The Center for American Progress has released a report examining the role of state education agencies, their leaders, and their potential impact on education reform. In the past, state education agencies (SEAs) have been small offices in the background, mostly tasked with administering state and federal education laws, allocating federal and state funding and providing guidance to school districts. With the passage of No Child Left Behind, however, SEAs have been forced into a more prominent role through requirements for increased focus on standards, assessments, and accountability programs. Following the introduction of Race to the Top, it became even more imperative for SEAs to take a more active role in reforming and improving their public education systems.
The authors of the report were troubled by the lack of focus that has been put on the evolving role of SEAs and their chiefs, resulting in many cases in agencies that are “unequipped for the duties they must now fulfill.” Given the lack of focus, there was virtually no current data on how SEAs have been dealing with their new roles. The authors therefore turned to “thirteen of the most innovative and successful former and current chiefs,” and interviewed them about what they see as the obstacles to implementing reform and how they were able to move their agencies forward despite these obstacles.
The authors found the following issues:
1. SEAs are overly focused on compliance with federal funding regulations.
2. There is a lack of transparency in SEA operations and budgets.
3. Federal funding can hinder SEA operations by its earmarking to specific programs or employees.
4. As a state agency, there are bureaucratic obstacles (hiring, pay and civil service laws) to reforming the SEA.
Based on their interviews, the authors proposed several recommendations to increase SEA functionality and influence over reform in low-performing schools:
1. States should grant SEAs more flexibility in hiring, staffing, and salary decisions. Without greater autonomy, SEAs will continue to find it difficult to attract and retain talented employees, severely limiting their potential for reform.
2. States should weigh giving SEAs authority to take over abysmally performing schools and districts. The threat of state takeover is a powerful lever to incite change at the local level. The threat can provide political cover to local superintendents and school boards pushing for reform as well as for union leaders whose membership might otherwise reject reform.
3. The federal government should provide political cover to states to drive improvement. Similar to the above recommendation; however, reformers should remember that while the federal government can prod states to act, it cannot force them.
4. The federal government should grant flexibility around federal strictures. Many of the rules and conditions for federal funding implemented since ESEA (1965) have become obsolete, burdening SEAs. These regulations should be reviewed by USDE, Congress, and OMB.
5. The federal government should scrutinize how federal demands shape culture and practice in SEAs. In addition to the regulation issues mentioned above, federally paid employees are often physically separated from state employees, with their own networks, training, benefits, etc.
6. SEA chiefs, more than anything, need to approach their job with the attitude that they’ll find a way to alter routines. Chiefs do not have to accept the status quo and must realize their power to spur change.
7. SEA chiefs need to regard themselves as political operators, and to build and deploy their political capital in smart ways.
8. SEA chiefs need to do a better job of making basic operating information publicly accessible. Policymakers and chiefs often point to SEAs’ limited capacity as a reason for prohibiting reform, but it is impossible to properly assess capacity without knowing vital information such as staffing levels and operating budgets. SEAs should be required to make this information publicly available as a stipulation for federal funding.
9. SEA chiefs need to build agency capacity and philanthropic foundations can provide the resources to change the game.
To read the full report, visit http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/pdf/sea.pdf
