Battles over school governance (2016)

• Ballotpedia's Election Analysis in 2016
• FEDERAL
  • Battleground elections
    • U.S. Senate
    • U.S. House
  • Presidential battleground states
  • The 2016 Senate races
  • The post-2016 federal government scenarios
  • Impact of the 2016 election on the United States Supreme Court
  • Policy positions of the 2016 candidates
• STATE
  • Party control
    • Gubernatorial and legislative party control of state government
    • State government trifectas
  • State-level elections
    • State executive official elections
    • State legislative elections
  • State judicial elections
  • State supreme court partisanship, 2016
  • State supreme court changes, 2016
  • 2016 ballot measures
  • State legislative battleground chambers, 2016
• LOCAL
  • Partisanship in local elections
  • Money in local elections
  • Partisanship in United States mayoral elections
  • Race, law enforcement, and the ballot box
  • Local and state education reform
    • Education reform at the state and local levels
    • Battles over school governance
    • State funding battles and local responses
    • The fight to shape public school curriculum
• PUBLIC POLICY
  • Education policy disputes in the 2016 elections
  • Healthcare policy disputes in the 2016 elections
  • Environmental policy disputes in the 2016 elections
  • Election policy disputes in the 2016 elections
  • Energy policy disputes in the 2016 elections
  • Budget policy disputes in the 2016 elections
  • Public policy in the 2016 elections

When problems add up in a school district, the most common way officials pursue change is to go after the issues. Sometimes, however, the problems are persistent enough that the district's governance structure gets a second look. The battles over school district governance can happen at the ballot box through regularly scheduled school board elections, in school board meetings through citizen-initiated petitions and referendums, or in state capitols through mandated takeovers. These battles seek to change the way a district is governed, and by doing so, improve the education of its students. Below is a description of the different types of school district governance structures and an overview of the governance battles being fought across the states in 2016.

American school districts are most commonly governed by multiple-member boards that oversee school district policies, finances, superintendents, and collective bargaining agreements with teachers and other staff. Districts differ in the way that school board membership is attained. Board members can be elected, appointed, or a combination of both. School board elections can be partisan or nonpartisan and can occur at any time of the year, depending on the locale.

In some instances, elected school boards are disbanded and district superintendents are removed. Elections are subsequently suspended, and the boards and superintendents are appointed by an outside actor such as a state governor, a city mayor, or a state board of education commissioner. In Baltimore, for example, the city's school board is jointly appointed by both the governor of Maryland and the mayor of Baltimore. The reasons for removing or reducing local control can vary. A school district in fiscal distress or one with poor academic performance may face board dissolution. At times this action is taken due to possible illegal actions perpetrated by board members or the superintendent. Appointed boards have varying degrees of power and sometimes only serve as district advisors.

Governance battles can also be fought over specific policies. Regardless of how a school district is governed, sometimes a specific issue gets enough attention that citizens, superintendents, school boards, municipal governments, or the state struggle over who controls the outcome. The battle over policies surrounding Common Core was an example of this type of struggle. Other battles are fought over evaluating teachers, handling public information requests, and improving failing schools.

The variety in possible governance and election approaches for school boards matters because each results in a different emphasis and power structure, and there is no broad consensus as to what should be emphasized or how exactly power should be divided in education governance. There are practicalities about election costs and other issues when legislation moves school board election dates, changes a board from partisan to nonpartisan (or vice versa), makes an appointed board into an elected one, or provides for the creation of new school districts out of mergers of existing schools. Regardless of the practical motivations expressed, these changes also represent distinct shifts in the relationship between school district voters and those who govern their districts as well as in the power and role of political parties in the education system.

Types of governance

School districts can be governed by one of the following five systems:

• Elected school board
  • School districts governed by an elected school board are led by a body of officials who are elected by citizens of the district. These members are elected to a specific term and can run for re-election as long as term limits allow.
  • Most common type of governance in the top 1,000 school districts by enrollment
• Appointed school board
  • School districts governed by an appointed school board are led by a body of officials who have been chosen by city or state officials.
  • Example: Chicago Public Schools, Illinois
• School board with both elected and appointed members
  • School districts governed by both elected and appointed board members allow citizens to choose a certain number of officials to lead the district and city or state officials to choose the others.
  • Example: Hoover City Schools, Alabama
• City-controlled
  • School districts that are governed by the city are led by a body of officials who are accountable to the mayor or city council. The body of officials may be elected or appointed or a combination of both, and they can have varying levels of power.
  • Example: New York City Department of Education, New York
• State-controlled
  • School districts that are governed by the state are led by the state's department of education. In the case of Hawaii, the department of education controls all school districts in the state, but single school districts can also be state-controlled. State-controlled school districts can have an elected or appointed school board, but that school board's power is limited.
  • Example: Hawaii State Department of Education and Little Rock School District, Arkansas

Governance battles by state

In 2016, 648 of America's largest school districts by enrollment held elections for 1,959 seats. These elections took place in 38 states across districts that collectively educated a total of 17,179,972 students during the 2013-2014 school year—34 percent of all K-12 students in the United States. The tabs below outline key school board governance issues in states across the country and how those issues are tied to attempts to shape education policy.

Notable districts

State	District	Total students	Power or governance changes
Arkansas	Pulaski County Special School District	17,937	State returns control to locally elected school board
California	Orange Unified School District	29,750	Citizen effort to add term limits for school board members
Colorado	Denver Public Schools	86,046	Policy battle over teacher evaluations
Georgia	Multiple districts	N/A	Policy battle over failing schools
Idaho	West Ada School District	38,006	State effort to switch school board election dates
Illinois	Chicago Public Schools	396,683	Governance battle between city and state control
Kansas	All public school districts in the state	11,828	State battle to switch school board election dates
Maryland	Howard County Public Schools	52,806	Policy battle over public information requests
New Jersey	Newark Public Schools	35,543	State returns control to locally elected school board
North Carolina	Multiple districts	N/A	State effort to switch partisan nature of school board elections
Virginia	Norfolk Public Schools	39,737	City returns control to locally elected school board
Wisconsin	Milwaukee Public Schools	78,516	Policy battle over failing schools
Wisconsin	Racine Unified School District	20,395	State effort to change school board election process
Wisconsin	Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District	6,447	Citizen effort to change size of school board

Arkansas

School board regains local control

See also: Arkansas school board elections, 2016

The majority of Arkansas' 237 school districts are governed by locally elected school boards. The Pulaski County Special School District was an exception to this norm. In 2011, after several years of fiscal distress designation, the Arkansas Board of Education dissolved the district's school board, replacing it with an appointed advisory board and suspending elections indefinitely. Additionally, Pulaski County's superintendent was removed, and the Arkansas Commissioner of Education assumed the duties of the position.

Arkansas Education Commissioner Johnny Key

The advisory board was able to make policy recommendations for the district and was required to report quarterly to the education commissioner about the district's fiscal standing. Members of the board were volunteers nominated by community leaders, the education commissioner, or lawmakers. Each individual's appointment was confirmed by the state board of education. In a meeting held on March 10, 2016, the board of education released Pulaski County from its fiscal distress designation, green-lighting the first school board election in five years. The advisory status of the school board was removed, allowing the board to assume full control over the district.

Pulaski County's school board election, which since 1988 had been scheduled for the third Tuesday in September, was moved to coincide with general elections on November 8, 2016. Education Commissioner Johnny Key explained this decision, saying, "As a matter of policy, I believe a November election date promotes greater participation in the governance of our public schools." The Helena-West Helena School District school board also returned to local control in 2016, with elections on November 8.

California

Ballot measure implements term limits for school board members

See also: Orange Unified School District, California, Term Limits, Measure G (June 2016) and Orange Unified School District elections (2016)

A measure to implement term limits for members of the Orange Unified Board of Education was on the ballot on June 7, 2016. The measure asked voters if board members should be limited to serving a maximum of three four-year terms. Voters approved the measure with over 86 percent of them casting ballots in favor.

The board voted 6-1 to place the measure on the ballot in March 2016. Trustee Kathy Moffat was the lone dissenting vote. She said research indicated that term limits could erase institutional memory, make board members rely on staff and outside influencers, and decide on "quick fixes" rather than long-term solutions. “Having less experience is counterproductive,” Moffat said.

Trustee John Ortega, who originally brought up the measure, said that 12 years was a long time. Trustee Mark Wayland said term limits would help bring new perspectives to the board and counteract incumbency advantage. “It’s easier to run, and you spend less money if you don’t have to go up against the 'I' word,” Wayland said.

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Orange County Counsel:

“	California Education Code section 35107 allows the governing board of a school district to submit a proposal to limit the number of terms a member of its governing board can serve to voters for approval. If approved by a majority of voters voting on the measure, the measure would only apply prospectively. Presently, the Board of Education of the Orange Unified School District consists of seven members. Each Board member has a term of four years and, currently, there are no limits on the number of terms a Board member may serve. This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Education for the Orange Unified School District. The measure would restrict any member from serving more than three terms on the Board of Education consisting of four years each whether served consecutively or nonconsecutively. Members that have served the lifetime three term maximum allowed under this measure would not be able to serve on the Board of Education again. If the majority of the voters within the Orange Unified School District voting on the proposal vote 'yes,' members of the Board of Education would be subject to a lifetime term limit of three terms consisting of four years each whether served consecutively or nonconsecutively. A 'no' vote on this measure will disapprove the proposal and no term limits will be established.	”
—Orange County Counsel (2016)

Colorado

Educator effectiveness law affects Denver teachers

See also: Denver Public Schools, Colorado

A total of 47 formerly tenured teachers in Denver Public Schools, Colorado's largest school district, lost their non-probationary status after receiving ineffective ratings for two consecutive years. This was a higher proportion of teachers compared to districts of similar enrollment size in the state. The 47 teachers represented 2 percent of tenured teachers in the district.

This was the first time teachers lost their tenure through the program Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP), an educator effectiveness law passed by the Colorado State Legislature in 2010, as it did not come into full effect until after the 2015-2016 school year. The law set up a process for teachers to be evaluated every school year, regardless of whether or not they were tenured, and it required that districts use student academic growth for at least 50 percent of a teacher's score. The law allowed new teachers to shed their probationary status after receiving effective ratings for three consecutive school years and also required teachers that received ineffective ratings for two consecutive years to be put back on probationary status.

Out of LEAP's four ratings, teachers had to be considered "distinguished" or "effective" to gain or maintain tenure. Ratings of "approaching" or "not meeting" could cause them to lose tenure if received two years in a row. In the 2015-2016 school year, 29 percent of teachers in the Denver school district were considered distinguished, 65 percent were rated effective, 6 percent received ratings of approaching, and 0.1 percent of teachers were considered not meeting.

The Douglas County School District saw 1 percent of its tenured teachers lose their non-probationary status, and Aurora Public Schools had less than 1 percent of its tenured teachers lose their non-probationary status. Jeffco Public Schools, the state's second-largest school district, had no teachers lose their tenure.

The teachers who lost their tenure due to receiving ineffective ratings did not lose their jobs. They were put on probationary status and set up with one-year contracts. At the end of that one year, teachers can be fired for any legal reason. When they had non-probationary status, the teachers could only have been fired if the district could prove certain grounds, and the teachers could have appealed the grounds as far as the Colorado Supreme Court.

Sarah Almy, Denver's executive director of talent management, said LEAP's goal "is not to be punitive but to help teachers improve," according to Chalkbeat Colorado. “I don’t think this reflects that Denver has fewer effective teachers or that our teachers and what they’re doing to advance student learning is any less powerful or effective,” said Almy.

Executive Director of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association Pam Shamburg expressed concerns about LEAP, specifically the fact that teachers who lose tenure also lose their due process rights. She was also concerned it would lead to high teacher turnover. “This happening to 47 teachers has a much bigger impact,” said Shamburg. “There will be hundreds of teachers who know about this. They’ll say if they can do that to (that teacher), they can do that to me.”

Georgia

Constitutional amendment put to voters on state intervention in failing public schools

See also: Georgia Authorization of the State Government to Intervene in Failing Local Schools, Amendment 1 (2016)

Voters across the state of Georgia were asked to approve a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 8, 2016, that would have allowed the state to intervene in failing public schools. The amendment was defeated with over 59 percent of voters against.

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the state "to assume the supervision, management, and operation of public elementary and secondary schools which have been determined to be failing through any governance model allowed by law."

A "no" vote was a vote against authorizing the state to supervise and manage such "failing schools."

Education policy is a major issue in Georgia. To learn more, see "Public education in Georgia."

If the amendment had been approved by voters, it would have triggered the implementation of Senate Bill 133, which provided for three governance models of schools under an "Opportunity School District" (OSD) agency:

1. direct management by the OSD,
2. shared governance between the OSD and local board of education, and
3. transformation of the school into a charter school.

SB 133 was also written to give the OSD power to close schools as the “intervention of last resort.”

The measure was sponsored by six Georgia state legislators, including five Republicans and one Democrat. It was also supported by Gov. Nathan Deal (R) and the organization StudentsFirst Georgia. The measure was opposed by the Georgia Association of Educators, the Georgia Parent‑Teacher Association, the Georgia Federation of Teachers, and the Georgia AFL-CIO state chapter.

Supporters of the measure said it would help students in the state's poorest-performing schools and rescue children from poverty. They said they wanted to get rid of public education's one-size-fits-all approach and stop failing schools from hiding behind "bureaucratic excuses."

Opponents argued that taking the responsibility of teaching away from teachers, communities, and local school boards would set "a very dangerous precedent." They suggested converting failing schools to community schools rather than charters and working with the local communities to make those changes.

The proposed amendment would have added the following Paragraph VIII to the end of Section 5 of Article VIII of the Georgia Constitution.

Paragraph VIII. Opportunity School District. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph II of this section, the General Assembly may provide by general law for the creation of an Opportunity School District and authorize the state to assume the supervision, management, and operation of public elementary and secondary schools which have been determined to be failing through any governance model allowed by law. Such authorization shall include the power to receive, control, and expend state, federal, and local funds appropriated for schools under the current or prior supervision, management, or operation of the Opportunity School District, all in the manner provided by and in accordance with general law.

Idaho

Bill seeks to change date of school board elections

See also: West Ada School District recall, Idaho (2016)

State Sen. Jim Rice (R-10)

Idaho Sen. Jim Rice (R-10) sponsored a bill in 2016 that sought to change the state's policy of holding school board elections in May to instead hold them in November, when Rice said there was a higher voter turnout. The bill was proposed in the midst of a statewide conversation about school board recalls after all five members of the West Ada School District, the largest district in the state, were targeted for recall in 2015.

Rice said some districts had seen turnout as low as 1 percent in recent elections. "Schools are important, the education of our children is important, but we don't have the engagement we need," said Rice. The bill was not passed before the State Legislature's session closed for 2016.

Moving school board elections to November could have made recall elections harder to get on the ballot. If more voters go to the polls in November, more signatures would have to be collected in order to get a recall on the ballot. Rice also said, "The views of the school board are going to be more reflective of the community, which decreases the likelihood of a recall at all."

Ballotpedia tracked five school board recalls in Idaho between January 2015 and May 2016. Three—the West Bonner County School District, the Caldwell School District, and the Blaine County School District—did not go to a vote. Another recall in the Caldwell School District successfully ousted two members from the school board, and the West Ada recall ousted three members.

Illinois

Chicago Public Schools mayoral control contested

See also: Issues in Chicago Public Schools

Ill. Gov. Bruce Rauner (R)

Illinois public school districts are typically controlled by locally elected school boards. The structure of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) school board was changed by former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in 1995 when the Illinois General Assembly passed the Chicago School Reform Amendatory Act. This reform allowed the mayor to appoint school board members and replaced the superintendent of the school board with a chief executive officer (CEO).

Controversy shrouded the appointed board after an investigation of Chicago Public School's CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett was initiated in 2012. It was revealed that Byrd-Bennett, appointed to her position by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, was the focus of a federal grand jury probe. At issue was her relationship with a former employer, a leadership program for K-12 administrators called SUPES Academy, and a contract the district made with the academy in June 2013. The contract involved $20.5 million for "leadership development services" to train the district's chiefs, deputy chiefs, principals, and assistant principals from June 2013 to June 2016.

The 2013 contract was not the district's first with SUPES Academy; the district paid the academy approximately $15 million from 2012 to 2015. The parties entered into a one-year agreement in 2012 but agreed to dissolve the former contract when the 2013 one was approved and SUPES Academy was officially hired on a "non-competitive basis." The contract under investigation was reviewed and approved by an internal committee, the district's chief procurement officer, and the board of education before it was signed on June 26, 2013. Some argued, however, that the contract should have been opened up to give the district a chance to consider competitive bids; other organizations in the area had similar training programs.

CPS Interim CEO Jesse Ruiz

Both SUPES Academy and CPS said they would fully cooperate with the investigators. Byrd-Bennett, who had not been accused of any wrongdoing at the time, took a paid leave of absence on April 20, 2015, while the investigation continued. Board Vice President Jesse Ruiz was appointed to fill in as her replacement in the interim. Byrd-Bennett then resigned on June 1, 2015, and Ruiz maintained his role as interim CEO until July 2015.

Two days after his succession, Ruiz suspended the contract with SUPES Academy. He said he thought it was "prudent that we take a pause." All training seminars with the academy were canceled for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year. In a statement, SUPES Academy said it was disappointed by the suspension but looked forward to working with CPS again in the future.

CPS Board President David Vitale

In a board meeting on April 22, 2015, both Ruiz and board President David Vitale defended the board's decision to approve the contract in 2013, saying they had followed the precautions put in place for no-bid contracts. “Given the information we had at that point in time, and given the information that we were provided as board members, I stand by that vote,” Ruiz said. After the contract was approved, however, additional information was revealed, and the board and the CPS inspector general agreed to have the matter looked into further. That was when investigations into the contract began. The grand jury followed with its own investigation in 2014.

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) was open with his criticism of Chicago Public Schools. "This investigation is very sad, I hope there's been no wrong-doing, but Chicago Public Schools has been a source of patronage, cronyism, dealings, massive bureaucracy. It hasn't really served the families and the parents of the children in a very long time," said Rauner. He also suggested bankruptcy might be the best option for the school district.

In June 2015, Emanuel appointed four new members to the CPS school board, replacing members whose terms were about to end. Those former members all voted to approve the no-bid contract with SUPES Academy in 2013. The new members were sworn into their new positions in July.

Emanuel appointed a new permanent CEO for Chicago Public Schools in July 2015. He named Forrest Claypool, his chief of staff at the time, to the position. Claypool formerly headed the city's transit agency. Emanuel called Claypool "exactly the right person at the right time." The Chicago Teachers Union, however, was not as certain of the mayor's choice. Union President Karen Lewis said that though the union could work with anyone, the appointment of Claypool was a bad idea because he had no background in education. "It's been tried before and didn't work," said Lewis.

On January 20, 2016, Rauner announced the introduction of a proposal that would allow the state to take over the school district. It would also allow both the city and the school district to file for bankruptcy—an option that had not been legal prior to 2016. “If the mayor is unwilling to stand up for his taxpayers and his school children in dealing with the Chicago Teachers Union, [then] rather than trying to push his liabilities on the state, we’re asking the mayor to partner with us,” said Rauner.

A new proposal, HR 1104, was passed by the Illinois House of Representatives on April 13, 2016. The bill sought to return control of Chicago Public Schools to voters in 2019. It did not pass in the Illinois State Senate before the Legislature closed for the 2016 session. Opponents argued that this bill would give more power to the Chicago Teachers Union, while proponents pointed to the shortcomings and scandals that plagued the mayor-appointed CPS school board.

Kansas

Election date changes and partisan push

See also: Kansas school board elections, 2016

Early legislative action in 2015 could have made all Kansas school board elections into partisan races held in November of even-numbered years. Those changes were not approved, but a smaller change was signed into law on June 8, 2015: House Bill 2104 changed all school board election dates to November of odd-numbered years.

HB 2104

HB 2104 was introduced to the Kansas House of Representatives on January 23, 2015, and sponsored by the House Elections Committee. The house approved the measure 69 to 54 on February 26, 2015. Following the withdrawal of a similar Senate bill, HB 2104 was approved by the Senate by a vote of 28 to 12.

The portion of the Conference Committee Report of the bill relating to the election date changes states:

“	The bill would move all elections for office holders of local governments currently held in the spring of odd-numbered years to the fall of odd-numbered years, with one exception (described below). In general, the elections would remain nonpartisan, although a city could choose to make its elections partisan. Sections to be added to the law, Sections 7, 8, and 13 through 16, would be cited as the Help Kansas Vote Act. Beginning in 2017, the election dates for the specified units of local government would mirror the election dates for the elections held in even-numbered years. That is, the primary election would be held on the first Tuesday in August, and the general election would be held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. The elections, to be administered by the county election officers, would be consolidated into one ballot, which would be prescribed by the Secretary of State through rules and regulations. Those entities currently with district method elective offices (i.e., cities and school districts) would retain that authority.	”
—HB 2104 Conference Committee Report (2015)

SB 171

Sen. Mitch Holmes (R-33) introduced SB 171 on February 9, 2015.

On February 9, 2015, Sen. Mitch Holmes (R-33) introduced Senate Bill 171 to the Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committee. The bill, as it was initially introduced, would have moved school board and other local elections to November in even-numbered years, in addition to changing school boards from their current nonpartisan status by requiring candidates to declare party affiliations.

Supporters claimed that moving the school board elections to a date when there were more elections would increase voter turnout for such races and reduce the costs of printing the number of current ballot variations. Others questioned whether or not a move would actually improve turnout, as it would place school board elections on an already lengthy ballot.

The bill was amended before being approved 21 to 18 by the Senate on February 26, 2015. The approved version would have moved school board and other local elections to the November general election date in odd-numbered years. It removed the language that would have made those elections partisan. During the debate of the revised version, Holmes expressed frustration with the resistance to moving local elections. He argued that such a move would increase voter turnout and bring greater transparency to local government, saying that such offices were "elected on a day that nobody notices."

Holmes also argued that the disproportionately white city council of Ferguson, Missouri, was caused by holding off-year elections and postulated that "minorities vote better in on-cycle elections than off-cycle elections." Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau (D-29), the first African American woman elected to the state Senate and one of the two African American members of the body, dismissed this argument, saying, “I don’t live in Ferguson. I don’t know anybody who lived there. ... We’re here in Kansas."

On March 4, 2015, the revised Senate bill was introduced in the Kansas House of Representatives. The House Elections Committee recommended the revised bill be approved with some amendments regarding date changes in the law on March 19, 2015. The measure did not pass and was withdrawn from the Senate calendar shortly thereafter.

Lawrence Public Schools

See also: What was at stake in Lawrence Public Schools?

On the same day that SB 171 was introduced, the Lawrence Board of Education passed a resolution opposing the measure. Six of the board's seven members voted in favor of the resolution; Randy Masten was not present for the meeting and, therefore, did not vote on the matter. Board President Shannon Kimball stated, "Our current election cycle falls very nicely in line with the school's fiscal and academic year." Member Vanessa Sanburn questioned the arguments in favor of the bill, saying, "I can't imagine that making the ballot longer is going to increase the turnout for our race."

The bill could have had other consequences beyond voter participation in its original form. Board members Rick Ingram and Bob Byers, who were state employees of Kansas University and the Kansas Department for Children and Families, respectively, expressed concern that they would not be able to run for office if the bill made the board a partisan office.

Maryland

Board fault lines over Howard County superintendent

See also: Maryland school board elections, 2016

Superintendent Renee Foose

Howard County Public Schools Superintendent Renee Foose and a five-member majority on the school board faced scrutiny in 2016 over the availability of district information during Foose's tenure. Foose was appointed to a second four-year contract by a 5-2 vote in February 2016 despite a petition signed by 1,500 district residents requesting a vote against renewal. Christine O'Connor, Sandra H. French, Ellen Flynn Giles, Janet Siddiqui, and Ann DeLacy voted for contract renewal, while Bess I. Altwerger and Cynthia L. Vaillancourt voted against a new contract. The board majority indicated that Foose met or exceeded their expectations of the superintendent. Altwerger and Vaillancourt said that they voted against renewal because Foose had damaged the public's trust in the district by failing to provide information on important district matters.

Public frustration with Foose stemmed from allegations that the district failed to tell parents and students about mold issues at Glenwood Middle School. Critics also challenged the district's failure to provide a full version of a special education report that cost $300,000. Additional complaints cited exorbitant costs quoted by district officials to fulfill public information requests.

Foose received backing from school system employees during the February 2016 board vote on contract renewal. The Baltimore Sun reported that dozens of staff members cheered the board's vote to keep Foose in the district through the 2019-2020 school year. Foose defended the district's approach to mold at Glenwood by highlighting a new $3 million climate control system installed at the school. She also stated that district administrators did not routinely communicate maintenance issues to parents.

Public criticism of Foose spanned the political spectrum during a February 2016 meeting of the Maryland Board of Public Works. Gov. Larry Hogan (R) and State Delegate Warren Miller (R-9A) were joined in criticizing the superintendent's request for additional construction funds by State Delegate Frank Turner (D) and State Comptroller Peter Franchot (D). Hogan was quoted as saying, "There’s a palpable loss of trust between many parents and the county school system and, in particular, with the superintendent."

Gov. Larry Hogan

In October 2015, Miller proposed House Bill 1105, which asked the state's public information ombudsman to review rationales given by district officials for rejecting public information requests. The bill was passed by the Maryland State Legislature and signed by Hogan in April 2016. Miller's legislation required a report from the ombudsman by January 1, 2017, covering a period from Foose's appointment in July 2012 to December 31, 2015.

Three members of the board majority—Giles, Siddiqui, and DeLacy—faced eight challengers in the primary on April 26, 2016. The Baltimore Sun and the Howard County Education Association endorsed challengers Kirsten Coombs, Mavis Ellis, and Christina Delmont-Small based on their support for greater transparency by the board. Giles and DeLacy were defeated in the primary. Siddiqui advanced along with five other candidates to the general election, but was ultimately defeated. The board majority's support for Foose and greater state scrutiny on the district had the potential to create a board shake-up at the ballot box.

New Jersey

A gradual return to local control in Newark

See also: New Jersey school board elections, 2016

Full local control will gradually return to the Newark Board of Education. A 2015 agreement between Gov. Chris Christie (R), city Mayor Ras Baraka (D), and an appointed board planned to remove the "advisory status" of the Newark school board and started a plan to return full local control to the district for the first time in two decades. A full report on this plan is expected in August 2016. The state originally took over in 1995, "citing a district it said had failed a generation of students, mired by corruption, crumbling facilities and questionable expenditures of public funds, amid high dropout rates and low test scores."

The agreement created the Newark Educational Success Board, a nine-member panel appointed jointly by Christie and Baraka. The panel focused on easing the board's transition from state-controlled to fully independent. Newark community members expressed concern that the lack of local control has made the school board less responsive to citizen wishes. The panel is sketching a future plan aimed at long-term district stability and a timeline for the full transition of power.

Over the two decades of state control, the dissatisfaction surrounding state-appointed district leaders, such as former Superintendent Cami Anderson, fostered resistance from community members and local politicians. In 2013, the Newark Students Union led two mass boycotts against state control of the district in April and November, with the April walkout reportedly drawing about 1,000 students. Anderson, who was nominated by Gov. Chris Christie (R) and appointed by the State Board of Education in 2011, had put forward a controversial district reform plan called One Newark that included school closures, teacher layoffs, Teach for America hirings, and changes to the district's enrollment system for both traditional and charter schools.

Anderson moved forward with One Newark despite the resistance, facing a steady stream of criticism into 2015 regarding the plan and its effectiveness. In January 2015, Anderson appeared before the New Jersey Joint Committee on Public Schools to explain the intentions and progress of the program since it was first discussed. Members of the committee were highly critical of Anderson and the program, emphasizing the alienation residents of the district had felt and a lack of transparency in the plan's implementation.

Assemblywoman Eliana Pintor Marin (D-29)

Assemblywoman Eliana Pintor Marin (D-29), a former Newark Advisory Board member, questioned Anderson's school board meeting attendance record. Anderson stated that she could not remember when she last attended a meeting and that it had been "quite some time," but added, "I listen to people who disagree with me. It’s part of my job.” Pintor Marin responded, “It is part of your job to attend board meetings. That’s the main problem. There is no sell factor for the Newark Public Schools [about the One Newark plan] when you don’t attend.”

Although Anderson's contract was renewed for another year in February 2015, she resigned in June and was replaced by Christopher Cerf. Consequently, stakes were higher than ever for the election on April 19, 2016. The candidates who won joined the most powerful board in 20 years. Additionally, incumbents Ariagna Perello, Rashon Hasan, and Khalil Sabu Rashidi did not file for re-election, guaranteeing three newcomers to the board.

North Carolina

School boards and transgender bathroom laws

See also: North Carolina school board elections, 2016

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R)

North Carolina passed the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (HB2) stating that individuals in government-operated facilities must use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender stated on their birth certificate on March 23, 2016. The law was passed by the legislature in a one-day specially-called session, and was signed into law that night by Governor Pat McCrory (R). The bill reversed an earlier ruling that allowed transgender individuals to use the restroom of their preference, and it offset local ordinances in the state that let transgender citizens do so.

HB2's effect on NC school districts

Since HB2 was signed into law, many school districts in the state have struggled to formulate a response. Not only does Title IX prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, but the state law's validity is being disputed in court. North Carolina school districts are unsure of how to balance these two laws. In the Wake County Public School System, Wake County sheriff Donnie Harrison said he would consider pulling deputies out of schools if the district does not decide on a consistent transgender bathroom policy. Harrison said the district does not have a uniform policy on the use of bathrooms by transgender students, which was causing confusion and unease among parents.

According to Lisa Luten, a Wake County Public School System spokesperson, transgender student issues with bathrooms and locker rooms are handled on a case-by-case basis. "No child has ever been at risk based on how we have handled this issue,” Luten said. “Because this issue is still being debated in federal courts, the school system is unable to create a formal policy.” The district's superintendent James Merrill said that transgender bathroom questions ought to be addressed by administrators rather than student resource officers. According to Nathan Smith, the director of public policy for the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, the consequence is that many schools decide their transgender bathroom policies on a case-by-case basis, leading to conflicting messages.

Lawsuits filed

On May 9, 2016, Gov. McCrory and the Justice Department filed opposing lawsuits, the former in support of the law and the latter against it. On one side, the U.S. Department of Justice's civil rights office said that the law is discriminatory and infringes on civil rights. “This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them.” Gov. McCrory's lawsuit was against the Justice Department, charging the federal government with “baseless and blatant overreach.” McCrory defended the necessity of the law as a response to a nondiscrimination ordinance in Charlotte.

The ACLU and the Justice Department asked a judge to hold off on HB2 while the lawsuit is being decided. According to federal documents, the trial could take place as early as October or November 2016. The Charlotte Observer stated that it would "not be unreasonable to expect Schroeder's ruling by the summer of 2017, perhaps before."

Backlash

On July 21, 2016, the NBA announced it planned to move its All-Star Game from Charlotte, North Carolina, which was scheduled to be held there in 2017. According to the Charlotte Observer, this decision will cost the city approximately $100 million. On September 12, 2016, the NCAA ousted seven championships that were scheduled to be held in the state during the 2016-2017 school year. Two days later, the Atlantic Coast Conference made a similar decision, revealing it planned to move the men's football championship game scheduled for December 2016 from Charlotte.

Iredell County State Legislators, 2015
Clockwise from top left: state Sen. Andrew Brock (R-34), state Rep. John Fraley (R-95), state Sen. David Curtis (R-44), and state Rep. Rena W. Turner (R-84)

Partisan school board shift

Several North Carolina school districts held their first partisan school board elections in 2016, including Iredell-Statesville and Robeson County. On May 26, 2015, many school boards became partisan offices when House Bill 110 was ratified and became Session Law 2015-35. The move came with support from three of Iredell County's four state legislators. The partisan change also required the school boards to begin holding primaries (if necessary) and to shift their general elections to the November general election date. Prior to this law's passage, 17 school districts in the state had partisan school board elections. Following its implementation, 22 of the state's 115 school districts had partisan boards.

HB 110 was introduced by State Rep. Roger West (R-120) on February 24, 2015. The initial form of the bill only sought to change the Cherokee County board. Through a series of committee substitutes, the list of districts to be changed grew from one to the final five.

Iredell-Statesville and Davie County joined that list when State Sen. Andrew Brock (R-34), senator for Iredell County, added it in an amendment. The senator told local media that he had done so at the request of the Republican parties in both counties, saying, “They requested it and I said, well, moving an election to November you’re going to get more people to vote on it and I think it opens up the process to get more people involved in the election."

The final version of the bill passed the Senate in a 32-13 vote on May 18, 2015, and the House in a 98-10 vote on May 21, 2015. Iredell County's state legislators, however, were not unanimous in supporting the bill. House member Rena W. Turner (R-84) voted in favor of the final version of the measure, along with Brock and David Curtis (R-44) in the Senate.

State Rep. John Fraley (R-95), meanwhile, voted against the measure in its final form and was the only Republican member of the House to do so. Fraley told a local media outlet that he had spoken with approximately 40 local leaders, a majority of whom expressed a preference for a nonpartisan school board. He further stated, "A few months ago, all the Iredell legislators were approached (by the local GOP) ... and asked if we would run a bill requiring all school board elections in Iredell to be partisan. I understood their job was to elect more Republicans, but thought the more important question was what was best for Iredell County's education of its students.”

The push for partisan school boards was specifically included in the 2015 North Carolina Republican Party platform, which stated, "The party affiliation of judicial and school board candidates should appear on the ballot." Less than a month after the introduction of HB 110, another bill to change all school boards in the state to partisan offices was introduced: HB 324. That bill was pulled from the House calendar on April 21, 2015, and referred to the Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House Committee. The committee did not act on the bill in 2015.

Virginia

Norfolk Public Schools transitions from appointed to elected board

See also: Public education in Norfolk, Virginia, city and school district elections (2016)

For the first time in 60 years, citizens of the Norfolk school district voted for their elected school board members on May 3, 2016. The change came from a 2014 referendum that replaced the council-appointed school board with a publicly elected board.

The change was approved by 85 percent of voters on the referendum, but the format of the elected board was left up to the city council. The council chose to create an election system parallel to its own. The city council setup included the mayor, five regular ward seats, and two super ward seats. In a vote of 5-3, the council set up the school board with five regular ward seats and two super ward seats. This election format saw strong dissent. Prior to becoming a council-appointed board, members of the Norfolk School Board had been elected at large. Proponents of the ward system felt that it would ensure diversity on the board, while opponents argued that it would lead to divisiveness and lack of city-wide accountability.
The board's newly-elected status did not affect its underlying relationship with the city. The school board was allowed to set the district's budget, but the city council maintained final authority over approving that budget.

Wisconsin

Opportunity Schools and Partnership Program

See also: The Opportunity Schools and Partnership Program and Milwaukee Public Schools

The creation of the Opportunity Schools and Partnership Program (OSPP) caused a power struggle between Wisconsin state lawmakers and Milwaukee Public Schools officials. Both sides highlighted the need to help students in Milwaukee's lowest-performing schools, but disagreed on who should lead the charge. As of July 2016, the struggle had fallen into a stalemate as the school district refused a proposal from the leader of the program.

The OSPP was created by Republican lawmakers in July 2015 to take over up to three of the Milwaukee school district's lowest-performing schools. The program stipulated that an independent commissioner appointed by the county executive would be in charge of the schools for the 2015-2016 and the 2016-2017 school years. The program also gave the commissioner the ability to convert any of the schools to private, non-religious voucher schools, or independent charter schools.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers

Before the law creating the OSPP was passed, Milwaukee community members held a number of protests against the program, and Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers urged Gov. Scott Walker (R) to veto the program. Evers did not agree with taking away the Milwaukee school district's right to close or reorganize its schools, and he pointed out that it was a right every other school district in the state had.

The Milwaukee school district was the only district in the state affected by the proposal for the 2015-2016 school year, as it met the following three criteria: it had over 15,000 students, it received the lowest rating on the annual school report cards for two years in a row, and it received state aid to transport minority students within district boundaries. Only two other districts in the state—Madison Metropolitan and Racine Unified—had the possibility of qualifying due to student enrollment and receiving state transportation aid. Madison, however, received "meets expectations" ratings in 2013 and 2014, and Racine received "meets few expectations" ratings both years.

After the OSPP was passed into law, Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele said he would do his best to make the program work. He said he did not think the new program was going to fix all of the district's problems, but he thought it might be a chance to try out some solutions. Some members of the Milwaukee community thought Abele, a lifelong Democrat, should have turned down the offer to appoint the commissioner.

Dr. Demond Means

Abele appointed Dr. Demond Means, superintendent of the Mequon-Thiensville School District, as the commissioner of the OSPP on November 12, 2015. Means unveiled his proposed plan to take over one of the district's poorest performing schools to the Milwaukee School Board on April 21, 2016. Means proposed that the school, which had yet to be chosen, be transferred to the opportunity schools district for the 2016-2017 school year, and he left the possibility open for more schools to be added in later years. The school would remain part of MPS in the way charter schools were treated. The district would retain its per-pupil funding, but at the reduced charter school rate, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Means also proposed that the staff at the schools retain their jobs and benefits through the district.

Means acknowledged that the law that created the OSPP could have been "devastating" to Milwaukee Public Schools, but he said his proposal tried to make sure that did not happen. “We have found a way to comply with the law without hurting MPS,” Means said. “This is not a takeover. This is not New Orleans; this is not Detroit.”

The school board and Superintendent Darienne Driver announced their rejection of Means' proposal on June 17, 2016. Driver said they could not accept Means' original proposal because it was vague, had an unclear funding plan, and conflicted with state law. MPS administrators suggested an alternative plan: that the OSPP create a charter school with an early childhood program in an existing MPS building.

Means announced his resignation as commissioner of the OSPP on June 29, 2016. He said he was leaving due to his inability to form a “collaborative partnership” with the school district. Abele accepted Means' proposal “with regret.”

After the announcement, the district released a statement, saying, “We are surprised by today’s news. We recognize Dr. Means’ service to education and children in our area and agree that actions must be child-centered.” Officials from the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association called Means' resignation "a victory" against Republican lawmakers.

Abele had 120 days to appoint a replacement commissioner. State Rep. Dale Kooyenga (R-14), a co-author of the law that set up the OSPP, said lawmakers were going to back to the drawing board after Means' resignation.

In October 2016, information released by Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers showed that Milwaukee's schools no longer qualified for takeover by the OSPP. Evers said that due to changes in the way the state's report cards were calculated no districts in the state met the qualifications for takeover for the 2016-2017 school year. The changes included emphasizing student improvement over proficiency as well as taking poverty levels, English language learners, and students with disabilities into account.

Kooyenga said the OSPP acted as a good incentive for the district. He also said, "Rest assured, there will be more reforms."

Election format change and increased board size

See also: Wisconsin school board elections, 2016

Racine Unified School District

Due to a state law passed in July 2015, the Racine Unified School District school board shifted from holding at-large elections to holding by-district elections in 2016. All nine board seats were up for election in 2016, with each seat located in a newly created geographic district. State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-21) and State Assemblyman Tom Weatherston (R-62) wrote the legislation specifically for Racine, with language requiring by-district elections for cities with populations between 75,000 and 100,000 residents encompassing at least two villages. This legislation was written in the wake of an effort by nearby communities to break away from the district. State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-63) argued that the bill would provide equal representation to all parts of the district. State Assemblyman Cory Mason (D-66) opposed the measure as "an assault on local control" that invalidated previous election results.

Melvin Hargrove

Dennis Wiser

In August 2015, school board members debated how to create board districts by the state's deadline of November 1, 2015. Dennis Wiser proposed hiring an outside firm to draw the boundaries for board approval. He argued that an outside firm could simplify the drafting process by reviewing the community's needs. Wiser's proposal was defeated in a 4-3 vote, and the board voted 5-2 to create a seven-member apportionment committee to propose boundaries for district seats. Melvin Hargrove, Chuck Goodremote, Pamala Handrow, Kim Plache, and Julie McKenna voted for the committee proposal, while Wiser and Michael Frontier opposed the measure. Hargrove concluded that the committee would be more transparent than an outside firm. This committee consisted of three board members, one attorney, one district employee, and two community members.

Proposals 1A and 5 for Racine School Board Districts

The committee submitted two maps to the board, and public review of the proposals began at a school board meeting held on October 5, 2015. The initial configuration had each board seat represent approximately 15,450 residents. All nine seats were slated for elections in 2016, though three seats were for one-year terms and another three seats were for two-year terms to facilitate staggered elections starting in 2017. Both maps included five seats for the city of Racine, with the villages of Caledonia and Mount Pleasant each representing a majority of the population for one seat. Each proposal had two board seats representing sections of the city where minority residents were a majority of the population. The city's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lobbied for three districts referred to as majority-minority districts. During a special board meeting on October 27, 2015, the board voted 5-4 to approve the Proposal 5 map. Chuck Goodremote, Melvin Hargrove, Pamala Handrow, John Koetz, and Kim Plache voted for the map, while Dennis Wiser, Don Nielsen, Michael Frontier, and Julie McKenna voted for an alternate proposal.

Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District

Board member Kathleen Borchardt

The Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District also made changes to how its board was governed in the 2016 spring election, but rather than responding to a directive from the state, the changes were advocated by a local community group. The group YES for Oak Creek Schools pushed for expanding the membership of the board from five members to seven. The decision was put to the community at the school district's annual meeting on August 24, 2015. Board members Mark Verhalen and Kathleen Borchardt, along with some members of the audience, voted against adding more members, but the majority voted to expand the board.

Board member Mark Verhalen

YES for Oak Creek Schools was founded in 2014 as a referendum advocacy group and continued to advocate other district issues after the referendum passed, including an expansion of the school board's size. The group had to gather at least 500 signatures and submit them to the board 30 days before the annual meeting in order to add an agenda item. On July 23, 2015, the group announced it had submitted 553 signatures to place the matter on the district's annual meeting agenda. Annual school board meetings in Wisconsin differ from regular school board meetings, as all residents attending the annual meeting are allowed to vote on the issues discussed. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards explains the process:

“	The annual school district meeting plays a special role in the governance of 377 of Wisconsin's 424 school districts. Electors in these districts — which are classified as either common school districts or union high school districts — have special powers reserved to them as a body at the annual meeting. State statutes (see Appendix A) set forth the basic requirements for holding the annual meeting and outline the powers of the electors at the annual meeting. Electors are individuals who are eligible to vote in school district elections. As school officials are well aware, however, there is more to the annual meeting than the statutory requirements. Often described as grassroots democracy in action, the annual meeting provides district residents with an opportunity to critique the operation of the school district. It is also a good time for the school board and administrative staff to help the community focus on the achievements, needs and future of the district.	”
—Wisconsin Association of School Boards (May 2015)

YES for Oak Creek Schools argued that the board size should be increased in order to allow for more parent and community voices to be heard. The group also said that only one other district in Wisconsin's 50 largest districts by enrollment—the McFarland School District—had fewer than seven board members. The rest had seven or nine.

Verhalen did not agree that the board should be expanded. He said he thought board business had been managed "fairly well." He also said, "I don't see any advantage to adding more people to the board at this time."

Before the vote, YES for Oak Creek Schools described how the board would transition from five to seven members on its website:

“	If we are successful, the new positions would be added in April 2016, however, the terms of the new positions would be staggered. There would be four people elected in April 2016. The top two vote-getters would have the 3-year terms (those seats currently occupied by Frank Carini and Jon Jossart). The next top vote-getter would have a 2-year term (making him or her up for election with Kathleen Borchert's and Sheryl Cerniglia's positions in 2018), and the fourth highest vote-getter would have a 1-year term (making him or her up for election with Mark Verhalen's position in 2017). After that, all elections would be for three-year terms. Currently we have 2 - 1 - 2 up for election over a three-year period. By staggering the terms of the two additional positions, we would have 2 - 2 - 3. That way there is never a majority of the board up for election in any one year. This staggering of the new positions is required by the law.	”
—YES for Oak Creek Schools (2015)

In addition to increasing the size of the board, the proposal also sought to extend the district's existing stipend to the new board members. According to YES for Oak Creek Schools:

“	Of the 50 largest districts in Wisconsin, stipends range from $750 to $18,000 annually. A small number of districts pay $25 to $100 per meeting, and a few do not compensate school board members at all. Oak Creek-Franklin provides around $5,000 annually to each board member. We believe this cost is a minimal investment considering the larger benefit to the community.	”
—YES for Oak Creek Schools (2015)

See also

Local Politics	2016 Election Analysis
Municipal government Local courts School boards Local ballot measures Local recalls	Municipal elections, 2016 Local court elections, 2016 School board elections, 2016 Local ballot measure elections, 2016 Political recall efforts, 2016	Local: Partisanship in local elections Local: Money in local elections Local: Preemption conflicts between state and local governments Municipal: Partisanship in United States mayoral elections Municipal: Race, law enforcement, and the ballot box School boards: Education policy at the state and local levels Local ballots: Using local measures to advance national agendas