The two-headed governance structure of the State Board of Education and the state superintendent of public instruction has fueled controversy over who has authority to make state education policy for several decades. In addition, the General Assembly creates education policy through legislation, including budget priorities.
Finally, the governor holds the purse strings and the power of the bully pulpit. Even the courts have a hand in education policy, the most glaring example being the series of Leandro decisions handed down by Judge Howard Manning. See Q&A #4.
Article IX of the state Constitution is the genesis for the dispute between the State Board of Education and the state superintendent. It creates the State Board of Education, whose members include the state treasurer, the lieutenant governor, and 11 members appointed by the governor. The board has the responsibility to “supervise and administer the free public school system and the educational funds provided for its support.” The same article also designates the elected position of superintendent of public schools, who serves as the secretary and the chief administrative officer of the board. The result is that the superintendent is in the rare position of administering, in some sense, the will of the board, but being accountable not to the board but to the voting public.
This distribution of power is actually less confusing than it used to be, thanks to the revisions to the Constitution that took place in 1971:
The Superintendent of Public Instruction was eliminated as a voting member of the State Board of Education but retained as the Board’s secretary. He was replaced with an additional at-large appointee. A potential conflict of authority between the Superintendent and the Board (both of which previously had Constitutional authority to administer the public schools) was eliminated by making the Superintendent the chief administrative officer of the Board, which is to supervise and administer the schools.
Still, the 1971 rewrite did not resolve the conflict. In 1991 and 1992 the superintendent and the State Board filed lawsuits against one another challenging each other’s right to make decisions that affect public education. To help ease this contentious relationship, Governor Hunt in 1993 asked the General Assembly to take steps to help resolve the conflict. It was suggested that the position of state superintendent become appointed rather than elected, but this suggestion never materialized. Rather, in 1995 the General Assembly clarified the roles of the board and the superintendent through Senate Resolution 1. The superintendent became responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the public school system, but “under the direction, control and approval of the State Board of Education.” Lastly, the resolution specified that “the appointment of all administrative and supervisory personnel in the Department of Public Instruction is subject to the approval of the State Board of Education.”
Even with Senate Resolution 1, however, the state continues to struggle with the complex nature of who is ultimately accountable for North Carolina's public schools.