• The best education policy reforms reflect the distinct roles that different entities play in education policymaking and implementation.
• Education reform includes both mandates, incentives and voluntary actions by education leaders.
• Reforms that only envision changing state law – without regard to implementation in school board rules, district policies and school administrator and teacher decisions – are unlikely to have significant or lasting impact.

​Recently, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced his new senior advisor of education, prompting policy wonks to learn more about the governor’s education priorities in light of this change.

Based on Utah’s state constitution and governance structure, the governor has less direct policymaking influence in education than other entities. This does not mean that the office has no influence on education; the position certainly does. But the state has layered governance when it comes to education policy, which is crucial for voters and reformers to understand.

To understand who has a touch point on education policy in the state and how, read below.

The education policymakers and their roles

According to the Utah State Constitution, the Legislature “shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of the state’s education systems,” including a public education system (think K-12) and higher education. In effect, this means the Legislature must fund and ensure the existence of these systems. The Legislature may “designate” other schools, programs and institutions in public education and higher education as specified in the Constitution, as well as authorize the imposition of fees in secondary schools. Because the Legislature is the lawmaking body of the state, many of the statewide policies impacting education come directly from this entity.

The state constitution says that “general control and supervision of the public education system is vested in a State Board of Education,” or what is today’s Utah State Board of Education. Its executive officer is the state superintendent, who is appointed by the board, rather than elected. Over time, this constitutional provision has come to mean the board complies with federal and state laws as well as determines administrative rules, creates model policies, offers resources for districts, develops state standards, chooses assessments, creates accountability systems, decides educator licensing requirements and makes graduation requirements. The entity makes rules based on state legislation.

Likewise, there is a state charter school board. Rather than being established by the state constitution, it is created by legislation, and its purpose is to authorize charter schools in the state.

Utah’s governor does not create education policy but has the power to veto laws (as well as signal what types of laws the governor would likely veto), propose a budget, appoint members to the Utah State Charter School Board and Utah Board of Higher Education. The governor also has the “bully pulpit,” which is ultimately the opportunity to give airtime and advocacy to causes he or she wants to see moved forward, signaling coverage from media and action from policymakers.

The courts obviously should not proactively create education policy but come into play when laws are challenged. For example, the Utah Education Association recently filed a lawsuit challenging a program created by the Legislature, arguing that the program violates provisions of the state constitution. The holding of the court will impact policymakers’ next steps.

Local education agencies (LEAs) is an umbrella term that includes both school districts and charter schools. School districts (and charters) have boards that manage the schools. Voters in local school districts elect their school boards. They determine things like boundaries, pay, budgets, hiring principals and more. They also create policy on a number of different issues and approve curriculum or instructional materials to be used by schools and teachers. Their websites host important information for parents and students.

School administrators and teachers are the on-the-ground personnel who run the schools. Schools do not have policymaking power in education other than general school rules.

A multilevel reform hypothetical

To illustrate the power and interworking of these various levels of policymaking power, we can consider a hypothetical state effort to beef up curriculum transparency in the state.

The governor, informed by his staff and advisors, might determine that curriculum transparency is an issue worth championing in the state and communicate its importance in statewide addresses, which gets media coverage. Legislators may respond to the governor’s priorities (or their own initiative on curriculum transparency, inspired by their constituents) by creating a bill that offers LEAs grant money by requiring that they develop a program that financially incentivizes teachers to increase transparency at the classroom level by offering three things: a preview of the year’s curriculum, weekly or regular notice of curriculum, and day-to-day assignments and lessons.

The state board of education could create model policies for how a district might implement the program required by the Legislature. Interested districts could choose to use the model policy, or they could go their own way if they want to participate in the grant program.

At the same time, districts may also voluntarily, through their own policymaking powers, create or update curriculum transparency policies on their website. They can also organize and post in user-friendly ways approved instructional materials that they use or host easy links to platforms like Canvas. In this example, teachers could choose to beef up their transparency efforts and receive a financial incentive.

At all times, administrators and teachers may increase transparency policies that help parents interact with their children’s education.

Though highly unlikely, a challenge to the law or how it is administered could trigger the courts to determine whether the law is constitutional.

If the legislatively created and funded grant program results in LEAs creating transparency programs, the effect is that potentially thousands of classrooms offer more curriculum transparency to even more students and families. Such an outcome would be a major win in a state that shows interest in elevating the parents’ role in education while also protecting the autonomy of educators.

Conclusion

The best education policy reforms recognize and reflect the distinct roles that different entities play in education policymaking and implementation. The gold standard of policy reform uses and requires only the distinct roles of entities or elected positions – whether the governor, the legislature, state school board, school districts, or educators – to effect the change that is needed.