MADISON, Wis. – As part of a broader look at curriculum used in public schools across the state, the Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty, a conservative grassroots group, has outlined 7 layers of educational administration and bureaucracy in the state. Graphically depicting the current system, the group argues that, “A hard look needs to be taken at the structure of education administration in Wisconsin.”

Not only does Wisconsin have multiple layers of decision-making, taxing and spending authority involved in education, not all of the entities are directly responsible to voters. Individual schools are part of school districts that are overseen by elected school boards that oversee the work of a school district administrator appointed by the school board. Voters pick school board members in non-partisan spring elections.

The state legislature, made up of 132 elected lawmakers, works with the governor to produce biannual state budgets that allocate state educational aid money to local schools, and passes legislation outlining parameters that must be followed by the state Department of Public Instruction. The DPI in turn is run by an elected superintendent of public instruction who is required to be non-partisan, but is not required to free from close associations with unions.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

The sprawling DPI bureaucracy is tasked with implementing policy determined by the governor and the legislature, but career bureaucrats within the agency wield enough responsibility to make implementation slow. Additionally, decisions by the DPI are not always subject to legislative review unless lawmakers proactively choose to review the agency’s actions.

DPI’s initial adoption of Common Core educational standards was done without legislative oversight, as state Rep. Dean Knudson noted in an editorial for the MacIver Institute in December of 2013. “[T]he process that led up the adoption of these academic standards involved very little public input, and they were adopted outside of the consideration of the legislature,” he wrote.

DPI also acted without legislative approval when it independently decided to work with the U.S. Department of Justice by collecting information about choice schools. The DOJ was attempting to determine if schools involved in the choice program perhaps violated federal disability laws. Several lawmakers, including Sen. Paul Farrow and Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, wrote a stern letter to DPI asking the agency to release more details about its coordination with the Obama administration’s DOJ.

U.S. Department of Education mandates also influence education policy at the local level in Wisconsin because of federal grants and funds made available to schools and the state DPI.

Two additional groups also shape educational decisions at the local level: Cooperative Educational Service Agencies – CESAs – and the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.

The WASB is a non-governmental group that describes itself as “a member-driven organization that supports, promotes and advances the interests of public education in Wisconsin.” According to Government Accountability Board records, the group spent $398,414.50 between January 2013 and June 2014 lobbying the legislature.

MORE NEWS: How to prepare for face-to-face classes

CESAs are regional cooperatives spread across the state – there are 12 of them – that provide contracted services to school districts. According to CESA 12′s website, the groups are “a government subdivision” and they receive a little bit of state money. The majority of their funding comes from federal grants and moneys they collect from local school districts. CESAs are not accountable to voters, and are governed instead by representatives of local school boards.

The Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty report explains some of the interaction between school boards, WASB and CESA: “Elected school board members can serve the district, represent their district in their regional WASB, and be the representative for the CESA district.”

Although the conservative group makes no recommendation about the multiple layers of decision-making and responsibility, it does suggest that further study would be warranted to gauge the effectiveness of the current system.

Authored by Brian Sikma

Published with permission