academic achievement of all students in the community…. (Richmond Times Dispatch published article on Oct 7, 2003.)

Summary

The conclusions presented in "Elected School Boards: Are they Effective and Responsive?" ( Lucy, October 17, 2005), were not based on an appropriate review of the relevant literature. Hence, the conclusions were biased and inaccurate. It is clear from the literature on school boards that there are advantages and disadvantages to both elected and appointed school boards. It is clear from the literature that large, urban school districts have unique governance issues not comparable to the situation found in Charlottesville. Even in large, urban districts there is controversy over mayoral appointed school boards.

There are indications from the literature that elected school boards can be effective and responsive and initiate systemic change. The best system of school board election depends on local circumstances and values of the locality. The system of election is only relevant as it pertains to the establishment of a school board that establishes clarity and focus. Appointed school boards in Charlottesville have been unable to accomplish this over time. 95% of school boards in the United States are elected, perhaps there is something to the wisdom of the people. Democratically elected school boards continue to engender public support. Elected school boards will be more accountable to the public and less beholden to politicians on the local governing body currently appointing them.

I venture to speculate that an elected school board, even if elected on low voter turn out, will be more representative and accountable than the current school board appointed by a handful of officials who are not representative of the entire community. Currently, school board appointments are made based on political patronage and have not led to a responsive or highly qualified membership. The appointed school board is not accountable to the City Council and informal networks have proven to be ineffectual in ensuring accountability. An elected school board will not be a panacea. It will require hard work and public involvement. But Charlottesville is a civic-minded community and should produce high quality candidates for election to the school board.