Do State Boards of Education Offer an Avenue for Public Voice?

Abstract

Digital technologies provide new opportunities for increased participation by the general public in state and federal governance. In this article, we examine opportunities for public engagement in one type of state-level governmental body: the State Board of Education (SBOE). Limited research has focused on SBOEs, particularly the extent to which these powerful policy actors are accessible to the public. Drawing on the Open Government Maturity Model (OGMM), we examine data on the accessibility and opportunities for public engagement offered by 47 SBOEs to interrogate the validity of the assumption that SBOEs are avenues for public voice. We considered each SBOE to be a unique study participant and their websites to be their “electronic public faces.” Data were collected from SBOE websites on 39 different variables related to SBOE accessibility and used to create an SBOE E-Accessibility Index. Findings suggest that while most SBOEs meet lower levels of the OGMM’s criteria, they do not support meaningful public engagement in SBOE work.

Keywords

education policy public voice digital participation e-accessibility

Rapid development of information and communication technologies offers unprecedented opportunities for increased governmental participation by average citizens. In the past two decades, in fact, federal, state, and local governments from across the globe have extended their use of digital technologies to share information, engage citizens, and deliver services (Zheng & Schachter, 2018). This development—known as e-government or e-participation—involves the use of digital technologies (e.g., email, listservs, social media, online chat, and discussion boards) to promote citizen participation (Kim & Lee, 2012) and to provide a way for citizens to give feedback, raise issues, and discuss policies with others. Robbins et al. (2008) found that e-participation provided a means for inserting public opinion into policy discussions in a timely and comprehensive way. When scholars compared e-participation to traditional political involvement, they found e-participation to be far more interactive (Barnes & Williams, 2012), efficient (Zheng & Liao, 2014), and transparent (Zheng & Schachter, 2018). Given the concern that the majority of state governments underrepresent urban citizenry and, as a result, fail to understand and sufficiently address the needs and interests of urban areas (Gamm & Kousser, 2010), e-participation could provide a greater opportunity for urban leaders, educators, and citizens to raise issues, challenge misconceptions, and foster policy solutions that are better suited to urban contexts.

Disparities, however, exist among countries, states, and cities with regard to the opportunities they provide for citizens for e-participation. Some governments offer extensive opportunities while others do not (Zheng & Schachter, 2018). The United Nations (U.N.) Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018) E-Participation Index measures the quality and usefulness of the information and services a country’s e-government programs provide to engage citizens in the work of government. Among other developed nations, the United States (U.S.) was recently ranked tenth for the opportunities it provided for e-participation (United Nations, 2018).

To promote accessibility and transparency, former U.S. President Barack Obama issued an Open Government Directive to U.S. federal agencies in 2009, requiring them to develop open government (i.e., e-government) plans (Lee & Kwak, 2012; The White House, 2009). The directive, which launched numerous public engagement initiatives via social-media, was limited to federal agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and Education. U.S. state and local governments received no such directive, and, as a result, there is great disparity in how various jurisdictions and individual governmental bodies involve citizens electronically (Zheng & Schachter, 2018).

In this article, we focus on the opportunities for public engagement in one type of state-level governmental body: the State Board of Education (SBOE). All but three of the 50 states (Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia currently have SBOEs. These education policy actors are located in a critical nexus between the public and government, providing an opportunity for citizens of the state to influence the direction and governance of public schools (Young et al., 2019). The purpose of this paper is to interrogate the idea of SBOEs as avenues for public voice, which refers to the ability of ordinary citizens to influence the government.

We preface our interrogation of SBOEs with three stage-setting sections. The first focuses on federal and state roles in the governance of education. The second provides a brief overview of SBOEs, including what they are, their membership, their purposes, and their scope of work. The third explores the avenues of engagement made possible through governmental bodies like SBOEs with a particular emphasis on opportunities for public engagement through digital technologies (i.e., e-participation).

Drawing on the Open Government Maturity Model (OGMM) (Lee & Kwak, 2012), we examine, categorize, and discuss SBOEs in terms of their degree of openness to public participation. The data—which focuses on how and through what means average citizens can gain information about and/or engage in the work of SBOEs—offer greater insight into the opportunities provided for citizen engagement in education policy work both through traditional and digital means.

Setting the Stage

State and Federal Roles in Education

PK-12 education in the U.S. is primarily a state and local responsibility. States establish public school systems, curriculum standards, accountability policies, and graduation requirements. The structure of U.S. education funding reflects this predominant state role, with less than 8% of education funding provided by the federal government (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). The passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, however, repositioned the federal government as an important player in PK-12 education. Of particular importance was ESEA’s Title I, which included federal funding to aid disadvantaged children and help address the problems found in poor urban and rural areas. Then, in 1980, the U.S. Congress established the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) as a Cabinet level agency under President Jimmy Carter. Today, USDE programs have implications for almost every area of PK-12 education.

Despite increased federal funding over the last five decades, state governments are still primarily responsible for PK-12 education. Each state’s constitution, for example, requires that it provide a school system where children may receive a free education. In contrast, the federal government’s role is to insure

a free and high quality education for all K-12 students by protecting their civil rights and by providing resources for the most in need, using public data and high quality research, and by providing support and infrastructure for schools, districts, and states to help them continuously improve in their work. (Baron, 2016, “A Supporting Role”, para. 3).

Over the last few decades, the federal government’s predominance in education has expanded and contracted under different presidential administrations. For example, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 greatly increased the federal role in PK-12 education. NCLB and other subsequent federal initiatives, such as the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top Initiative, increased the role of the federal government in education by linking school and student achievement levels to federal funding. However, the most recent reauthorization of ESEA—the Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015—reversed this trend and many of the responsibilities taken up by the federal government were returned to states.

State Boards of Education

While each of the 50 U.S. states has its own unique system for governing education, there are some commonalities. For example, most states have a Department of Education, a Chief State School Officer, and a State Board of Education—entities that focus directly on education. Additionally, the Governor and members of the state legislature typically have responsibilities for their state’s educational system. Although the oversight of day-to-day operations of schools and systems is generally left to local school boards and district leaders, the state exerts significant influence (Henig, 2013).

For urban areas, particularly those located in the states with one or fewer urbanized areas (see Table 5) or where the demographics of urban populations differ significantly from the rest of the state (e.g., percent of recent immigrants), such strong state influence has presented a challenge (Gamm & Kousser, 2010). Given the power and authority exerted by state education entities, the lack of scholarship on them is striking (Young & Reynolds, 2017). To illustrate, relatively little is known about SBOEs, how SBOE members conceive of their roles and responsibilities, how they make policy decisions, which topics dominate their agendas, or how education policy issues they work on fit into the interests or concerns of districts, schools, and average citizens. Of the SBOE-related studies Young and colleagues (2019) identified, the majority consisted of “organizational reports from the 1990s or earlier, which included reviews of SBOE data and in some cases insight into the politics, values, and concerns of a given time period” (p. 207).

SBOEs emerged in the early 1800s as citizen groups organized at the state level for the purpose of engaging citizens in the administration of public education (Kysilko, 2011). How citizens become SBOE members varies from state to state (Young et al., 2019). According to McCarthy and colleagues (1993), 39 of 49 states used one of the following four models for selecting SBOE members: (a) governor appoints SBOE members, SBOE appoints or recommends chief state school officer, (b) public elects SBOE members, SBOE appoints chief state school officer, (c) governor appoints SBOE members, public independently elects chief state school officer, and (d) governor appoints SBOE members and chief state school officer. The remaining SBOEs reflect a mixture of these four approaches.

Given their original purpose, one might assume that members of SBOEs would be elected or appointed based on their abilities to represent the state’s populace. This assumption, however, is rarely the reality. In their in-depth review of three SBOEs, for example, Young and colleagues (2019) found that SBOE members did not represent the citizens of the state on a variety of factors. These findings may be due in part to the fact that in 33 states, governors appoint SBOE members. Gubernatorial appointments are more likely to be partisan in nature, particularly in states with few requirements regarding SBOE member qualifications (Hagedorn et al., 2013). Once elected or appointed, SBOE members serve as a point of access to education policy making for citizens of the state as well as a vast array of other interests (e.g., non-governmental organizations and think tanks).

Originally, the authority of SBOEs was severely limited, primarily due to a strong tradition of democratic localism (Henig, 2013). Over time, however, the authority and power of SBOEs has waxed and waned with waves of consolidation, decentralization, professionalization, and neoliberalism as well as the politicization of education, the role of the federal government in education, and the creation of new education positions (e.g., Director of School Quality, Director of Student Assessment, etc.) and committees (e.g., state standards boards).

A review by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE; 2016) identified four common roles for SBOEs: (a) policy makers, (b) advocates, (c) liaisons, and (d) consensus builders. Although each SBOE is unique and its structure and functions have been subject to changes at various times, they wield significant influence and authority in many states. Indeed, a number of state constitutions describe SBOEs as policy making entities, and though their policy making functions may be overshadowed in some states by governors, state legislators, and chief state school officers, many SBOEs are quite influential. The Kansas Evolution Hearings, which resulted in significant changes in how evolution and the origin of life were taught in the state’s public high school science classes, serve as an excellent example of how state board policy can dramatically influence what students learn in school (Slevin, 2005).

Citizen Engagement With State Boards of Education

Although first conceived of as means for engaging citizens in the administration of public education, the membership, structure, and operation of SBOEs present a number of challenges for average citizens to authentically engage (Kysilko, 2011; Young & Reynolds, 2017). With regard to membership, because so many SBOE members are appointed rather than elected, few SBOE members have a real constituency to which they are directly accountable. In fact, citizens in only 13 states have an actual elected representative on their SBOE; the other states appoint their SBOE members. The system of political appointments in the U.S. comes from a history of the “spoils system,” a practice where a political leader offers government jobs to supporters, friends, and relatives as a reward for supporting the political party and/or leader. Thus, the allegiance of the appointee is foremost to the party or leader, rather than to citizens (Hagedorn et al., 2013). Furthermore, whether elected or appointed, SBOE members tend to be socially and economically distant from average citizens (Gill, 2018). Finally, SBOE positions are not full-time. Rather, the majority of SBOE members have full-time occupations in addition to their SBOE responsibilities, which may limit their accessibility to the general public.

For those citizens who are less interested in engaging SBOE members individually and instead desire to attend and potentially contribute to SBOE meetings, a number of other challenges emerge. In reviewing publicly available schedules, SBOE meetings are held infrequently and accessing information in between meetings can be difficult as SBOEs, like many state agencies, have limited support staff (Young et al., 2019). In most states, meetings are held in the state capital, which can make participation difficult for the majority of citizens in places like California, Florida, and Texas. Nonetheless, with the increased emphasis on open government, SBOEs like many other governmental bodies have sought ways to foster greater accessibility and transparency. Websites and other digital technologies, for example, enable SBOEs to share information about their membership and the focus of their work, and, in some cases, to provide an opportunity for citizens to “attend” meetings via video streaming and recordings.

Conceptual Framework: The Open Government Maturity Model

Given the growing interest in identifying and implementing mechanisms to promote e-participation, a number of models have been proposed for describing and categorizing government agencies’ levels of sophistication. Leading these efforts, Layne and Lee (2001) proposed a four-stage open government maturity model that emphasized both functions and technical capacity. Viborg et al. (2007) extended this model several years later by including a focus on customer-centric approaches. Lee and Kwak (2012) further extended, tested and refined this model, which we drew upon to devise the present study’s conceptual framework.

Lee and Kwak’s (2012) Open Government Maturity Model (OGMM) is based on a series of field studies that assessed open government initiatives focused on transparent, interactive, participatory, and collaborative efforts to engage citizens through emerging digital technologies. The model consists of five maturity levels: (a) Level 1 involves setting up initial conditions, (b) Level 2 involves data transparency, (c) Level 3 focuses on fostering open participation, (d) Level 4 is concerned with open collaboration, and (e) Level 5 involves ubiquitous engagement. Each of these are described in greater detail below.

Level 1 of the OGMM refers to an initial stage where there is minimal online presence (Lee & Kwak, 2012). At this level, no or very few digital technologies are used. Agencies operating at Level 1 focus primarily on cataloguing and broadcasting information to citizens. For example, a Level 1 agency would host a website that provides general information about the organization and its functions with limited data available for viewing or analysis (e.g., school demographics). The Level 1 agency has no interactive communication capabilities, such as social media accounts or Web 2.0 tools (e.g., blogs) and relies on one-way, static communication methods. Thus, citizens have no way of engaging electronically in the agency’s governing process in a meaningful way and are unlikely to frequent the agency’s website.

According to Lee and Kwak (2012), Level 2 of the OGMM represents an agency’s first step toward developing a more open government. At this stage, digital technologies—often websites and emails—are used to foster increased transparency of governing processes and productivity by sharing information and data online that is more specific and engaging than Level 1 (Meijer & Thaens, 2009). Level 2 requires an increased degree of sophistication and resources in that agencies identify valuable and high-impact data worth sharing with the public, assure the quality of data, and manage the storage and updating of different datasets. The use of social media to foster open government, however, is still relatively limited in Level 2, and, if used, is generally unidirectional. For example, it may be used to increase awareness of the information and datasets available on the website and/or agency projects and events. Public feedback in Level 2 is typically facilitated by email. Although the opportunity for e-participation in Level 2 is still rather constrained, the very act of providing greater access to information and data “provides the basis for the public to participate in and to collaborate on government work to mobilize action” (Lee & Kwak, p. 496).

The OGMM’s Level 3 moves beyond information transparency to increasing e-participation in the work of government. This engagement may include inviting citizen feedback on policy issues, agency projects, and decisions. According to Lee and Kwak (2012), such e-participation can enhance the quality of policy decisions and government services by tapping the knowledge and experiences of a diverse public. Specifically, they assert that “[w]hile Level 2 opens up government data to the public, Level 3 opens the government to the public’s ideas and knowledge” (p. 498). Level 3’s public engagement relies in large measure on social media, Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, photo/video sharing, and ideation tools (e.g., discussion boards) (Howe, 2008). Emphasis is often placed on citizens sharing anecdotes, stories, conversations, ideas, and comments with the agency and all of the agency’s followers.

Once agencies have fully developed e-communication and established information exchange mechanisms (i.e., e-participation), they are ready to move to Level 4. The OGMM’s Level 4 is characterized by “open collaboration” (Lee & Kwak, 2012, p. 498) among agencies, the public, and the private sector. Similar to Level 3, Level 4 depends on digital technologies, though less on expressive forms (e.g., social media) and more on collaborative forms (e.g., Google Docs). Open collaboration “refers to public engagement in complex tasks or projects that aim to co-create specific outputs” (e.g., e-rulemaking) (Lee & Kwak, 2012, p. 498; see also Bovaird, 2007 and Coglianese, 2006). Such tasks generally involve small or large groups of people using online collaborative applications (e.g., Google Docs, Wiki applications) to draft, edit, and disseminate documents and other types of information.

Levels 2 through 4 provide the foundation for the final Level 5, which Lee and Kwak (2012) describe as “ubiquitous engagement” (p. 493). They explain that agencies operating at Level 5 take “transparency, participation, and collaboration to the next level of public engagement by expanding the scope and depth of them and fully harnessing the power of social media and related technologies” (p. 499). Two conditions are critical for the success of Level 5 engagement. First, citizens must be able to access agency websites, digital tools, and datasets from anywhere and on any intelligent device (e.g., phone, tablet, laptop), and those websites must be optimized for a variety of platforms. The second condition is seamless integration of digital, social media, and governmental tools and services across agencies. This integration enables citizens to easily navigate and engage in activities across agencies without having to log in and out or navigate multiple websites (Gottschalk, 2009). Lee and Kwak (2012) were unable to identify any agencies that had reached Level 5.

Methods

This study explores the question: “Do State Boards of Education offer opportunities for public voice?” Few studies have investigated SBOEs, particularly the extent to which these powerful policy actors are accessible to the general public. In circumstances where the research base is limited, Rossman and Rallis (2003) suggest first engaging in exploratory research in order to craft an initial understanding of the phenomenon of interest. We followed this recommendation and framed the analysis of our data using the Open Government Maturity Model (Lee & Kwak, 2012).

We employed an archival research design, which Corti (2004) likens to an “excavation” (p. 22) and defines as “the locating, evaluating, and systematic interpretation and analysis of sources” (p. 21). This design was particularly apropos because it called for creating a comprehensive dataset that enabled the exploration and assessment of the extent to which SBOES were accessible to the public and provided an avenue for public voice. In addition to a holistic view of SBOE accessibility, the dataset also permitted a comparative analysis (Merriam & Grenier, 2019) of U.S. states with specific attention to identifying and analyzing similarities and differences between SBOEs. Indeed, a product of this study entailed the creation of an “SBOE E-Accessibility Index” for each state based on 39 indicators (see Table 1). The SBOE E-Accessibility Index is intended to aid SBOEs in ascertaining ways to be more available to and engage the general public.

Table 1.

List of State Board of Education (SBOE) E-Accessibility Index Indicators.

Category	Indicators
SBOE general characteristics	1. General description (e.g., purpose, mission) 2. Source of authority (e.g., statute)
SBOE member characteristics	3. Member directory 4. Member photos 5. Member biographies 6. Professional information in member biographies 7. Personal information in member biographies 8. Civic information in member biographies 9. Member term start and/or end dates 10. Member titles (e.g., chair, secretary) 11. Member voting record
SBOE meeting characteristics	12. Meeting agendas 13. Number of meeting agendas available 14. First year of meeting agendas archives available 15. Number of meetings in 2018 16. Meeting minutes 17. Number of meeting minutes available 18. First year of meeting minutes archives available 19. Vote counts included in meeting minutes 20. Member names included with vote counts in meeting minutes 21. Meeting livestream availability 22. Meeting livestream enabling participation 23. Meeting recordings (e.g., audio, video) 24. Number of meeting recordings available 25. First year of meeting recordings archives available
SBOE website design characteristics	26. Number of SBOE-specific tabs on SBOE homepage 27. Number of clicks to view general description 28. Number of clicks to view member directory 29. Number of clicks to view member biographies 30. Number of clicks to view meeting locations 31. Number of clicks to view meeting agendas 32. Number of clicks to view meeting minutes 33. Number of clicks to view meeting recordings 34. Contact information 35. Contact methods (e.g., email, phone) 36. Number of clicks to view contact information 37. Citizen participation information (e.g., submit comments) 38. Social media account information 39. Broken links during data collection

Sampling and Data Sources

Given this study’s exploratory nature, the target sample consisted of all SBOEs in the U.S. (N = 47).¹ We consider each SBOE to be a unique participant with the “electronic public faces” of SBOEs—their websites—serving as data sources (Prior, 2008). Websites included an array of varying webpages and documents, such as SBOE meeting agendas and SBOE member biographies, that provided relevant information for collection and analysis.

Data Collection and Data Analysis

To focus reviews of SBOE websites, two research team members examined prior studies and reports on SBOEs (e.g., Campbell & Mazzoni, 1974; Henig, 2013; Kysilko, 2011; McCarthy et al., 1993) to devise a list of preliminary variables related to SBOE accessibility. Two other research team members—both with considerable experience reviewing and analyzing state government websites—discussed the list and compared variables to concepts in the OGMM’s four levels, such as information cataloging, presence of social media, use of collaborative engagement forms to gather citizen input, and overt connections between the SBOE’s website and other state agencies’ websites. The research team then collectively engaged in finalizing the variables (Saldaña, 2013), an iterative process that was informed by the OGMM along with continuously-evolving notions of government accessibility, government transparency, and public engagement (e.g., Coleman & Freelon, 2015; Wirtz & Birkmeyer, 2015).

The final list of 39 variables was grouped into four categories, which Table 1 details. Category 1 consisted of SBOE general characteristics and included variables related to whether the website included a general description of the SBOE’s purpose, mission, and source of authority (e.g., state statute citation). Category 2 consisted of SBOE member characteristics and included variables related to member names, biographies, roles (e.g., chair), terms, and voting records. These two categories primarily align with the OGMM’s Level 1 and Level 2, which focus on hosting a website and communicating information to the public.

Category 3 consisted of SBOE meeting characteristics and included variables related to the number of meetings per year, meeting minutes, and meeting livestreaming and audio/video recordings. Category 4 consisted of SBOE website design characteristics and included variables related to navigability and information about citizen participation. These two categories primarily relate to the OGMM’s Levels 3, 4, and 5, which center on increased public engagement via expressive (e.g., social media) and collaborative (e.g., Google Docs) digital technologies.

Information was gathered from each SBOE website (N = 47) and recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. As data collection efforts progressed, the dataset was reviewed for clarity and consistency. The final data corpus consisted of an extensive set of webpages and documents that included items such as SBOE website homepages, meeting agendas and minutes, social media accounts, and member biographies.

To consider this study’s implications for urban schools, we also calculated the number of “urbanized areas” within each U.S. state and whether a state’s capital city and its SBOE headquarters were located in an urban intensive area (only 15 are, see Table 5). Milner (2012) argued that no “clear, uniformed, common definition” (p. 557) of urban exists and, to aid the field, presented three broad categories of urban areas based off size and density: urban intensive, urban emergent, and urban characteristic. Drawing on the work of both Milner (2012) and Ahram et al. (2012), for this study, we define an “urbanized area” as one that met at least one of three criteria: a city with more than 1 million people; a metropolitan area that exceeds 1 million people; or a city with a population density of greater than 10,000 people per square mile.

To analyze the data corpus, we employed a deductive coding approach (Kondracki et al., 2002), employing codes from two sources: (a) the OGMM, and (b) prior research and literature. Using the deductive coding approach, two research team members coded the dataset and identified emerging themes related to the research questions (Kondracki et al., 2002). A third research team member reviewed the coding and emerging themes to confirm, disconfirm, or make new suggestions. Differences in coding were then discussed among the three research team members until agreement was reached (Saldaña, 2013).

Most of the 39 variables were coded as binaries—either the characteristic (e.g., SBOE description on website) was present or not. Remaining variables were coded as follows. First, if an SBOE met at least nine times per year, which is the length of a typical U.S. school year, we coded it “1.” Second, if SBOE member term start and end dates were included, we coded it “1” while either a start or end date was coded “0.5.” Third, for every 4 years—the typical length of a gubernatorial term—of posted meeting minutes, meeting agendas, and meeting recordings, we coded it “1,” did not round up (e.g., 3 years of meeting agendas coded as “0”), and did not limit potential points. If an SBOE posted meeting agendas for the past 12 years, for instance, we coded it “3.” Fourth, if SBOE contact methods included both a phone number and/or email address(es), we coded it “1” while either a phone number and/or email address(es) was coded “0.5.” Fifth, if an SBOE website included 10 or more distinct content tabs (e.g., “About Us”), we viewed this as considerable breadth of information and coded it “1.” Websites with 4 to 10 tabs were coded “0.5.” Finally, if it took no clicks or one click to access a particular piece of information on an SBOE website, we coded it “1”; two to three clicks were coded as “0.5.” Final index scores were calculated by adding up amounts for each variable.

Methodological Limitations

The study’s purpose and methods introduce several limitations related to data collection, analysis, and reporting (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). First, the breadth, depth, and accuracy of the dataset depended on the extent to which SBOEs posted information to their “electronic public faces” (i.e., websites). Given that a product of the present study was an SBOE E-Accessibility Index score for each state, the information accessible through various SBOE websites directly impacted scores. Second, the list of 39 variables composing the SBOE E-Accessibility Index, though extensive, may not capture all ways in which SBOEs provide access for public voice. Third, we did not collect interview data, an intentional methodological decision based on the study’s purpose that sought to examine SBOE e-accessibility by the general public. However, we acknowledge the benefits of collecting interview data and, in a later section, elaborate on its use in future research.

Findings

This section reports findings about the four categories of the SBOE E-Accessibility Index based on the 47 SBOE website reviews. SBOE general characteristics are described first followed by SBOE member characteristics, SBOE meeting characteristics, and finally SBOE website design characteristics. The section concludes with reporting index scores for each state.

SBOE E-Accessibility Indicators

Category 1: SBOE general characteristics

Two indicators comprised the first category (see Table 2). Across 47 states, 81% (38) included a general description of their SBOE while 19% (9) did not. Fewer states, though, noted their SBOE’s source of authority (e.g., state constitution, state statute). Only 70% (33) explained the source while nearly a third (14) did not.

Table 2.

Findings on Select State Board of Education (SBOE) E-Accessibility Index Indicators.

Category	Indicator	Yes	No
SBOE general characteristics	General description (e.g., purpose)	81% (38)	19% (9)
SBOE general characteristics	Source of authority (e.g., statute)	70% (33)	30% (14)
SBOE member characteristics	Member directory	100% (47)	0% (0)
	Member photos	81% (38)	19% (9)
	Member biographies	83% (39)	17% (8)
	Professional information in member biographies	83% (39)	17% (8)
	Personal information in member biographies	66% (31)	34% (16)
	Civic information in member biographies	83% (39)	17% (8)
	Member term start and/or end dates	79% (37)	21% (10)
	Member titles (e.g., chair, secretary)	96% (45)	4% (2)
	Member voting record	0% (0)	100% (47)
SBOE meeting characteristics	Meeting agendas	91% (43)	9% (4)
	Meeting minutes	87% (41)	13% (6)
	Vote counts included in meeting minutes	36% (17)	64% (30)
	Member names included with vote counts in meeting minutes	30% (14)	70% (33)
	Meeting livestream availability	45% (21)	55% (26)
	Meeting livestream enabling participation	4% (2)	96% (45)
	Meeting recordings (e.g., audio, video)	57% (27)	43% (20)
SBOE website design characteristics	Contact information	62% (29)	38% (18)
	Citizen participation information (e.g., submit comments)	36% (17)	64% (30)
	Social media account information	87% (41)	13% (6)
	Broken links during data collection	9% (4)	91% (43)

Note. The total sample size is 47 since Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin along with the District of Columbia do not have state boards of education. SBOE = state board of education.

Category 2: SBOE member characteristics

The second category had nine indicators centered on SBOE members (see Table 2). All 47 states listed their SBOE’s members; however, only 81% (38) of states provided photos of one or more SBOE members and 83% (39) of states attached some kind of member biography. In examining the content of biographies, all 39 states that offered them included professional background and civic participation information. Only 31 states (66%), however, noted any personal information about SBOE members, such as their hometowns, partners, or families, which can provide significant insight into their influence networks.

Regarding SBOE member terms of service, 79% (37) of states provided information. Specifically, 45% (21) of states included both term start and end dates, 11% (5) of states included only term start dates, and 23% (11) of states included only term end dates while 21% (10) of states included no information about SBOE members’ terms of service. Turning to titles and votes, nearly all states (96%; 45) listed their SBOE’s leadership, such as the chair, vice chair, and/or secretary. No state, however, listed the votes or voting records of their SBOE members. Only meeting minutes provided any indication of how SBOE members voted on motions, issues, and policies. Category 3 elaborates upon these and other SBOE meeting characteristics.

Category 3: SBOE meeting characteristics

The third category included 14 indicators on the characteristics of SBOE meetings (see Tables 2 and 3). All SBOEs held formal meetings to organize their work and perform their functions, but the number of meetings among states ranged considerably. For instance, the Maine State Board of Education hosted only two meetings in 2018 compared to the North Carolina State Board of Education, which convened 32 times over the same 12-month time period (M = 12.46).

Table 3.

Findings on Select State Board of Education (SBOE) E-Accessibility Index Indicators.

Category	Indicator	N	Mean	Min.	Max.
SBOE meeting characteristics	Number of meeting agendas available	44	96.27	1	313
	First year of meeting agendas archives available	43	2011	1996	2019
	Number of meetings in 2018	47	12.46	2	32
	Number of meeting minutes available	41	123.46	12	608
	First year of meeting minutes archives available	41	2010	1995	2018
	Number of meeting recordings available	25	69.88	1	226
	First year of meeting recordings archives available	24	2013	1995	2018
SBOE website design characteristics	Number of SBOE-specific tabs on SBOE homepage	47	7.83	3	24
	Number of clicks to view general description	42	0.76	0	2
	Number of clicks to view member directory	44	1.45	0	4
	Number of clicks to view member biographies	40	1.83	0	5
	Number of clicks to view meeting locations	47	1.19	0	4
	Number of clicks to view meeting agendas	41	2.27	1	5
	Number of clicks to view meeting minutes	41	2.27	1	5
	Number of clicks to view meeting recordings	25	2.40	1	5
	Number of clicks to view contact information	45	0.69	0	2

Note. The total sample size is 47 since Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin along with the District of Columbia do not have state boards of education. SBOE = state board of education.

Regarding the official records of SBOE meetings (see Table 3), 91% (43) of states posted meeting agendas. Archives of agendas, however, varied by state with Utah making available agendas from 1996 to 2019—a 23-year span—while Illinois, Maine, and West Virginia only included agendas for the current calendar year. On average, states provided agendas from 2011 to present, and the number of available agendas ranged from one (Pennsylvania) to 313 (Connecticut) (M = 96). Turning to meeting minutes, 87% (41) of states provided minutes documents or packets, though availability differed across states. Some states, such as Arkansas and Utah, posted minutes dating back to the mid-1990s when other states like Alaska and Connecticut only offered minutes archives from the past 2 years (2018 and 2019). On average, SBOE websites archived minutes from 2010 to present, and the number of available minutes ranged from 12 (Alaska) to 608 (Arkansas). Extending the prior section on voting, 36% (17) of states included vote counts in their minutes, and fewer (30%; 14) states attached SBOE member names to the vote counts.

A final characteristic of SBOE meetings consisted of recordings—livestream, audio only, video only, or a combination of audio and video. Approximately 45% (21) of states livestreamed their SBOE’s meetings, but just 4% (2) of states used a livestreaming approach that permitted the public to participate, such as submitting questions via a chat box. A larger number of states—57% (27)—made available meeting recordings with archives ranging from 1995 (Arkansas) to 2018 (Kentucky, Mississippi, and Utah). SBOE websites, on average, included about 70 meeting audio and/or video recordings with West Virginia listing only one recording while Arkansas provided 226 recordings for review.

Category 4: SBOE website design characteristics

The final category of indicators focused on the design characteristics of SBOE websites, particularly those that facilitated communication between the SBOE and the general public. Website tabs, which represent major topic areas of a website (e.g., “About Us”), served as an indicator of the potential breadth of available content.

The number of SBOE-specific tabs ranged from 3 (Kentucky) to 24 (California) with an average of eight tabs across the 47 websites. When it came to accessing specific pieces of information (see Table 3), it took less than one click on average for the public to view the SBOE’s general description (M = 0.76) and the SBOE’s contact information (M = 0.69). It took between one and two clicks on average to view the SBOE’s member directory (M = 1.45) and biographies of SBOE members (M = 1.83). In some states like Illinois, it took up to five separate clicks before the public could view either the member directory or member biographies. For SBOE meeting information, it took an average of one to two clicks to view meeting locations (M = 1.19) and two to three clicks to view meeting agendas (M = 2.27), meeting minutes (M = 2.27), and meeting recordings (M = 2.40). In states like Louisiana and Utah, however, it took up to five separate clicks to access select SBOE meeting information.

Given this study’s purpose of assessing SBOEs as avenues for public voice, the contact information and methods listed on websites were of particular interest (see Tables 3 and 4). Among the 47 states, 62% (29) included some kind of contact information while 38% (18) of states did not. Fewer states—36% (17)—listed either general or specific details related to how citizens could participate in SBOE’s work (e.g., ask questions, submit comments) while 64% (30) of states did not provide any information on how the public could engage their SBOE. Regarding social media, however—which is a key element of the OGMM—87% (41) of states included links to one or more SBOE- or SEA-specific social media accounts, such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Among those 41 states, seven had SBOE-managed accounts—six of which had evidence of frequent (i.e., within the past 30 days) and regular (i.e., monthly) posts. Only two of these seven states, though, appeared to engage the public by replying to comments on social media accounts, either at all or with any frequency. While analyzing the content of SBOE-related media shared on these types of services is outside the present study’s scope, we consider these findings an important opportunity for future research.

Table 4.

Findings on State Board of Education (SBOE) Website Contact Methods.

Category	Indicator	Population	Phone only	Email only	Both phone/email	Neither phone/email
SBOE website design characteristics	Contact methods	General SBOE	13% (6)	6% (3)	55% (26)	26% (12)
		General SEA	32% (15)	0% (0)	68% (32)	0% (0)
		SBOE leadership	2% (1)	36% (17)	28% (13)	34% (16)
		SBOE individual members	2% (1)	36% (17)	28% (13)	34% (16)

Note. SBOE = state board of education; SEA = state education agency.

Moving from general to specific contact methods, website reviews examined four possible avenues for contacting SBOEs (see Table 4). The first avenue involved providing a general phone number and/or email address for contacting an SBOE (e.g., “sboe@state.gov”). Fifty-five percent (26) of states provided this information while 26% (12) did not. For the second avenue, some states directed the public to contact the SEA—not the SBOE—via phone or email. Sixty-eight percent (32) of states employed this dual-contact approach to the SEA while 32% (15) of states only shared a general SEA phone number. The third and fourth avenues concerned contacting SBOE members, either just the SBOE’s leadership (e.g., chair) or each individual SBOE member. Findings for both avenues were the same with 28% (13) of states offering both a unique phone number and a unique email address for their SBOE’s leaders and individual members while 36% (17) of states only listed a unique email address and 34% (16) of states included no contact information for SBOE leaders or members.

As a final indicator of SBOE website design, our research team recorded whether any links were broken as we attempted to access webpages and documents. Nine percent (4) of states had missing or broken links while 91% (43) did not.

SBOE E-Accessibility Index Scores

In the spirit of the OGMM (Lee & Kwak, 2012), a product of this study is the creation of a SBOE E-Accessibility Index, which is based on the aforementioned series of indicators grouped into four categories. Table 5 details findings for each state with total scores ranging from 18 (Florida) to 39.5 (Utah), and the average score being 28.67 across the 47 states. In reviewing the categories, 14 states included a sizeable amount of information about their SBOE’s members compared to states like Florida, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, which scored the lowest in the SBOE member characteristics category. It is worth noting that those states where the state capital, and thus the SBOE headquarters, is located in an urbanized area scored significantly higher on the E-Accessibility Index (M = 30.4, SD = 3.9) than states where the state capital is not located in an urbanized area (M = 27.9, SD = 4.2), t(26.8) = −1.97, p = .029. A two-sample t-test for unequal sample sizes showed a statistically significant difference between the mean index scores of these two groups, which could signal that states with capitals in urbanized areas have SBOEs with greater e-accessibility.

Table 5.

SBOE E-Accessibility Index Scores Sorted From Highest to Lowest.

State	General chars.sub-score	Member chars.sub-score	Meeting chars.sub-score	Website designsub-score	Total score	# of Urbanized Areas	Capital in urbanized area?
Utah	2	6.5	13	18	39.5	1	Y
Georgia	1	7.5	9.5	17.5	35.5	1	Y
California	2	7	12.5	13.5	35	12	Y
Louisiana	2	7	8.5	16.5	34	1
Nebraska	2	7.5	8.5	16	34
Michigan	2	6.5	11	14	33.5	2
Wyoming	1	8	8	16	33
North Carolina	1	7.5	8	16	32.5	2	Y
Texas	1	8	6.5	17	32.5	4	Y
Washington	2	8	5.5	17	32.5	1
Oklahoma	0	7	9	15.5	31.5	1	Y
New York	0	7	7	17	31	4
Oregon	2	8	10	11	31	1
Arkansas	2	7	11.5	10	30.5
Kansas	0	7.5	7	16	30.5
Rhode Island	1	8	9	12.5	30.5	1	Y
Virginia	2	8	6	14.5	30.5	3	Y
Indiana	2	7	8	13	30	1	Y
Nevada	2	8	5	14.5	29.5	1
South Dakota	2	7	9	11.5	29.5
Alabama	1	8	8.5	11.5	29	1
Montana	1	7.5	7.5	13	29
New Jersey	2	7.5	4	15.5	29	4
Vermont	2	3	7	17	29
Hawaii	2	8	5	13.5	28.5
Idaho	2	8	5	13.5	28.5
Ohio	1	7	9	11.5	28.5	3	Y
Maryland	1	8	7	12	28	1
West Virginia	1	8	8.5	10	27.5
Massachusetts	1	7.5	2.5	16	27	2	Y
Missouri	2	6.5	4	14.5	27	2
Tennessee	1	8	6	12	27	2	Y
Connecticut	2	6.5	6.5	11.5	26.5	1	Y
Kentucky	2	6.5	5	13	26.5	1
Mississippi	2	3.5	9	12	26.5
Colorado	2	8	4	12	26	1	Y
Iowa	1	6	6	13	26
Illinois	1	7	5.5	12	25.5	1
Alaska	2	4	3.5	15.5	25
South Carolina	2	7	2	13.5	24.5
Maine	1	5.5	2	15.5	24
New Hampshire	2	6.5	6	9.5	24
Arizona	2	3	5.5	13	23.5	2	Y
Delaware	0	2.5	6.5	14.5	23.5
North Dakota	2	2	4.5	15	23.5
Pennsylvania	2	2	3	13	20	2
Florida	2	2	2.5	11.5	18	1
Range	0 to 2	2 to 8	2 to 13	9.5 to 18	18 to 39.5	1 to 12	N/A

Scores for the third category on SBOE meeting characteristics varied considerably from 2 to 13. States like Arkansas, California, and Utah scored the highest, often because of their extensive archives of meeting agendas, minutes, and recordings. On the contrary, states like Massachusetts, Florida, South Carolina, and Maine had the lowest scores for SBOE meeting characteristics. The fourth category on SBOE website design characteristics exhibited similar variation with scores from 9.5 to 18. The SBOE websites for Utah and Georgia, for instance, received scores nearly double those of the websites for SBOEs in Arkansas, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.

Discussion

Applied to SBOEs, the OGMM consists of five levels that range from initial conditions (Level 1) and data transparency (Level 2) to the public participating in SBOE activities (Level 3), the public actively collaborating with the SBOE (Level 4), and the public seamlessly engaging with multiple agencies involved in the SBOE’s work (Level 5) (Lee & Kwak, 2012). While all SBOEs had websites, the characteristics of those websites varied considerably, which aligns with prior research on state education-related websites (e.g., VanGronigen & Meyers, 2019). As subsequent sections detail, these differences influence the extent to which and how the public can engage with their SBOE.

Broadly speaking, most SBOEs seem to meet the criteria for the OGMM’s Levels 1 and 2. Beginning with Level 1, each SBOE had an online presence that catalogued information for the public to view and analyze. The extent and form of information, though, ranged by state. States like Arkansas and Utah, for example, posted select meeting records that dated back to the 1990s, while a handful of other states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia posted a more constrained set of records (often just the past year). By sheer volume, those living in the former states are in a better position to analyze longitudinally their SBOE’s activities compared to those in latter states.

The OGMM considers data transparency a good first step toward open government; however, the analysis of available records from SBOE websites would be cumbersome since nearly all websites shared meeting records as separate files (e.g., one PDF for each meeting). To gain specific insight about SBOE activities over the years, the public would need to complete the time-intensive task of downloading and merging potentially hundreds of files. Such conditions limit the ability of the public to meaningfully engage with and contribute to their SBOE’s work. To public information scholars Meijer and Thaens (2009), the burdens of data collection and analysis should be on the SBOE, not the public.

Turning from Level 1, Level 2 agencies use two-way communication methods such as email and social media to provide information and solicit feedback from the public (Lee & Kwak, 2012). This profile matches most SBOE websites, which employed an array of digital communication technologies. For example, a majority of SBOEs provided a generic SBOE email address and/or phone number; however, a much smaller percentage provided contact information for individual members. This lack of access to public officials is particularly surprising for states that select or elect SBOE members from geographic districts (Kysilko, 2011; McCarthy et al., 1993). Perhaps of greater concern, however, 38% (18) of SBOEs failed to list any type of contact information, which seriously inhibits public engagement outside of attending meetings in-person. Relatedly, only 36% (17) of SBOEs explicitly described how the public could engage with their SBOE. Simply posting contact information like email addresses and/or phone numbers, we think, indicated an implicit solicitation for feedback. An explicit mention, on the other hand, overtly noted the SBOE’s desire for soliciting feedback from the public (e.g., “Make your voice heard on issues by calling or emailing us”).

One encouraging finding related to Level 2 concerned SBOEs’ use of social media. While the present study did not analyze the content of SBOE-related social media accounts, a social media presence can enable SBOEs to move from one-way, static communication methods like posting meeting records files (Level 1) to actively engaging the public about the SBOE’s work (Level 2). A large percentage of SBOEs (81%) did list social media account information on their websites, though the “owners” of those accounts differed. In some cases, SBOEs had their own accounts, but in other states social media links pointed the public to general SEA accounts that included SBOE-specific information among other education information, such as the SEA director’s travels, curriculum initiatives, and licensure details.

Moving up the OGMM’s levels, findings offered scant evidence for SBOE websites being at Levels 3, 4, or 5—either individually or in aggregate. This suggests much room for improvement, and aligns with findings from other studies that employed an OGMM-related framework, especially those examining e-participation opportunities among municipal (e.g., Zheng & Schachter, 2018) and national (e.g., Veljković et al., 2014; Wang & Lo, 2016) governmental bodies. Recalling Lee and Kwak’s (2012) criteria, Level 3 SBOE websites would need to prominently incorporate (and promote) digital technologies that supported active public engagement in and feedback opportunities concerning current SBOE work, including policy issues and decisions. We found that only 4% (2) of SBOEs used a livestreaming approach that let the public participate in SBOE meetings (e.g., typing comments in a chat box, asking a question via video). This limitation seems particularly unfortunate, given the potential convenience of online versus in-person participation, which is hindered for many citizens by (a) the lack of timely information on meeting agendas, (b) the fact that most meetings are held during the workday, and (c) the fact that meetings are generally held in the state capital, which can mean the need to travel long distances.

Level 4 agencies provide avenues for the public to participate in “open collaboration” (Lee & Kwak, 2012, p. 498) and rely less on expressive engagement forms like social media and more on collaborative engagement forms like Google Docs and online message boards. We found no evidence of open collaboration. Level 5 increases the expectation for open collaboration by facilitating the public’s “ubiquitous engagement” (p. 493) across multiple government agencies. We saw virtually no evidence of these characteristics among the 47 SBOE websites.

Future Research and Conclusions

Building toward a more open government model through digital means holds significant possibilities for SBOEs. Through comparative research, scholars have found e-participation to be far more interactive (Barnes & Williams, 2012), efficient (Zheng & Liao, 2014) and transparent (Zheng & Schachter, 2018) than traditional political involvement. By enhancing opportunities for public engagement, e-participation could provide urban education issues a platform for more equitable consideration. The OGMM offers government entities guidance for increasing their transparency, becoming more interactive, and supporting public engagement and collaboration in government work through digital technologies.

At this time, we are not in a position to explain why SBOEs are operating primarily at Levels 1 and 2; however, it is likely due in part to a lack of resources. Like many state governmental bodies, SBOEs tend to be modestly staffed or simply under-staffed (Henig, 2013; Young et al., 2019). It is also unclear why states with capitals in urbanized areas scored higher in terms of SBOE website e-accessibility. While this finding may be related to staffing and other infrastructure issues specifically (e.g., urban districts’ proximity to SBOE headquarters), it could also be related to a more open governance model generally. It is clear, though, that many states have a long way to go before they are able to proclaim themselves open governmental bodies. In order to increase e-accessibility, transparency, and engagement, states will need to build out their digital presence, resources, and online opportunities for engagement.

Our findings and interest in learning more about SBOEs offer several avenues for future research, three of which we mention here. One line of inquiry could explore more deeply why SBOEs appear to be stuck at lower levels of the OGMM and what might need to occur to move SBOEs up to Levels 3, 4, or even 5. Research investigating these questions could involve interviews with SBOE and SEA staff members, including assistants and information technology consultants, exploring current and historical engagement priorities, communication strategies, available technologies, and other resources, such as outreach efforts to various types of districts (e.g., urban, rural).

These types of questions align with recent reports of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018) E-Participation Index, which calls upon governmental bodies to not only make information available to the general public, but to ensure that information is of high-quality and useful for robust citizen participation. For SBOEs, it would be particularly helpful to understand the extent to which SBOE members desire to engage with the general public—and how they would want to engage. Levels 4 and 5 of the OGMM require using ideation tools, such as discussion boards and seamless collaboration across state governmental bodies. Implementing these approaches to public engagement requires a “willingness” to do so, which has yet to be carefully examined. Given that state legislation and programming designed to address urban issues has historically been given short shrift, studies designed to assess engagement and “willingness” to engage around urban issues could be informative.

A second line begins with SBOE members and how they engage with the general public. Analyses of social media profiles, for example, can help describe these policymakers’ “e-presence” and offer insight into whom they spend time with during their terms. Ideally, research on this topic would use social network analysis (e.g., Cross et al., 2001) and interviews to construct and describe SBOE members’ personal and professional advice networks. Given the increasing importance of SBOE members as educational policymakers, it is imperative for the field to learn more about who these people are and whom they speak with before making decisions.

A final line of inquiry focuses on the work of SBOEs. The present study’s results indicated wide divergence in SBOE meeting characteristics, most notably the frequency of meetings. The fact that one SBOE met 32 times during a given year while another held only two meetings suggests a qualitatively different approach to the work of SBOEs. Research on this topic could move beyond general categories of SBOEs’ work (e.g., adopting curriculum standards, approving school improvement plans) and explore the nature of the work.

Many questions remain about SBOEs—who is on them, how they get selected or elected, what they do, whom they talk to and why, what decisions they make, and the influence they have over education within districts, their state, and larger regions. State governments, policymakers, and civil servants have considerable influence over their educational systems, and disproportionate representation in elected and appointed positions has long exaggerated rural and suburban influences, while diluting the influence of urban voices, in state governance (Gamm & Kousser, 2010). Consequently, more attention should be focused on understanding these state-level policy actors, their organizations, and their influence. SBOEs represent an important, but understudied, policy entity that deserve more of our attention.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Michelle D. Young

Notes

Author Biographies

Michelle D. Young is a professor of education leadership and policy and dean of the School of Education at Loyola Marymount University, president of the National Policy Board for Educational Administration, and UCEA executive director emeritus. Young works with universities, practitioners and state and national leaders to improve leadership preparation, practice and policy. Her scholarship, which focuses on leadership development and educational politics and policy, has been published in the American Educational Research Journal, Educational Administration Quarterly, and the Journal of Educational Administration, among other journals.

Bryan A. VanGronigen is an assistant professor of educational leadership in the School of Education at the University of Delaware. His research focuses on organizational resilience and change management in pre-K–12 schools and districts, the role and influence of external providers in pre-K–12 education, and educational leaders’ judgment and decision making processes.

Kevin Rodriguez is an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia, where he is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Political Philosophy, Policy, and Law. Following graduation, he plans to attend law school in preparation for a career as a lawyer or politician.

Sarah Tmimi has her BA in Government and Women, Gender & Sexuality from the University of Virginia. She is currently pursuing a Master of Public Policy from the University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy.

Amelia McCrory is an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia, where she is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Economics. Originally from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Amelia is considering a career as a consultant following graduation.

References

Ahram

Stembridge

Fergus

, & Noguera. (2012). Framing urban school challenges: The problems to examine when implementing Response to Intervention. RTI Action Network at the National Center for Learning Disabilities. http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/urban-school-challenges

Baron

(2016). Finding a balance for the federal role in education policy. Carnegie commons blog. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/finding-a-balance-for-the-federal-role-in-education-policy/

Barnes

Williams

(2012). Applying technology to enhance citizen engagement with city and county government. In Schachter

H. L.

Yang

(Eds.), The state of citizen participation in America (pp. 163–194). Information Age.

Bovaird

(2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.

Campbell

R. F.

Mazzoni

T. L.

Jr. (Eds.). (1974). State policy making for the public schools: A comparative analysis. Ohio State University, Educational Governance Project. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED095666.pdf

Coglianese

(2006). Citizen participation in rulemaking: Past, present, and future. Duke Law Journal, 55(5), 943–968.

Cross

Borgatti

S. P.

Parker

(2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215–235.

Coleman

Freelon

(Eds.). (2015). Handbook of digital politics. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Corti

(2004). Archival research. In Lewis-Beck

M. S.

Bryman

Futing Liao

(Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 21–23). Sage.

10.

Gamm

Kousser

(2010). The embattled metropolis: Big cities in American state legislatures. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1642912

11.

Gill

T. M.

(2018). Why the power elite continues to dominate American politics. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/24/why-power-elite-continues-dominate-american-politics/

12.

Gottschalk

(2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 75–81.

13.

Hagedorn

Kmiecik

Simpson

Gradel

T. J.

Mouritsen-Zmuda

Sterrett

(2013). Crime, corruption and cover-ups in the Chicago police department. University of Illinois at Chicago. http://pols.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/273/2018/10/ac_policecorruptionb6e6.pdf

14.

Henig

J. R.

(2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. Harvard Education Press.

15.

Howe

(2008). Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Random House.

16.

Kim

Lee

(2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.

17.

Kondracki

N. L.

Wellman

N. S.

Amundson

D. R.

(2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34(4), 224–230.

18.

Kysilko

(2011). State boards: A critical link to quality education. Policy Update (NASBE), 18(2), 1–2.

19.

Layne

Lee

(2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122–136.

20.

Lee

Kwak

Y.H.

(2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 492–503.

21.

Meijer

Thaens

(2009). Public information strategies: Making government information available to citizens. Information Polity, 14(1/2), 31–45.

22.

Merriam

S. B.

Greiner

R. S.

(2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

23.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561.

24.

Prior

(2008). Document analysis. In Given

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 230–232). Sage.

25.

Robbins

M. D.

Simonsen

Feldman

(2008). Citizens and resource allocation: Improving decision making with interactive web-based citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 564–575.

26.

Rossman

G. B.

Rallis

S. F.

(2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.

27.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

28.

Slevin

(2005). Kansas Education Board first to back “Intelligent Design.” The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html

29.

The White House. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: Transparency and open government. Author.

30.

U.S. Department of Education. (2019). The federal role in education. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

31.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UNDESA]. (2018). E-Government survey 2018: E-Government for the people. http://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2018

32.

VanGronigen

B. A.

Meyers

C. V.

(2019). How state education agencies are administering school turnaround efforts: 15 years after No Child Left Behind. Educational Policy, 33(3), 423–452.

33.

Viborg Andersen

Henriksen

H. Z.

Secher

Medaglia

. (2007). Costs of e-participation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43.

34.

Veljković

Bogdanović-Dinić

Stoimenov

(2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 278–290.

35.

Wang

H. J.

(2016). Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80–88.

36.

Wirtz

B. W.

Birkmeyer

(2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381–396.

37.

Young

M. D.

Reynolds

A. L.

(2017). Critically examining policy workers and policy work within state boards of education. In Young

M. D.

Diem

(Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis-moving beyond tradition (pp. 19–42). Springer International Publishing.

38.

Young

M. D.

VanGronigen

B. A.

Reynolds

A. L.

(2019). State boards of education: Lesser known policy actors. Educational Policy, 33(1), 205–233.

39.

Zheng

Schachter

H. L.

(2018). The impact of administrator willingness on website e-participation: Some evidence from municipalities. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(1), 1–21.

40.

Zheng

Liao

(2014). Improving citizen participation via e-government: The why and how. In Holzer

Manoharan

(Eds.), E-government and websites: A public solutions handbook (pp. 112–134). M. E. Sharpe.