State Boards of Education: Lesser Known Policy Actors

Abstract

Few scholars have engaged in close examinations of state boards of education (SBOEs), their make-up, or the broader implications of their influence over time. SBOE membership, authority, and impact differ significantly across the 50 states. This article reports findings from an exploratory study of three SBOEs and their role as policy actors. Thinking about SBOEs as policy actors focuses attention not only on the power, authority, and policy-making functions of SBOEs, but also on the individuals who serve on SBOEs, their actions, and the discourses constructed through the performance of their policy work.

Do State Boards of Education Offer an Avenue for Public Voice?

“…To illustrate, relatively little is known about SBOEs, how SBOE members conceive of their roles and responsibilities, how they make policy decisions, which topics dominate their agendas, or how education policy issues they work on fit into the interests or concerns of districts, schools, and average citizens. Of the SBOE-related studies Young and colleagues (2019) identified, the majority consisted of “organizational reports from the 1990s or earlier, which included reviews of SBOE data and in some cases insight into the politics, values, and concerns of a given time period” (p. 207).…”

“…SBOEs emerged in the early 1800s as citizen groups organized at the state level for the purpose of engaging citizens in the administration of public education (Kysilko, 2011). How citizens become SBOE members varies from state to state (Young et al, 2019). According to McCarthy and colleagues (1993), 39 of 49 states used one of the following four models for selecting SBOE members: (a) governor appoints SBOE members, SBOE appoints or recommends chief state school officer, (b) public elects SBOE members, SBOE appoints chief state school officer, (c) governor appoints SBOE members, public independently elects chief state school officer, and (d) governor appoints SBOE members and chief state school officer.…”

“…This assumption, however, is rarely the reality. In their in-depth review of three SBOEs, for example, Young and colleagues (2019) found that SBOE members did not represent the citizens of the state on a variety of factors. These findings may be due in part to the fact that in 33 states, governors appoint SBOE members.…”

“…All but three of the 50 states (Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia currently have SBOEs. These education policy actors are located in a critical nexus between the public and government, providing an opportunity for citizens of the state to influence the direction and governance of public schools (Young et al, 2019). The purpose of this paper is to interrogate the idea of SBOEs as avenues for public voice, which refers to the ability of ordinary citizens to influence the government.…”

Promoting and Limiting Voice: The Influence of Web-based Platforms on Public Policy Discourse

“…Young, VanGronigen, Rodriguez, Tmimi, and McCrory (2021) question the public’s digital access to (and engagement with) one of our most powerful education policy actors: State Boards of Education (SBOE). “These education policy actors are located in a critical nexus between the public and government, providing an opportunity for citizens of the state to influence the direction and governance of public schools (Young et al, 2019). ” Young et al leaned on the criteria of the Open Government Maturity Model (OGMM) to critically examine 47 SBOE websites (“electronic public faces”) against the veracity of the assumption that e-government platforms (e.g., email, listservs, social media, online chat, and discussion boards) provide citizens with opportunities to engage their SBOE.…”