Models of education governance that work for other states

Two weeks ago, we published a deep-dive on the history behind North Carolina’s confusing education bureaucracy.
 
Two entities have legal authority over North Carolina public schools: the State Board of Education, which is appointed by the governor, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who is elected every four years.
 
That’s a challenging governance structure, like a corporate board of directors with no control over the CEO. Many incentives drive the two to war, not work, with one another. North Carolina’s schoolchildren suffer because of it.
 
Today, in the second installment of a three-part series, we examine how some other states organize their education systems. We also introduce options North Carolina policymakers have to reorganize our own system.
 
The stakes here are high: A public school system that operates less efficiently and less effectively than it should impacts 1.4 million schoolchildren every single year.
 
***
 
How Do Other States Do It?
 
Most states employ one of four models.
 
Model 1: States with a Governor-Appointed Board of Education and an Elected Superintendent

 
The first model has a governor-appointed Board of Education and an elected Superintendent. Ten states, including North Carolina, have this model. As we discussed in our first piece, this division of authority creates a diffuse education bureaucracy with overlapping, and sometimes uncertain, accountability, which presents major challenges. The Superintendent must execute policy set by the Board of Education, but the Board has no direct authority over the Superintendent.
 
Model 2: States with a Governor-Appointed Board of Education and a Governor-Appointed Superintendent

 
The second model has a governor-appointed Board of Education and a governor-appointed Superintendent. Ten states have this arrangement, which concentrates power in the state’s chief executive, who is then answerable to the voters. This model offers the clearest lines of accountability and greatest concentration of authority. Ultimately, power rests with the governor, to whom both the Board and the Superintendent report.
 
Model 3: States with a Governor-Appointed Board of Education and a Board-Appointed Superintendent

 
In the third model, the governor appoints the State Board of Education and the Board appoints the Superintendent. Twelve states have adopted this model, which also creates a clear line of authority. The Superintendent reports directly to the body that sets education policy.
 
Model 4: States with an Elected Board of Education and Board-Appointed Superintendent

 
The fourth model also establishes a clear accountability sequence, though it excludes the governor entirely. The people elect a State Board of Education, and the Board appoints a Superintendent. Twelve states employ this model. The Board of Education sets policy and hires the Superintendent responsible for executing that policy. The Board answers directly to voters instead of to the governor.
 
Every model except the first offers the type of responsibility and accountability one might expect in the business world. There are clear chains of command. The chief executive of the education bureaucracy reports directly to either the body that makes policy or to the governor. Only the first model separates the policymaking and executive functions.
 
Two Examples of Success: Mississippi and Massachusetts
Narrowing in on a definition of success in education, much less the reasons behind it, could consume thousands of pages. As a way to offer brief examples of education bureaucracies that appear functional, we’ll focus on fourth grade reading scores according the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly known as the “nation’s report card.”
 
Massachusetts students have performed at or near the top in the country for years. What’s the school bureaucracy look like there? The governor appoints the Board of Education, and the Board appoints the statewide schools chief. Of particular relevance to North Carolina, Massachusetts has had divided government most years dating back to the early 1990s, when the legislature overhauled the state’s education system in what many consider the “Big Bang” of education reform.
 
Though different parties have controlled governor’s mansion and the legislature, Massachusetts schools have excelled. There are many reasons for that, but a clear chain of accountability in the state’s education bureaucracy certainly factors into it.
 
Take Mississippi as another example. Whereas Massachusetts excelled from the 1990s onward, Mississippi plodded along with severely underachieving student scores until the early 2010s. Since then, Mississippi is among the nation’s leaders in student performance improvement. (Much of that improvement has its roots in adopting a “science of reading” literacy curriculum, which is also showing success in North Carolina.)
 
The Mississippi governor appoints a majority of the Board of Education, with the legislature and other statewide officials also having some appointment authority. The Board then selects the Superintendent subject to confirmation by the state Senate.
 
Like Massachusetts, Mississippi has also seen divided government for much of the past 30+ years, though Republicans have held full control since 2012, around the time the state adopted its new literacy program.
 
What Can Work in North Carolina?
Transforming the Superintendent into an appointed, rather than elected, position in North Carolina would require a constitutional amendment. The concept has been bandied about here since the 1940s, but the idea has never advanced to a referendum. It got close in the late 1980s, but it got caught up in legislative politics – partially because an influential House leader wanted to run for Superintendent himself.
 
Likewise, changing the Board of Education’s composition would also require a constitutional amendment. Without some drastic shift, then, it seems unlikely North Carolina will scrap its elected Superintendent and appointed Board of Education model.

Politically, it may be a stretch to see North Carolina voters vote in the affirmative to forgo their current ability to elect a statewide officer. Similarly, would voters approve overhauling the composition of the state board to thin out appointment authority? 
 
But other options can be achieved simply by statutory, not constitutional, changes. The Constitution requires only that an elected Superintendent of Public Instruction “be the secretary and chief administrative officer of the State Board of Education.”
 
The State Board, by contrast, has the constitutional mandate to “supervise and administer the free public school system and the educational funds provided for its support. . .[and] make all needed rules and regulations in relation thereto, subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly.”
 
By way of example (and this hypothetical ignores all political considerations), the Constitution likely permits state lawmakers to severely curtail the Superintendent’s authority and transfer those powers to the Board of Education. The Board could then appoint a statewide schools supervisor to “administer the free public school system.” The Superintendent, in this example, would be relegated to ministerial duties for the Board of the Education.
 
Other avenues for a cleaner chain of accountability exist, too. To achieve any reform, though, state leaders – public and private – would need to agree change is needed, then collaborate in good faith to bring it about. Getting the governor, and respective legislative chamber leaders on the same page would be an ideal start, in 2025. 
 
North Carolina has a rich history of this type of work for the public good.