Ask a relatively well-informed North Carolinian to identify who “runs” the state’s public schools, and you’re likely to hear a range of responses. And that’s not just because of poor civics education.
Local superintendents and elected school boards make decisions for 115 school districts across the state’s 100 counties. Thousands of principals within those districts make even more day-to-day decisions.
But to the extent anyone governs public schools from Raleigh, it’s not the governor — try as he might to label himself the “education governor,” as most governors do.
Nor is it the elected superintendent of public instruction. Despite the fact that voters specifically choose one person to lead the state’s education efforts (including the 2.28 million who voted for Republican Mark Johnson last November), that superintendent’s role is limited.
Legislation passed in a special session last December was designed to expand the superintendent’s job duties. Even if that legislation withstands an ongoing legal challenge, the superintendent still wouldn’t be able to claim the lion’s share of power over statewide school policy.
Instead the N.C. Constitution assigns that role to the State Board of Education. Article IX, Section 5 spells out that the board “shall supervise and administer the free public school system and the educational funds provided for its support … and shall make all needed rules and regulations in relation thereto, subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly.”
The governor appoints 11 of the board’s 13 members. (Those appointees serve alongside the lieutenant governor and state treasurer.) A joint session of the General Assembly confirms the gubernatorial appointments.
Some observers likely conclude that this arrangement ensures the governor de facto control over state education policy, even if that control is exercised through his board appointees.
But the actual situation is more complicated. No governor has the power to make all 11 appointments at once. Instead he must wait either for a board vacancy or the conclusion of a sitting board member’s eight-year term.
It’s entirely possible that a governor could work through an entire four-year term and never appoint a majority of the members of the State Board of Education. Hence any “education governor” — Republican or Democrat — will face obstacles enacting policies that deviate from those favored by entrenched members of the State Board of Education.
The governor and the board also must comply with laws set by the General Assembly, another wrinkle that complicates any attempts to determine who actually runs the schools.
It’s amid that backdrop that three N.C. House Republicans have filed House Bill 133. It’s a measure that would place the State Board of Education under a larger spotlight.
Rather than having board members appointed to staggered eight-year terms, voters would elect 13 board members to four-year terms. Each board member would represent a district corresponding to one of North Carolina’s 13 existing congressional districts. The lieutenant governor would keep his board seat. The superintendent of public instruction would gain a seat at the table, while the state treasurer would lose his.
The governor would continue to play a role in the process. He would appoint a board chairman to serve a four-year term. The chairman would vote only to break a tie among the elected board members.
It’s not clear at this point whether this idea will win acceptance within the N.C. House, let alone the Senate or the voters who would have to change the N.C. Constitution to create State Board of Education elections.
Also unclear is whether any change in the education governance structure would lead to benefits for students. As the John Locke Foundation’s top education expert, Terry Stoops, notes with interest, there’s no solid research that suggests one education governance structure — appointments versus elections — offers a gold standard for improving student outcomes.
At the very least, the legislation offers a good reminder that North Carolina’s system of public school governance is complicated and somewhat opaque. Perhaps H.B. 133 can prompt a helpful discussion about the best way to move forward with public school governance.
If the superintendent of public instruction is not going to serve as the top elected official governing public education in the state, perhaps it’s a good time to rethink the wisdom of subjecting that position to statewide election.
Regardless of the governance structure, many people are going to assign the governor credit or blame for North Carolina’s education outcomes. If that governor is going to continue filtering his education policies through state board appointments, perhaps it’s time to rethink the notion of eight-year board terms with the potential for reappointment.
Lawmakers might not want to hold these weighty discussions this year. If they do, H.B. 133 offers the opportunity to start the conversation.
Mitch Kokai is senior political analyst for the John Locke Foundation.