Where is the Village? Part 5 -- Local Education Agency

In this blog, Local Education Agency (LEA) is synonymous to school district, which consist of the following entities:

• School board
• Superintendent
• Central/district office personnel

LEAs are accountable to the state and the people they serve in their districts. Whatever the LEA decides to do, it must be aligned with state guidelines. In addition, LEA must involve the will of its constituents. In fact, in most LEAs, all members of the school board are elected into office. Depending on the LEA, superintendents, however may be either elected into office by the people or appointed to office by the school board. Generally, the superintendent appoints those in his/her staff.

While LEAs must adhere to state policies and statutes, it doesn't mean they have to do it in the same manner. Hence, each LEA can have more control on how it conduct its business in education our children. This can be attributed to local tax revenues, particularly property taxes, which differentiate the affluent districts from the poor districts. Subsequently, school funding issues at a local level continues to be problematic in some LEAs.

With federal intrusion now included, LEAs are more accountable for their spending of school funds. Like the states, some LEAs have also engaged in corrupt behavior to secure federal funding, such as those in Atlanta, Houston, and New York.

While the school board runs the LEA, it is the superintendent that executes its will. The central (or district) office is its main hub. The personnel there consists of assistant superintendents, instructional coordinators, trainers, program evaluators, and their support staffs. In most cases, most central office administrators were former school administrators. Unfortunately, many of them were promoted to high-paying central office positions via political strings (e.g., nepotism, cronyism, etc.); some of these individuals promoted may also be incompetence for the job. In Atlanta, one metro LEA is known to have recurring problems with nepotism. In addition, in late May of this year, the former superintendent of this same metro LEA, along with three others, were indicted for racketeering stemming from cronyism. Nevertheless, the LEA is the tone-setter and the navigator for the schools in its jurisdiction. That's why this recent story about unprofessional behavior occurring from the top was disheartening, especially since school just started there a few weeks ago. What a way to start off a new school year!

Finally, just because the school board is elected by the people, it doesn't always mean it will follow the will of its constituents. For example, earlier this year, with the backing of the school board (and the federal government) the superintendent fired the entire staff (and later, rehired some of them back) at a local high school in Rhode Island for its consistent low-performing school status. Another example occurred in North Carolina a few months ago; a newly-elected school board voted "to end busing for diversity in the school system" which outrage several of its constituents. These and other incidents are reminders of how delicate the relationships between the LEA and its constituents are, especially during election time.