The governor’s recent budget recommendations unveiled education priorities that could help set the stage for legislative discussions: literacy, safe schools, paraeducators, and more. If the legislature takes cues from the budget, the state board of education will oversee implementation, as it’s designed by law to do.
I recently reviewed the evolution of state education agencies (SEAs) – their changing missions over time – and noted their opportunity to determine their next chapter during this era of reduced federal bureaucracy.
To take advantage of that opportunity, policymakers in every state should (1) review the SEA’s current legal duties to identify the baseline/status quo and (2) craft a vision for what the SEA’s mission ought to be so policymakers can make any necessary reforms.
I examine what this might look like in Utah below.
What are the duties of the state board and state superintendent?
A review of the duties of the Utah State Board of Education (USBE or state board) and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, as outlined in state law, makes clear that they are responsible for administering a broad set of educational objectives.
The Utah Constitution says that the state board has “general control and supervision of the state’s public education system” and that it “shall appoint a State Superintendent of Public Instruction who shall be the executive officer of the board.”
It’s an agency, meaning it derives its authority from another entity, as all “agents” do from their principals. The state board gets its authority from the Utah Constitution and the state legislature. Utah Code Title 53E Chapter 3 explains that the “state board may not govern, manage, or operate school districts, institutions, and programs, unless granted that authority by statute.” Furthermore, it clarifies that the constitutional phrase “general control and supervision” means “directed to the whole system.”
The board’s policymaking powers are exercised when it makes rules on a variety of issues, including teacher certification, graduation requirements, and academic standards.
While receiving federal funds is subject to oversight by other governing bodies, the board can “apply for, receive, administer, and distribute to eligible applicants funds made available through programs of the federal government.”
The board plays a role in resolving compliance and monitoring issues, including creating methods to “review and investigate alleged compliance issues,” implementing corrective actions, handling appeals, and beyond. The board has a list of tasks for assisting school districts and individual schools in acquiring and maintaining the characteristics set forth by the legislature. It can delegate its duties and responsibilities to state board employees.
According to statute, the superintendent “shall administer all programs assigned to the state board.”
State code says that the “state board shall, with the state superintendent, develop a statewide education strategy,” focusing on core academics, including core standards, a process to select model instructional materials, graduation requirements, professional development programs for practitioners, model remediation programs, model methods for creating individual student learning targets, progress-based assessments, incentives to achieve desires outcomes, annual report cards for school and district performance, a method to encourage innovation in school, and a method for identifying and sharing best practices.
As assigned by the board, the superintendent is to investigate all matters pertaining to the public schools, adopt and keep the official seal to authenticate acts, hold gatherings of different sorts, collect and organize education data, administer and implement federal educational programs, and prepare and submit to the governor a budget for the state board.
The superintendent also supports local school leaders. The state code says the superintendent shall advise the superintendents, the LEA governing board, and other school officers. The superintendent can also provide written opinions to district or local leaders on questions related to public education.
While the list of duties in this article is not exhaustive, a statewide review should be. A review should include whether and to what degree these duties are being fulfilled. Doing so may help illuminate what duties are best served by Utah’s SEA, which are not, and/or pathways to improve them.
The SEA’s mission should include an expanded parent focus
The legislature outlines its vision and mission for public education in Utah Code 53E-2-301. It envisions an “educated citizenry” that encompasses civic participation, economic prosperity through college and career readiness, “strong moral and social values, and loyalty and commitment to constitutional government.” It likewise states the mission of public education to “assure Utah the best educated citizenry in the world” and lists ideal student outcomes.
While it rightly sets objectives for student outcomes, it should be noted that several sections of the state code clearly prioritize parents’ role in education. In fact, Title 53E consistently weaves the prioritization and role of parents throughout.
For example, it says, the Legislature “recognizes that parents are a child’s first teachers and are responsible for the education of their children.”
Likewise, “Parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children and elect representatives in the Legislature and on state and local school boards to administer the state public education system, which provides extensive support and assistance.”
It also says, “In the implementation of all policies, programs, and responsibilities adopted in accordance with this public education code, the Legislature, the state board, local school boards, and charter school governing boards shall: respect, protect, and further the interests of parents in their children’s public education; and promote and encourage full and active participation and involvement of parents at all public schools.”
The Legislature also includes an entire section of family participation, requiring LEAs to create a policy “to build consistent and effective communication among parents, teachers, and administrators” and “provide parents with the opportunity to be actively involved in their children’s education.”
What does this mean? It means if the state board is interested in further elevating the role of parents in its mission or work, it would be supported by statute. The trends in national and state education policy suggest this ought to be part of the next phase of state education policy.
According to the USBE strategic plan, its mission is “Academic and organizational excellence in Utah education for an elevated, educated citizenry.” This relatively new mission statement was designed to focus education on academic excellence rather than other purposes that sometimes slip into the school day, a goal that seems prudent and timely. Likewise, in today’s environment, the mission and work of the USBE (or any SEA) should be increasingly responsive to parents.
The legislature has signaled this with the creation of the parent liaison and engagement education specialist role. The state board has made commendable efforts with its parent portal.
But adding this focus to its mission would mean, in practice, that policy choices should also be made with this question in mind: How does the administration of this policy affect parents who choose public schools to serve their students?
For example, when deciding how to create a state website, one might ask which topics or questions parents are most interested in and make those most accessible. When sharing data, one might ask whether is labeled or explained just for practitioners or for parents as well. When determining which requirements to enforce at the district level, one might ask which compliance efforts are most geared toward parent understanding or partnership (like curriculum transparency or open enrollment).
An increased focus on parents may already be happening in many instances, in which case, an expanded awareness may be the next step. In some cases, this may require policy reforms.
Developing a mission that includes a focus on serving parents would be a good practice for state education agencies across the country, especially as there may be greater space for state ownership of education.
Conclusion
The Utah State Board of Education and the superintendent have essential duties laid out by law, and the opportunity to deepen their mission to serve parents even more in the coming years would complement those duties.
