Making the Right ChoiCe: evaluating State ... - Sutherland Institute

JUNE 18, 2013

Making the Right Choice: Evaluating State Board of Education Selection Systems Responsible Citizen Summary Background •• Despite broad dissatisfaction with the status quo, Utah has been unable to agree upon an alternative system for choosing members of the state board of education. •• One reason is that there has been no way to evaluate alternative proposals that has met with broad appeal across the political spectrum. •• Utah needs to create and maintain public trust in the integrity of the school board selection.

Using the criteria of clarity, transparency and voter accountability, partisan elections seem the best way to promote public trust in how school board members are chosen.

How Do We Evaluate School Board Selection Systems? Despite broad dissatisfaction with the status quo, for years Utah has been unable to answer the question of which method of selecting members of the state board of education will be best for children. One reason is that there has been no way to evaluate the various proposals that has met with broad appeal across the po-

What’s at stake?

litical spectrum, meaning even the basic language of compromise

•• Integrity of the process. •• Public trust in the process and the board. •• Effectiveness of the board in working with others.

has been nonexistent.

What should we do? •• Continued dialogue concerning alternative systems for electing state school board members. •• Adopt a partisan election system, or a “hybrid system” that includes a significant partisan election component, as the best alternative for promoting public trust in the integrity of the school board selection system.

Some have (reasonably) promoted the goal of “good academic outcomes,” for instance. Unfortunately, there is no agreement on what that term means. Is it simply high test scores, or does it also include high school graduation rates, college attendance, and other outcomes as well? If it is a combination, which metrics are more important than the others, or are they all equally important? The answers to these questions vary from person to person and interest group to interest group, and so evaluating state school board selection systems based on academic outcomes has understandably failed to move the dialogue forward. But one goal that holds promise for broad support in evaluating state school board selection systems is this: creating and maintaining public trust in the integrity of the process. Public trust in the integrity of the state school board member selection process is fundamental for the effectiveness and success of

Copyright © 2013 Sutherland Institute

1

JUNE 18, 2013 the board, just as it is fundamental for the success and

of clarity is relatively simple and follows a clear logic,

effectiveness of any representative government body

both of which allow average Utahns to easily under-

chosen via democratic institutions. Without public

stand how the process works and how they can get

trust, the state school board will not be viewed as legiti-

involved. Without clarity, Utahns will be understand-

mate by the people it governs – from whom it draws its

ably skeptical of the system and concerned that school

authority.1 Without public legitimacy, the state school

board members are being chosen for them (instead of

board cannot effectively perform its duties, since the

by them) by political insiders or special interests who

people it must rely upon and work with will undermine

know how to navigate and manipulate the system. Of

the board’s decisions.

course, the simplest process is not always the best, but between two equally transparent and accountable

In other words, if a system for selecting state school

systems, the simpler option will better establish public

board members does not create and maintain pub-

trust in the integrity of the system.

lic trust in its integrity – because the process is not transparent, lacks accountability, or seems rigged to

Second, the process of choosing state school board

favor “insiders” by being unnecessarily complicated –

members should create transparency about candi-

the board will not have the cooperation of the prin-

dates’ thinking and positions on education issues, es-

cipals, teachers, parents, and policymakers who view

pecially for those who must select state school board

the board as illegitimate. And the result will be a

members from among these candidates. Transparency

state school board that is ineffective and incapable of

is established when the selection process produces suf-

providing a good education system, with the victims

ficient public scrutiny from media, voters, etc., to pro-

being children who are not given the education they

duce easily accessible information about school board

need to succeed in life.

candidates’ thinking and positions on education issues

Criteria for Creating and Maintaining Public Trust

– whether through media coverage or from the candidates themselves. Without such transparency, those charged with selecting school board members cannot make informed decisions, and the average Utahn will

Some of the most important factors for creating pub-

question whether information is being withheld for po-

lic trust in the integrity of a system for selecting state

litical reasons, harming public trust in the integrity of

school board members are: (1) clarity in the selection

the selection process.

process, which is aided by simplicity, (2) transparency created by the system regarding candidates' thinking

Third, the process of choosing state school board mem-

and positions, especially for those choosing among

bers should create accountability to voters, since the

state school board candidates, and (3) accountability

voters are the ones who must live with the board’s deci-

to voters.

sions. Without voter accountability, poor school board decisions – or even school board members who un-

First, the process for choosing state school board mem-

ethically abuse their power – will be met with few or no

bers should produce clarity. A system with a high level

negative consequences. Voters will recognize this and

2

Making the Right Choice: Evaluating State Board of Education Selection Systems


JUNE 18, 2013 understandably lose trust in the integrity of the system

Below is an illustration of the current system:

because it seems to reward (or at least not punish) poor choices at the expense of innocent children. It should be noted that accountability depends, in part, on transparency. For example, while a candidate may

Voters Elect

be accountable to voters in the sense that he or she must win a public election, without easily accessible

Governor

Who appoints

Nominating and Recruiting Committee

information about that candidate’s thinking and positions (or an incumbent’s past decisions), that election

Who chooses

becomes a relatively weak form of voter accountability. Determining the best system for selecting state school board members means finding the system that provides the greatest combined level of clarity, transpar-

Who are considered by

Two Candidates per School Board District

Which recruits, interviews, and selects Three Candidates per School Board District

Who are voted on for school board membership by

ency, and accountability. Such a system will encourage and protect public trust in the integrity of the selection

Voters

process, and thus give the state school board the legitimacy it needs to be effective and to provide a high

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

quality education system for the sake of children.

Evaluating the Options

Clarity: The current process scores low on clarity. It is complicated and lacks a clear logic. To the latter point, for instance, why is an unelected committee charged

Four processes for selecting state school board mem-

with finding and then disqualifying candidates for the

bers have been proposed in Utah, so we can evalu-

state school board, and why does the governor decide

ate those for their effectiveness. Those four systems

which candidates end up on the ballot? Some have ar-

are: (1) the current system of candidates selected by a

gued a need to vet potential school board candidates,

committee and the governor, combined with nonpar-

and certainly vetting of elected officials is necessary.

tisan elections, (2) partisan elections, (3) nonpartisan

But this logic is undermined by the fact that no other

elections, and (4) a governor-appointed school board.

elected office in the state has a nominating and recruit-

Each system is scored on clarity, transparency, and

ing committee.

voter accountability on a scale using “low,” “moderate,” and “high.”

In other words, if a nominating and recruiting committee is required to sufficiently vet a candidate for this

The Current System (Committee/Governor Selected Candi-

kind of nonpartisan political office, then candidates for

dates w/Nonpartisan Elections)

local mayor and city/county council must be receiving



3

JUNE 18, 2013 insufficient vetting and should have nominating and

Accountability: The current system scores low to mod-

recruitment committees as well. And yet, no one is

erate on voter accountability. The illustration suggests

seriously calling for such committees for local govern-

one reason why: Voters enter into the current process

ment office, suggesting that there are more reason-

only at the very beginning and the very end, cut out

able and preferable ways to vet candidates for the

from the many steps in between. Whereas voters drive

state school board.

modern election systems, the current system uses an appointed commission that is wholly unaccountable

Transparency: The current system scores low on trans-

to voters to winnow down the candidates for the state

parency. Certainly, the nominating and recruitment

school board.

committee and the governor are able to collect the information they need through their interview process.

Because the current process does not produce suffi-

However, the subsequent nonpartisan election does

cient transparency about school board candidates for

not produce sufficient public scrutiny to give informa-

voters, the moderate level of voter accountability in the

tion to voters about potential school board members.

system is further weakened. Without easily accessible information about candidates’ thinking and positions,

As an anecdotal illustration, only nine out of 18 state

voters cannot hold school board candidates to account

school board candidates (50 percent) on the ballot in

in a meaningful and informed way.

2012 had a candidate web page explaining their thinking and positions on education issues, where “easily

In summary, the current system for selecting state

accessible” means the website showed up in the first

school board members is lacking in the three basic fac-

page of results of an online search using a typical

tors required to create and maintain public trust in the

search engine.2 In comparison, 21 of 27 candidates (78

integrity of the system. Not surprisingly, many Utahns

percent) running for the state Senate and 110 of 158

are skeptical about it and want it reformed. The system

candidates (70 percent) running for the state House

that Utah policymakers and voters choose as a replace-

of Representatives (both partisan elections) had eas-

ment ought to, at least, be stronger in these basic fac-

ily accessible candidate web pages.3 It is also worth

tors. We now turn to the other proposed systems.

noting that expense is not a valid reason for lacking a campaign website: Many candidates used free social

Partisan Elections

media websites, such as Facebook, to create a web page that showed up in the initial results of an Inter-

Following is a visual representation of the proposed

net search.

partisan system for selecting school board members,

4

similar to the system for choosing state legislators, the Further, news media focused only limited resources

governor, and other state-level elected officials:

on school board candidates, tending instead to focus their reporting on higher-profile, partisan state and national races.5

4



JUNE 18, 2013 a score range of moderate to high more appropriate

Voters

than a definite score.

Attend neighborhood caucus meetings to elect

Transparency: The partisan system scores high on transparency. First, the partisan identification of candidates itself provides general information about the

Delegates (Voters)

thinking and positions of school board candidates. A voter who is familiar at some level with the respective

Who attend party conventions to choose

political parties’ education platforms will be able to know the general direction that each candidate has in

School Board Candidates Who are voted on for the school board by

Who compete in (if needed)

Final Candidates

Primary (Decided by Voters)

Voters

mind for the public education system. Further, partisan elections in Utah draw more public scrutiny than nonpartisan elections. In part, this is because of the natural narrative, and sometimes added controversy, created by the competition between political parties, which often draws media attention.

Clarity: The partisan system scores moderate to high

It is also because the caucus/convention/primary sys-

on clarity. Its underlying logic is clear: Since this is an

tem of partisan elections requires candidates to inform

elected office that impacts the lives of voters (espe-

politically active convention delegates and/or partisan

cially parents) perhaps more than any other, the voters

primary voters about their thinking and policy posi-

should be empowered to make all of the decisions con-

tions. Hence this information becomes easily accessible

cerning who serves on the state school board, includ-

to the broader public online and via campaign advertis-

ing who appears on the ballot as well as who ultimately

ing, as indicated by the relatively high rate of partisan

serves on the board.

state legislative candidates with campaign websites.

The partisan system has a moderate level of simplicity.

Accountability: The partisan election process also

It is simpler than the current system, but more complex

scores high on accountability to voters. As is clear from

than other proposed processes. The simplicity of the

the visual representation of the system, voters are the

partisan system is aided by the fact that it is the same

primary decision-makers, whether as delegates, prima-

process by which many other elected offices in Utah are

ry voters, or general election voters. In this system, vot-

chosen, and will therefore be familiar to voters.

ers are empowered to hold candidates to account. Due to the high level of transparency seen in candidates’

It is difficult to measure voters' familiarity with the

thinking and positions created by the process, the voter

partisan election process, so that uncertainty makes

accountability in the partisan election system exists not just on paper, but is strong in reality.



5

JUNE 18, 2013 In short, considering all the factors for creating and main-

that would draw significant media attention, with the

taining public trust in Utah’s system for selecting state

public scrutiny it creates. Further, the nonpartisan elec-

school board members, the partisan election system

tion process lacks an effective mechanism for requiring

gets moderate to high marks.

school board candidates to proactively produce information about their education positions and thinking.

Nonpartisan Elections While the nonpartisan election process creates an Below is a visual representation of the proposed nonpar-

added opportunity for voters to learn about the can-

tisan system for selecting school board members, which

didates’ thinking and positions on education, both the

is similar to the way Utahns select local elected officials:

nonpartisan primary and general election races suffer from the same lack of public scrutiny that exists for the

Voters (if needed)

nonpartisan elections in the current system. The fact remains that these nonpartisan elections are likely to

Vote in a primary to choose

fly under the public radar and draw little scrutiny from

School Board Candidates

Accountability: The nonpartisan system scores moder-

Who are chosen or rejected for school board membership by

ate on voter accountability. The system does well in that

Voters

average Utahns.

voters are the primary decision-makers throughout the process. However, the low transparency of the system weakens that accountability. To put it simply, how can voters truly hold school board candidates to account for their thinking and positions on education issues if

Clarity: The nonpartisan process scores high on clarity.

they cannot easily find out what those positions are?

Its underlying logic is similar to that of the partisan election process: The voters – those most impacted

In sum, the nonpartisan election system compares fa-

by the policies of the state school board – should

vorably to the current system on clarity and voter ac-

choose who appears on the November ballot and

countability, and scores similarly on transparency. But

who ultimately serves on the board. Additionally, the

while the nonpartisan election system is clearly supe-

nonpartisan election process is very simple: clearly

rior to the current system, it falls short of the partisan

simpler than the current system, and somewhat

election process in its capacity to create and maintain

simpler than the partisan election system.

public trust. While the nonpartisan election process is high in clarity, its relative weakness in transparency and

Transparency: The nonpartisan election system scores

voter accountability makes the partisan election system

low on transparency. Just like the current system, the

better from the perspective of public trust.

nonpartisan election process lacks a natural narrative

6



JUNE 18, 2013

Governor-Appointed State School Board

for deciding: the governor. Because the governor has the power to appoint school board members, he or she

Below is a visual representation of how the proposed sys-

is in a good position to get the information necessary to

tem for a governor-appointed state school board would

make informed appointments.

likely work, based on the process for populating other governor-appointed state boards and commissions:

However, the governor-appointed system may not produce sufficient public scrutiny to make information on

Voters

candidates’ thinking and positions available and easily accessible to the public, which may damage public trust in the integrity of the process. Certainly, the re-

Elect

quirement that the Senate consent to those appointments will create a process that generates some level

Governor

of public scrutiny from media and average Utahns, but

Who appoints (with consent from the state Senate)

how much is unclear. For instance, most gubernatorial

School Board Members

appointments requiring consent from the state Senate (e.g., judges) do not garner much media or public attention, unless the Senate consent process unearths something deemed controversial by the media.

Clarity: The governor-appointed school board system

The uncertainty surrounding the level of public scru-

scores high on clarity. It is a simple system for voters

tiny in the governor-appointed system and concern-

to understand: The voters’ role and involvement is in

ing what information would be available to the public

electing the governor. It is also a process with a clear

makes it impossible to give the process a definite score

underlying logic: The voters elect a governor, who

– hence the scoring range of moderate to high.

is responsible to coordinate the state’s education resources by appointing a state board of education,

Accountability: The

in consultation with the Utah State Legislature, to

scores low to moderate on voter accountability. As the

administer the public education system. As the top

graphic representation shows, voter involvement in the

executive official in state government, so the logic

governor-appointed process is limited. Further, as an

goes, the governor is in the best position to serve as

appointed body, the state school board’s accountability

that coordinating authority.

to the voters would only be indirect, via the governor.

Transparency: The governor-appointed process scores

And in any given gubernatorial election year, another

moderate to high on candidate transparency. This sys-

issue may overshadow education in its importance to

tem does well in producing information about candi-

voters (e.g., taxes, ethics, or social issues), meaning the

dates’ thinking and positions for the person responsible

governor may not truly be held to account for his or


governor-appointed


system

7

JUNE 18, 2013 her state school board appointments. The importance

scores between that system and the nonpartisan elec-

of public education to voters will lead the media and

tion system leaves it an open question as to which one

public to pay attention to the actions of an already ap-

will better create and maintain public trust.

pointed state school board. However, the fact remains that depending on the political climate, none of that

Summary

may matter in terms of holding the state school board and the governor to account. The uncertainty that

The table below summarizes our evaluation of the vari-

this creates merits a range score of low to moderate

ous school board selection processes. Clearly, all the

on voter accountability.

proposed alternatives are superior to the current system. However, based on foundations of clarity, trans-

In sum, like the other proposed systems for selecting

parency, and voter accountability, the partisan election

state school board members, the governor-appointed

process seems to be the best system for creating and

system is superior to the current system in creating

maintaining public trust in the integrity of the school

and maintaining public trust. The governor-appointed

board selection process.

system seems fairly likely to produce less public trust than a partisan election system, as its gains in clarity are likely to be offset by shortcomings in transparency and

A Hybrid Solution?

voter accountability. The uncertainty in the former system makes drawing a definite conclusion problematic,

Although this evaluation has found that the partisan

but the scores are far enough apart to suggest the par-

election process produces the best mix of clarity, trans-

tisan election system is superior. Finally, the uncertainty

parency, and voter accountability, other factors can im-

in the governor-appointed system and the similarity in

pact public trust. Perhaps a “hybrid solution” may be the

Current System

Partisan Elections

Nonpartisan Elections

Clarity

Transparency

Accountability

Low • Complicated • No clear logic

Low • Low public scrutiny

Low to Moderate • Moderate voter involvement • Appointed board selects candidates • Low transparency

Moderate to High • Simpler than current system, more complicated than others • Familiar for voters • Clear logic

High • High public scrutiny

High • High voter involvement • High transparency

High • Simple • Clear logic

Low • Low public scrutiny

Moderate • High voter involvement • Low transparency

Moderate to High • Transparent for governor, though not necessarily for voters • Uncertain level of public scrutiny

Low to Moderate • Limited voter involvement • Indirect accountability for school board (through governor) • Uncertainty in transparency

Governor-Appointed High • Simple • Clear logic

8



JUNE 18, 2013 best approach for securing public trust in the integrity

appoint, as is customary for state board appointments.

of the state school board selection process.

For example, if the governor appointed five state school board members, the law could stipulate that at least

For example, those who oppose a partisan election

three of them must have no party affiliation, or alter-

process for the state school board often object to the

natively it could state that no more than two could

consideration of a party platform or candidates’ political

be from the same political party. By incorporating the

6

views when it comes to the state board of education.

governor-appointment process into the partisan elec-

Of course, there is nothing wrong with considering the

tion system, Utah can ensure a diversity of views on the

political views of a candidate for office, but the unstated

state school board while maximizing public trust in the

or implied concern is that a partisan election process

integrity of the system for selecting its members.

would produce a one-sided state school board.

Conclusion

While the merits of this underlying concern are debatable, inasmuch as it is shared broadly among average

Utah’s current system for selecting the state board of ed-

Utahns it holds the potential to undermine public trust

ucation offers a unique combination of over-complica-

in the integrity of the system. One way to ensure public

tion, illogic, a lack of public scrutiny, and unaccountability

trust while incorporating the best system to select state

to voters. In many ways it seems designed to undermine

school board members is to address opposition con-

public trust in the integrity of the system by institution-

cerns through a “hybrid solution” that combines several

alizing back-room decision-making by business interests

of the proposed processes into one system.

and education bureaucrats in deciding who gets the privilege of running for the state school board.

One such “hybrid solution” is to combine a partisan election process with the governor-appointed state school

Fortunately, there are better options for the children

board process. Under such a proposal, some state school

who are the point and purpose of Utah’s public educa-

board members would be chosen via a partisan election,

tion system. The best of these seems to be the parti-

while the rest would be appointed by the governor. A

san election system. But other proposals, such as the

logical set of geographic areas for the elected school

governor-appointment process, have the potential to

board members to represent would be the state’s con-

complement partisan elections to maximize public

gressional districts, meaning four elected school board

trust in the integrity of Utah’s system of selecting state

members. To fill out the state school board, the governor

school board members.

would appoint another three or five school board members, depending on the desired balance of elected to ap-

For policymakers whose genuine priority is doing what

pointed school board members.

is best for Utah children and families – as opposed to maintaining status quo power structures or helping

This hybrid proposal could address the underlying con-

businesses make money – a partisan election system,

cern of those who object to the partisan election pro-

or a “hybrid solution” that includes the partisan election

cess by placing stipulations on whom the governor can

system, is the best way forward.



9

JUNE 18, 2013 78/district-committee-candidates-board.html.csp. Benjamin Wood, “Governor Gary Herbert selects

The author, Derek H. Monson, is policy director for

candidates for Utah State Board of Education,”

Sutherland Institute.

Deseret News, June 25, 2012, http://www. deseretnews.com/article/865558073/Govenor-

Endnotes 1.

archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_ transcript.html. 2.

Gary-Herbert-selects-candidates-for-Utah-State-

See the Declaration of Independence. http://www.

Based on a Google search of “Utah state board of education” and each candidate’s name, conducted on November 6, 2012. See http://www.tamipyfer. com/, http://betterschools-brucedavis.nationbuilder. com/, https://www.facebook.com/CarltonAGetz, http://www.jenniferajohnson.com/, http:// ninawelker.com/, http://www.jeffersonmoss.net/, http://alanshakespear.com/Mobile.html, and http://bettearial.com/. One other campaign

Board-of-Education.html?pg=all. 6.

Molly Farmer, “Poll: Keep state school board elections nonpartisan,” Deseret News, March 26, 2011, http://www.deseretnews.com/ article/705369256/Poll-Keep-State-School-Boardelections-nonpartisan.html?pg=all. Dave Thomas, “In defense of Utah’s current system for state school board elections,” UtahPublicEducation. org, July 19, 2011, http://utahpubliceducation. org/2011/07/19/utah-current-system-stateschool-board-elections/#.UVH-jzckS3Y.

website was found (http://corryforschoolboard. blogspot.com/), but it was for a local school board election in 2010. 3.

Based on a Google search of “Utah senate” or “Utah house of representatives” and the candidate's name, conducted on November 6, 2012. For examples, see http://www. aaronosmond.com/, http://www.johnvalentine. com/, http://deidrehenderson.com/, http:// danmccay.com/, http://kevenstratton.com/, http://jim2win.com/, and http://www. voteformelbrown.com/.

4.

For examples, see https://www.facebook.com/ pages/Zach-Robinson-for-Utah-Democratic-ViceChair/274284992677285?ref=stream and http://www.facebook.com/reelectsagers21.

5.

Lisa Schencker, “Guv chooses state school board candidates,” Salt Lake Tribune, June 22, 2012,

Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 www.sutherlandinstitute.org email: [email protected] office: 801.355.1272 fax: 801.355.1705

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54357739-

10

