teacher quality

On the local level, educational governance is organized into four levels including the local school board, the local superintendent, the local school district, and the principle. This article highlights the details of the local school district office.

School governance at the local level emanates from the school district office. The number of district level administrators varies, depending on the size of the district. The superintendent is located at the local school district office. Additional district-level administrators are usually organized according to the function they fulfill. School district offices will typically have administrators and staff who are responsible for finance, student record keeping, hiring personnel, curriculum, teaching and instruction, assessment and evaluation, the provision of technology and school supplies/materials, and logistics (building maintenance and transportation). Their job titles reflect the functions they perform, to include deputy or assistant superintendent, coordinators, and directors.

Many of the functions of the local district office impact the work of teachers. District administrators who are focused on teacher learning, assessment, and evaluation directly influence the work of teachers with their students. Many local districts have curriculum specialists who oversee all matters related to curriculum and instruction for the district. They may be responsible for providing professional development opportunities by organizing workshops and ongoing training sessions relevant to the curricular needs of teachers. They are often in charge of organizing various curriculum based committees, as well as supervising the development of guides for local implementation of curriculum. These guides are typically organized by subject and may include appropriate outcomes and guidelines, possible topic areas to be covered, and sample assessment practices.

Local district staff is required to develop appropriate assessment measures to determine if students are meeting state standards by testing progress at several designated grade levels. They must also collect statistics (often based on student grades/achievement) to determine the effectiveness of instruction in the district. These data are required by different agencies at the federal, state, or local level.

Local school boards have been fixtures in the U.S. educational system for over a century, and they are responsible for representing the will of the people regarding school district governance. As a teacher, it’s a good idea for you to learn more about the school board’s duties and how it affects your day-to-day job. Even before you can be hired, the principal must present your credentials and a recommendation for hire at a local school board meeting. If the board decides that hiring you is not in the best interests of the district, they will reject the principal’s recommendation.

School boards also affect you as a teacher by implementing educational reforms such as student testing and graduation requirements. You should be aware that many school boards micromanage school system operations, and at times, they can make decisions that are merely political and have nothing to do with the best interests of the district’s students. This happens more often than one would think and can lead to a toxic work environment.

The local school board shapes curriculum and creates policies and procedures but also must align them with state and federal mandates. It will be helpful for you to know who sits on your school board and to make sure they know who you are.

The local school district office is the essential support of the superintendent and directly impacts teachers. Therefore their role within educational governance is necessary for the improvement of school systems. Continue to read articles in this segment to learn about the other levels of educational governance at the local level.

On the local level, educational governance is organized into four levels including the local school board, the local superintendent, the local school district, and the principle. This article highlights the details of the local superintendent.

The local superintendent is the most powerful person at the local level, because he or she is the de facto head of all schools in the district, fulfilling both executive and administrative functions. Superintendents are usually selected by school boards, although some districts elect their superintendent. There is a significant gender gap at this level, and around three quarters of superintendents are male.

The duties of a superintendent are varied. Often the only professional educator present at a board meeting, the superintendent advises board members on educational issues and policy. And as an instructional leader, the superintendent supports and directs principals, supervises and oversees staff performance evaluations, and measures the effectiveness of programs and curricula in the schools. Superintendents have a say in how the schools are administered on a daily basis, setting policy in education and related areas such as dress codes, the courses that are taught, and tolerance/ behavior policies. Other tasks include establishing the yearly budget for the district, recruiting and hiring educational personnel, and ensuring that all school buildings are kept in repair. The superintendent also leads an administrative team that usually comprises one or more deputy/assistant superintendents, who assist the superintendent with the day-to-day operations of the district and its schools.

One of the most important duties of a superintendent is to increase public awareness concerning the vision and the direction of the local school board. It has been suggested that a superintendent’s most taxing and important role is that of a political negotiator, because the superintendent must navigate the various demands of a citizenry bent on influencing school policies. The most effective superintendent is, of necessity, a generalist who possesses an eclectic range of skills and abilities and a comprehensive knowledge of educational issues.

In 1993, the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) developed professional standards to guide the behavior of superintendents, as well as to serve as a means for measuring their effectiveness. According to the AASA, superintendents are mandated to:

• Provide executive leadership and establish an appropriate climate in schools under their charge.
• Work collaboratively with the local school board to set educational policy.
• Attend to regulations and standards.
• Effectively communicate the district’s unique vision to the public at large.
• Maintain a harmonious relationship with the community.

Superintendents must use data to inform their decision-making process as they strive to find solutions to issues or problems in their schools. They are considered experts in guiding the development of curriculum and in designing means to assess academic achievement. They also provide excellence in instructional management, using current pedagogical research to ensure that all students in their schools are exposed to the very best educational practices. Superintendents are required to be experts in developing means by which to evaluate staff, and they make sure that professional development is available for educational personnel so that they may continue to improve professionally. Finally, superintendents are expected to understand the underlying values of the school district and to model appropriate leadership in this respect. The standards for performance for superintendents seem to indicate that the role of the superintendent is one of guidance, facilitation, communication, and coordination.

The typical tenure of a superintendent is 5.5 years, leading some analysts to suggest that turnover is common due to the inherent conflicts that exist between superintendent and school boards.
This conflict may find its genesis in the fact that superintendents must provide leadership to school boards while at the same time being directly responsible to them. Keep in mind that the school boards hire superintendents in the first place. Conflicts inevitably arise over funding issues, political stances, and change as it occurs in education. To successfully manage these conflicts and achieve their educational vision, superintendents often find themselves garnering support from various coalitions.

By being the second level of educational governance on the local level, the superintendent is vital to the operation and behind the scenes work within the education system. Therefore it is important to know your local superintendent and understand their leadership and mission. Continue to read articles in this segment to learn about the other levels of educational governance at the local level.

On the local level, educational governance is organized into four levels including the local school board, the superintendent, the local school district, and the principle. This article highlights the details of the local school board.

The local school board is charged with interpreting state regulations and setting similar policies for its district while creating strategic plans for the advancement of education in its district. The local school board represents the state in educational matters as well as advocates for the concerns and rights of the local citizenry. Although the local school board is bound to implement state educational policies, it also has the right to challenge policy through accepted channels if it feels the state designated regulations are not in the best interests of students and schools in their district.

Local school boards are also directly responsible for hiring school personnel, implementing programs, and evaluating the overall effectiveness of staff performance. They approve final budgets as well as the purchase of capital items. Furthermore, they are charged with the task of informing the public about issues and events that impact schools. Some local school boards even have the authority to increase their revenues by raising the taxes of the residents in their district.

As laid out by state law, members of the local school board are typically elected, although they can also be appointed by the mayor, or a combination of both. Approximately 96% of all local school boards are elected by the communities they serve. On average, local school board members complete a 4-year term and are officially considered to be officers of the state. Additionally, members are often monetarily compensated for their services. Any interested adult can serve on a local school board: specific educational background or expertise is not a requirement. In 2004, the National School Boards Association published an account of the profile of a typical board member. According to the report, board members tend to be male, white, professional, middle-aged, and affluent. As a result, the boards often do not reflect the demographics of the majority of the people whose interests they represent. Other ethnicities and cultures, as well as women, are underrepresented on local school boards. This fact may explain the criticism that local school boards are primarily composed of an elite group that is removed from the population they serve.

The estimated 15,000 local school boards across the country are responsible for determining how state policy will be interpreted in their area and setting policy for their own schools. To this end they appoint or hire an educational professional, typically designated as the superintendent, who is charged with administering the day-to-day workings of schools in the district. The relationship between the superintendent and the local school board is integral to the success of all educational programs and services undertaken by the district. Surprisingly, only half of the nation’s local school boards have written codes defining and establishing the boundaries of this crucial relationship. The resulting lack of clarity has caused some confusion about the role of the superintendent, his or her status within the local school board structure, the compass of his or her authority, and the scope of his or her responsibilities.

Some boards become too involved with the day-to-day operations of schools by micromanaging schools and administrators under their jurisdiction. These actions tend to interfere with productive professional relationships between the board and school personnel and hamper the educational progress of the schools and pupils under the board’s charge. Recently, many local school boards have come under fire, accused of interfering in educational matters best left to the discretion of the professional educators they have themselves hired. Some boards have also been criticized for being too politically involved by striving to cater to the whims and desires of a very small percentage of the electorate in their areas.

Board members typically serve extremely short terms, most averaging less than 4 years. Researchers have posited that this rapid turnover rate is one of the main reasons that relationships between board members and the superintendent are so prone to deterioration. New board members may not fully understand the background of various initiatives undertaken before their term and as a result may not fully support those endeavors. This lack of support may be the reason that many school-based initiatives lose their momentum and ultimately fail. And the shrinking number of local school boards since the 1930s—from 200,000 to the current 15,000—has meant that local school boards are charged with governing more teachers and schools and have less time to give attention to the concerns and grievances of each. As a result, some parents and special interest groups have complained that their perspectives and concerns are not heard at the local level.

Reports issued by the Committee for Economic Development, the Institute for Educational
Leadership (IEL), and the Twentieth Century Fund have all suggested that the power structure of local school boards should be changed and that their actions should be subject to state performance criteria to increase their accountability. Some larger cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Boston, have either done away with or dramatically reduced the power and influence of school boards. In these cities, local administration of education has been passed to the mayor, consolidating the control of education in one individual, who also designates the funds for schools under his or her jurisdiction. Some favor this arrangement because it may effectively reduce the incidence of assigning blame, or the dodging of responsibility that may take place within a board when no single individual is ultimately accountable for decisions.

Teachers are typically hired by principals, although the local school board, where one exists, has the final say as to whether or not a teacher is hired, because they must authorize the letter to offer work. It may seem that the politics of school boards have little to do with you as a classroom teacher, but the reality is that it can have a tremendous impact on both you and your students. The proceedings of the local school board are public records. As a novice teacher, you should attend a few meetings or at least read the minutes.

Although the local school board is one level of educational governance at the local level, the school board is very essential to the operation and success of individual schools within the district. Continue to read articles in this segment to learn about the other levels of educational governance at the local level.

Leaders can be determine by in various ways whether it is pertaining to well-known leaders like the President, future leaders like the students in your classroom or historical leaders around the world. However, as an Educator there is a leadership structure within the educational system that you should be aware of as you continue investing in the lives of students. This article provides an overview of the levels of leadership in education including the role of the governor, legislator, state board of education, the chief state school officer, and the state department of education.

The Governor

The governor is undoubtedly the most influential person in the state, setting policy and reaching decisions on all areas under his or her jurisdiction, including education. Some governors take a very active role in determining and designing the course of educational policy for their state. Many have a team of advisors who provide guidance on all issues related to education. The advisory team is frequently composed of former educators but, in many states, leaders from the business community also serve on this team. Advisors act as a liaison between the governor and the legislature by providing assistance with policy creation and providing many public relations oriented tasks and events such as hosting press conferences, designing public announcements, and convening public meetings on the governor’s behalf.

The Legislator

Although the governor is the most influential person in the state, the legislature is a powerful body in establishing policies, passing laws, and appropriating funds for education. Educational policies set by legislatures have received more interest from the public in recent years, primarily due to the increased prominence (and surrounding controversy) of educational financing and student assessment.

All members of the legislative assembly are elected to their positions by the voters in their districts and are directly responsible to those voters when making policy decisions or enacting educational regulation. Legislators often represent a diversity of both opinions and expectations when dealing with educational matters. For example, a politician from a rural district may have different needs and priorities from one who represents an inner-city district. The state legislature will form an education committee, which oversees both educational policy and funding and creates or suggests revisions to policies. Just like the governor, these committees are advised by specially appointed aides, who collect and help to interpret information for the committee members.

The State Board of Education

The SBE is charged with implementing educational policy and providing both governance and supervision to all schools located within the state. Typically, the SBE performs the following functions:

• Establish the general goals, vision, and direction for education in the state.
• Determine the curriculum that will be taught in classrooms.
• Set the standards by which students’ achievement will be measured.
• Establish guidelines regarding the operation of all elementary and secondary schools, and determine how programs will be regulated within individual schools.
• Advise the governor/legislature about necessary changes to policy.
• Report to both the public and to the governor/legislature on the status of education in the state.

The SBE determines the appropriateness of educational policy, while the chief state school officer ensures that approved policies are implemented. Typically, the governor appoints members to the SBE, but in some states, the public elects members. Generally, SBEs or the equivalent bodies have between 9 and 15 members.

The Chief State School Officer

The chief state school officer is directly responsible to the SBE or equivalent body. The title of this position varies among different states and may be referred to as the state superintendent or commissioner of education, serving the same function in some states. Either the governor or the SBE appoints an individual for this position in some states, whereas other states elect this official by public vote.

The chief state school officer is frequently a member of the governor’s cabinet and can therefore exert his or her influence on policy and decision making directly with the governor. An elected chief state school officer may be less influenced by the governor’s opinions on and views about education in the state. As of 2008, 23 chief state school officers were appointed by the SBEs, 17 were appointed by the governor, two were appointed by the SBE and approved by the governor, while the remaining 11 were elected by popular vote.

The principal duties of the chief state school officer are related to educational policy setting and to ameliorating any education-related issues that may arise. The chief state school officer strives to improve education and sets task forces to delve into issues and to propose solutions. The officer also coordinates studies to determine the overall status of education within the state and then communicates these findings to the governor, the legislature, the SBE, and the general public. Although the chief state school officer has very little direct authority over educational personnel at the local level, his or her influence is evidenced through policy and regulatory changes.

State boards of education exert powerful influence over teachers and schools by creating education policy and providing leadership. Through adopting educational policies and setting standards for educational initiatives, the board provides the direction required to allow teachers to prepare today’s students for a victorious future. Each state board varies in size, and their members are drawn from districts throughout the state. The commissioner or superintendent of education serves as the chief executive officer for the state and usually supervises the board.

The actions of these individuals have direct implications for the day-to-day lives of teachers. The board has direct oversight over teacher licensure and adopts and sets licensure policies. They also decide what should be included in the curriculum and how students should be instructed. They also provide financial oversight over the states’ K–12 schools and set teacher salaries.
The State Department of Education

The state department of education is usually presided over by the chief state school officer and ensures that all legislation and regulation created by the state are observed throughout the state. The state department of education is also primarily tasked with the accreditation of teacher education programs and the certification of all educational personnel (e.g., teachers, principals, counselors.) The department also oversees the dispersal of educational funds, evaluates programs, suggests improvements to curriculum, and collects and analyzes data and issues reports. The state department of education often calls on teachers to offer their perspectives, experiences, and needs regarding educational concerns. You may be asked (or you may wish to volunteer) to participate in committees that advise the chief state school officer and the state department on instructional matters.

Knowing each of these levels of leadership will aid in understanding the impact of government on the educational system. The question remains how are these levels of leadership impacting your local school districts today?

Throughout the advancement of federal funding the most commonly known fund is Title I and in 2001 through legislation the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which was implemented to ensure the development and academic success of all students regardless of socioeconomic status or race. However through the incorporation of the NCLB Act consequences have occurred impacting school districts mainly through standardized testing. This articles details the controversy behind these changes.

NCLB is intended to ameliorate school performance, as it mandates identification of schools that have not achieved state standards and requires administrators and teachers to improve student test scores at those schools. In reality, however, the adoption of NCLB has led to the deployment of statewide assessments and testing as a means of proving that federal funds are used wisely and that federally based legislation is observed in each state. Some argue that standardized testing is, in fact, necessary to prove that the money channeled into education is well spent. Most states use standardized tests to monitor both the efficacy of their educational systems and to prove that all funds, whether provided federally or locally, are used effectively. Tests are a relatively easy and inexpensive way of determining progress and allow for comparisons between students, schools, and scores. Critics of standardized tests are against using these tests to determine progress, because they capture one-time performance only and are not indicative of overall learning or skills mastery.

Due to the dictates of NCLB, each school district in the state, as well as each individual school, receives an annual state-issued report card that summarizes the schools’ performance on state assessments. The state must publish these report cards, which include a list of all schools in the state receiving improvement monies. Student demographic information (e.g., ethnicity, gender, and economic status) is included on the report card for each school and for the district as a whole. States must also divulge the disability and immigrant statuses of their students, as well as their English language proficiency levels, both oral and written. Some critics of standardized assessment feel that NCLB actually contributes to the inequalities between various schools and school districts, because states are compelled to publish results that compare and contrast schools based on their ability to meet AYP. By this measure, some schools excel, while others fail. Furthermore, critics point out that children are actually being labeled and categorized, a process that concerns many educators.

As mentioned earlier, test data are increasingly being used to judge teaching effectiveness as evidenced by students’ test scores. School districts have reacted in varying ways to the pressures on educators inherent in the overreliance on assessments required by NCLB. In 2006, the Houston Board of Education voted to establish a program to financially reward teachers and administrators if their students did well on the state-imposed standardized tests. Teachers stood to gain an additional $3,000 annually, and administrators could take home $25,000 if the students in their schools met or exceeded state standards.

Some critics argue that standardized testing, which establishes a measure of achievement based on a single test score, is unfair to the test taker and is not a true representation of ability, knowledge, skills, or achievement. Many professional educators agree and feel that standardized tests should be supplemented by multiple assessments, including elements as diverse as portfolios, presentations, interviews, and exhibitions. This process, known as authentic assessment, allows students to demonstrate proficiency with skills or a mastery of a subject matter recently addressed. Proponents of authentic assessment hope that it may help to balance the current emphasis on one-time standardized testing.

To ensure continued funding, districts and schools are driven to comply with NCLB dictates. Their actions will undoubtedly impact you as a classroom teacher. Before you even reach the classroom, districts must make sure you are a highly qualified teacher. NCLB states that all children have the right to be educated by a qualified teacher. As a result, districts will make certain that you hold a university degree and have completed a teacher education program or alternative route program. Furthermore, teachers must have a teaching license, a formal type of certification issued by the individual state. Once hired, your principal may emphasize the importance of high test scores, whether on the state-mandated assessments or on school-generated measures. Your students’ performance on the state-standardized assessments may be extrapolated as a measure of both your abilities and effectiveness as a teacher. The impulse may be to “teach to the test” to ensure that your pupils do well on the exams. However, you’ll have to judge how best to balance the performance demands required by the tests against the development of certain other types of learning. This includes aspects of the “hidden curriculum,” such as the acquisition of time management, social interactions, and study and collaboration skills, which are difficult to assess.

Over and above the standardized testing debate, some fear that accepting stimulus money will increase the amount of federal influence on education, diminishing the power of the individual states. Some states have refused to accept stimulus money for this reason. Some critics go so far as to say that federal imposition on the funding of education is in opposition to the Tenth Amendment. Although monies provided from a federal level can effectively alleviate some of the problems faced by schools and teachers today, it is wise to consider the long-range implications of competing for these funds carefully when deciding how to implement reform initiatives.

If you are an Educator, it is necessary to understand the impacts of the NCLB Act and other potential acts that may transpire due to decisions within government. As a parent or guardian, it is important to know the details behind the NCLB act and all types of federal funding methods. At the end of the day funding has a great impact on education.

As an educator at some point in your career you will be faced with understanding the implications of educational funding. Therefore it is import to recognize the impacts of educational funding and how your district handles their funding.

Funding underpins the entire educational system and determines aspects as diverse as your salary, your benefits, the number of students in your classes, the textbooks you use, and the supplies you’ll be able to purchase for your pupils. Funding for education is derived from federal, state, and local sources. The origin of these resources can have an impact on where and how they are allocated and dispersed.

Nationally, $500 billion is spent on elementary and secondary education each year. Approximately 65% of this is channeled into employee salaries, with an additional 17% to fund staff benefits. The cost of maintaining educational infrastructures is also significant and accounts for a large proportion of the total annual amount spent on education. Buildings, equipment, and supplies are in constant need of repair, upkeep, and replacement, and the cost of utilities (e.g., heat, water, waste removal, and electricity) continues to rise. The U.S. Department of Education recently estimated that 25,000 schools across the nation required essential repairs to wiring, heating, lighting, and ventilation systems to keep them open and operating. The estimated cost of these repairs exceeded $112 billion.

Monies used to finance education come from a variety of sources—local, state, and federal departments all provide some proportion of funds. Before 1970, local jurisdictions were primarily responsible for funding schools within their boundaries. But concern emerged that children in poorer areas were not receiving an education equal to that of their peers in wealthier regions, due to the lower ability of poorer residents to pay comparable taxes. As a result, states are responsible for providing base amounts to districts for educational expenditures. The average educational budget typically consists of 48% state-garnered funds and 43% funds from local sources, with the federal government making up the remaining 9%. Funding varies greatly from state to state. The actual percentages vary greatly, depending on the economic situation of each state and the taxable incomes that can be levied against both its residents and corporations. Some states completely fund the shortfall left by federal monies, while others rely more heavily on local municipalities or even individual school districts themselves to provide funds for their schools.

Statistics indicate that some states traditionally spend more of their annual budget on education. Some states, such as Hawaii, accept almost total fiscal responsibility for financing education within their borders, generating 87% of its annual educational budget from its own coffers. The actual amount spent annually per student varies greatly as well, with the District of Columbia, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York spending more than $12,000 per student per year, while Arizona and Utah spend less than $6,000 per pupil. Typically, southwestern states provide less educational funding than do northeastern states. The cost of living and taxation rates are frequently lower in the Southwest, thus equalizing the apparent discrepancy.

What about the quality of education? Do students in less-funded states receive an education comparable to their peers in more richly funded states? Some researchers have concluded that certain factors related to funding—such as professional salaries, student/teacher ratios, small class sizes, new equipment, and access to materials and supplies—impact the quality of education that a student receives.

What do you think? Is the level of funding in your school district contributing to the success or hindrance of your students?