Finding Balance Between State and Local Control

Rachel Wise, District 3, Nebraska State Board of Education (October, 2014)

Rachel Wise

State Board of Education members in October spent a great deal of time on an issue that I believe illustrates the challenge of finding a balance between state and local control of PreK-12 education.

The issue sweeping the country and brought forward to the state board regarded the College Board’s Advanced Placement U.S. History course, APUSH. A state board policy committee took this issue up and put forward a resolution that generated quite a bit of discussion that was covered by several newspapers.

The College Board is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1900 with a mission to help students transition successfully to college. It provides opportunities for students to take SAT, a college entrance exam and to participate in Advanced Placement or college level courses. The APUSH course is considered a college-level course in U. S. History. It is a part of a host of courses approved by the College Board to allow students an opportunity to “test out” of various college courses while still in high school. Typically, students as freshmen or sophomores take high school level courses in subjects such as biology, chemistry, history, English, etc., and then, in some school districts, they take an Advanced Placement course in one or multiple subject areas as juniors or seniors. To put APUSH in perspective, 1,371 Nebraska students enrolled in AP U.S. History compared to 26,133 students enrolled in other U.S. History courses offered in Nebraska schools during the 2013-2014 school year. That means the proposed resolution focused on a course that only 5 percent of Nebraska students take.

So, you may be wondering, what is the controversy?

Recently, the College Board rolled out the new APUSH framework which contained gaps in what some people consider essential historical information. I am not going to delve into the content of the framework, but instead share with you why I believe this issue should be discussed and resolved at the local school district level rather than the state level. In my view, this issue is an excellent example of the balance that needs to be established between state and local control.

First, school districts follow the Americanism statute (79-724) which is in Rule 10, a rule that provides the foundation for school accreditation. Secondly, school districts use the Nebraska social studies standards to develop curriculum and purchase materials to augment courses such as APUSH. Finally, on issues regarding specific courses, it is hard for me to understand why the Nebraska State Board of Education would step into an arena in which citizens across the state have elected 1,560 local school board members to make such decisions.

I do think it is important for the State Board of Education to establish and adopt standards, frame accountability for a quality education system and accredit schools. However, I think we should continue to work to find and respect the balance between state control and support for local school district authority in decisions related to curriculum, materials and instructional practices.

In my opinion, the proposed resolution and subsequent board discussion was important. However, this is an example of overreach that really does not benefit the students of this state; locally elected officials understand the needs of their communities. After much discussion, the State Board of Education did not vote on the resolution at the October meeting. The policy committee, however, will review, discuss and possibly bring the resolution forward again at a later date.

This article represents my personal view, not that of the State Board of Education or my role as president. Feel free to contact me at rachel.wise@nebraska.gov. Search the Nebraska Department of Education website at www.education.ne.gov to learn more about education in our state.