Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
      • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
    • Our Work in Dayton
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • High Achievers
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
    • Events
  • Scholars Program
High Expectations

Schools of Thought: A Taxonomy of American Education Governance

Dara Zeehandelaar Shaw, Ph.D. David Griffith Joanna Smith Michael Thier Ross Anderson Christine Pitts Hovanes Gasparian
Foreword by:
Amber M. Northern, Ph.D.
Michael J. Petrilli
8.26.2015
8.26.2015

Questions of education governance are often considered moot by policymakers, who typically assume that the governance challenges plaguing their local schools are both universal and inevitable. Given the ubiquity of everything from local school boards to state superintendents, this seems to be a logical assumption. However, a closer examination of state and local education governance arrangements reveals that, despite some common features, the structures and processes that govern education in each state actually vary significantly. Those wanting to put governance into service on behalf of needed reforms are wise to start with a clearer understanding of not only the arrangements they’re presently working within, but also of the remarkably different arrangements that have arisen in other jurisdictions.

To that end, this study creates a taxonomy of education governance systems. To do this, we first classify governance relative to three main components: the degree to which decision-making authority lies at the state versus the local level; the degree to which decision-making authority is distributed among many institutions versus consolidated in a few; and the degree to which the public can participate in the policymaking process. (Each component consists of approximately 12 discrete indicators.) We score states on each component, then combine them into eight “governance types” named for the characteristics they have in common with some of history’s most famous political leaders and theorists. We supplement our typology with qualitative data that explores how different approaches to governance constrain or facilitate the work of schools and districts on the ground.

Here’s the bottom line—to see how we got here (and for more on what the groups really mean), download the full report.

Addendum as of September 3, 2015: The authors thank the team at the Iowa Department of Education for notifying us that all elected boards in the state (not just state and local school boards, but all elected boards) have partisan and gender balance requirements. (The authors apologize for missing the necessary statutes, as data for these indicators were gathered from state education codes only.) Iowa's Degree of Participation type should therefore be classified as "participatory," and its governance type as Jeffersonian.


Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Governance
DOWNLOAD PDF

Dara Zeehandelaar Shaw was the national research director at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where she oversaw Fordham’s research pipeline, designs and executed new studies, managed ongoing projects, and conducted quantitative and qualitative research until the beginning of 2017. Her areas of study include education governance and school boards; finance and teacher pensions; policy design and implementation (…

View Full Bio

David Griffith is Associate Director of Research at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he manages or authors reports on various subjects including charter schools, …

View Full Bio
Joanna Smith
Michael Thier
Ross Anderson
Christine Pitts
Hovanes Gasparian

Related Resources

view
High Expectations

Rethinking Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century

12.9.2011
NationalReport
view
High Expectations

Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century: Overcoming the Structural Barriers to School Reform

Paul Manna, Patrick McGuinn 1.10.2013
NationalReport
view
High Expectations

The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar

Juliet Squire 4.21.2014
NationalReport
Fordham Logo

© 2020 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

1015 18th St NW, Suite 902 
Washington, DC 20036

202.223.5452

[email protected]

  • <
Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]