Request By:
The Honorable J. Gary Bale
General Counsel
Office of Legal Education
Department of Education
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: FREDERIC J. COWAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; Anne E. Keating, Assistant Attorney General
In your recent letter you requested an opinion on behalf of the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education on questions concerning the showing of instructional TV programming, with commercials included, in the classroom. These questions developed when the State Board reviewed proposals by Whittle Communications' Educational Network "Channel One," to negotiate contracts with individual school districts by which the districts would receive a satellite dish, two central VCRs and a television set for every 23 pupils with wiring throughout the school to place all of the televisions on the same system. In return, the school would agree to show a twelve minute daily news broadcast that has a teen viewer focus. Two of the twelve minutes would consist of advertisements screened by Whittle for appropriateness for school children. Individual daily segments could be screened by school personnel, and not shown, if deemed inappropriate for any reason. Also, the school board could rescind the contract with Whittle Communications at any time, upon which the equipment would be removed. In addition to Channel One, Whittle Communications would make available to the schools the educators' channel, which is in the process of development, to provide information to professionals about trends and events in their field. Whittle Communications also would offer the classroom channel, which provides additional instructional material without advertisements.
You have asked three specific questions about this proposed contractual arrangement, which we will answer in turn.
1. Does existing law in any way prohibit, outright, local school districts from showing instructional TV programming with commercials included?
Two sections of the Kentucky Constitution are relevant to this inquiry. The first one is Section 184, which states in pertinent part:
The bond of the Commonwealth issued in favor of the Board of Education . . . held by the Board of Education, and its proceeds, shall be held inviolate for the purpose of sustaining the system of common schools. The interest and dividends of said fund, together with any sum which may be produced by taxation or otherwise for purposes of common school education, shall be appropriated to the common schools, and to no other purpose . . . .
The second is Section 186, which states in pertinent part:
All funds accruing to the school fund shall be used for the maintenance of the public schools of the Commonwealth, and for no other purpose . . . .
These constitutional provisions provide that school funds may be used only for maintenance of the public schools, i.e. , for educational purposes. See, for example,
Board of Education of City of Covington v. Board of Trustees of Public Library of City of Covington, 113 Ky. 234, 68 S.W. 10, 12 (1902).
The same standard holds true for gifts, grants, and devises to school boards, pursuant to KRS 160.580, which provides:
All sums arising from any gift, grant or devise by any person wherein the intent is expressed that the same is to be used to aid in the education of children in any school district in this state shall be held and used for the purposes specified in the gift, grant or devise. The district board of education shall receive the gift, grant or devise for the benefit of the schools of its district and shall hold and use it as requested by the donor or devisor, provided that the purpose for which it is used shall be in harmony with the aims and general program of public education in this state.
Accordingly, whether the instructional TV programming at issue in this matter is characterized as a gift from Whittle Communications to the school districts, or whether the instructional TV programming is characterized as an expenditure of school funds, the local school districts may only purchase or accept the TV programming if it is for an educational purpose.
The legal determination of whether an expenditure or a gift is for an educational purpose has evolved but the standard is not totally clear. The Courts early held that to appropriate any part of school funds to another purpose, i.e. , to allow school funds to be tapped for the cost of street improvements by assessment, or by lien on taxes, would violate Section 184 of the
Kentucky Constitutional. City of Louisville v. Leatherman, 99 Ky. 213, 335 S.W. 625 (1896). Next, the Courts examined legislation to make public libraries accessible to common schools through appropriation of taxes, to be collected by the city council, and to be turned over to the school board for the public library. While there was no doubt that the money was levied and collected for school purposes, the Court held that school funds could not be appropriated to maintain a public library which would not be under control of the board of education or of common schools. Board of Education of City of Covington, supra.
The courts also examined whether the contemplated expenditure or gift was for the interest of the schools comprising the district making the expenditure or accepting the gift, or, in other words, whether the expenditure or gift was beneficial to public education in Kentucky. See
Board of Education of Bowling Green v. Simmons, 245 Ky. 493, 53 S.W.2d 940 (1932);
Schuerman v. State Board of Education, 284 Ky. 556, 145 S.W.2nd 42, 45 (1940). Participation in the Kentucky School Board Association through the payment of dues from school funds for the local board met the test, Schuerman, supra, as did the creation of the position of school nurse and teacher of health and physical education. Board of Education of Bowling Green, supra.
The courts have clarified that not necessarily everything that benefits education constitutes an educational purpose within the meaning of Sections 180 and 184 of the Constitution, because any public project would probably have some educational benefit.
Board of Education of Spencer County v. Spencer County, 313 Ky. 8, 230 S.W.2d 81 (1950). If the benefit of an activity is only incidental to education, then the activity does not constitute an educational purpose.
Board of Education of City of Covington v. Board of Trustees of Public Library of City of Covington, 113 Ky. 234, 68 S.W. 10 (1902). Activities that have been deemed incidental to education and, therefore, not constituting educational purposes, have included the maintenance of a public library that was not part of the school or controlled by the school, Board of Education of City of Covington, supra, and financing the construction of a flood wall, Board of Education of Spencer County, supra.
Furthermore, the courts have held that determination of an educational purpose is a matter of opinion, and unless the particular expenditure is extreme, or clearly not educational, the legislature has the right to declare what constitutes an educational purpose.
Board of Education v. Talbott, 286 Ky. 543, 151 S.W.2d 42 (1941).
This office has addressed questions of educational purpose on many occasions. For example, OAG 73-754 held that a school district's use of school funds to subsidize the school lunch program was an educational purpose and did not violate Sections 184 and 186 of the Kentucky Constitution. Based on an administrative requlation promulgated by the State Board of Education, this office noted that the State Board regarded school lunch programs as an integral part of the function of common schools. Also, the expenditure proposed in that instance was different from circumstances in which school funds would go to other public agencies over which school districts had no control, and for purposes for which it had no responsibility in its normal educational program, i.e. , assessments to help build a flood wall or for a public library.
In OAG 76-592 this office addressed the propriety of using school buildings for polling places. The issue, in particular, was whether any costs of opening the school on presidential election day for use as polling places would constitute an improper use of public common school funds in that all schools would be closed on presidential election day per KRS 2.190. While the school board wished to have a custodian on the premises of each school, at a cost of $ 2,100, and would incur the cost of utilities, this office opined that the potential expenses placed on the school system by having the schools open on a day when they would otherwise be closed would be de minimus . While mindful of the constitutional provisions on educational purpose, this office considered that the issue presented involved an expense so small and incidental as not to be proscribed by the Kentucky Constitution.
Based on the case law and on the opinions previously issued by this office, it is our conclusion that the news programs presented by Channel One fall within the definition of an educational purpose. The television news programming, clearly, is not incidental to education where the content of the programming addresses such core areas of curriculum as geography, history and current events. The fact that commercials are included for two out of twelve minutes of the programming does not change that conclusion. It is the educational purpose of the programming as a whole that must be assessed; in this case, the commercials constitute such a very small proportion of the programming that the educational purpose of the programming as a whole must be seen as educational. Also, the agreement to participate in Channel One would be directly under the control of the state or local board of education or school council.
Because the news programs at issue in this matter have an educational purpose, the use of these news programs in the public schools would not be prohibited by Sections 184 and 186 of the Kentucky Constitution or by KRS 160.580. Moreover, we know of no other constitutional or statutory provision that would prohibit the use of these news programs in the public schools. [Note that the General Assembly has addressed educational television previously, although, in the context of eligibility for federal funding to establish a non-commercial station. See Attachment A.] Therefore, our opinion is that existing law does not prohibit, outright, local school districts from showing instructional TV programming with minimal commercials included.
2. If instructional TV programming with commercials included is allowed in the public schools, should the two minutes of commercial programming be excluded from the six hour day?
Based on OAG 76-592, discussed above, it is our determination that the news programs do constitute a legitimate educational purpose and that the two minutes of advertisements, from a legal point of view, may be considered de minimus . Accordingly, if instructional TV programming with commercials included is allowed in the public schools, then from a legal standpoint, it would not be required under Sections 184 and 186 of the Constitution to exclude the two minutes of commercial programming from the six hour day. This determination becomes, therefore, a matter of policy which the State Board may address.
3. Does the State Board have authority to ban any television instruction with commercial advertising if the board determines, as a matter of public policy, that such should not be utilized in the classroom?
Kentucky's highest Court early addressed the relationship between the State Board of Education and the county boards following reform of the school code in 1934. In
County Board of Education v. Goodpastor, 260 Ky. 198, 84 S.W.2d 55 (1935), the Court noted that prior to the 1934 act, gradually, community control of local schools gave way to more centralized control by a county board of education. As the legislature gave the county boards more power, with experience the benefits of centralized and unified management became apparent. Hence, in 1934, the legislature placed the power to determine general educational policies, in particular with regard to qualifications for teachers, curricula and supervision, with the State Board of Education. The authority to administer the affairs in each district remained with each county board.
Board of Education for Montgomery County v. Messer, 257 Ky. 836, 79 S.W.2d 224 (1935). This principle was reiterated concerning the authority of the State Board to remove members of a county board of education.
Gearhart v. Kentucky State Board of Education, Ky., 355 S.W.2d 667 (1962). The Court stated:
Appellants contend that the local boards of education are given direct administrative control over the affairs of the district. KRS 160.290. It is argued that 'home rule' should govern. This argument falls flat in the face of the expressions of control and means of enforcing control in certain instances of dereliction specifically mentioned. Further, the grant of administrative control to the local board in KRS 160.290 must be 'consistent with the rules and regulations' of the State Board as expressly provided therein. It, therefore, is clear that the Legislature intended that the local board school administration must be subject to the controls vested in the State Board and the Superintendent of Public Instruction as set forth in the statutes previously mentioned.
The Court of Appeals later stated that "[t]he ultimate responsibility for management and control of the programs operated within the common schools rests with the State Board. "
Mills v. Buell, Ky. App., 685 S.W.2d 561 (1985). The Court relied on KRS 156.070, which reads, in pertinent part:
The state board for elementary and secondary education shall have the management and control of the common schools and all programs operated in such schools . . . .
This emphasis on state control was relied upon most recently by the Kentucky Supreme Court which set the parameters for education reform, based on Section 183 of the Kentucky Constitution. That section requires that the General Assembly "provide an efficient system of common schools throughout the state." The Court concluded:
1) The General Assembly is mandated, is duty bound to create and maintain a system of common schools - throughout the state.2) The expressed purpose of providing such service is vital and critical to the well being of the state.3) The system of common schools must be efficient.4) The system of common schools must be free.5) The system of common schools must provide equal educational opportunities for all students in the Commonwealth.6) The state must control and administer the system.7) The system must be, if not uniform, "substantially uniform," with respect to the state as a whole.8) The system must be equal to and for all students.
Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc. , 36 KLS 6(26) (June 8, 1989), modified , 36 KLS 11 (September 28, 1989). In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted the importance of centralized control in meeting the constitutional mandate of Section 183, citing
Commonwealth ex rel. Baxter v. Burnett, 237 Ky. 473, 35 S.W.2d 857 (1931). These are acknowledged standards for the legislature and for the executive agencies in development of educational programs. They indicate that resources for education should be distributed equitably and under state control.
Clearly, then, the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education has control over the operation of the public schools in Kentucky. This central control extends to determining how educational equipment shall be provided and used in the schools and, also, how instruction shall be carried out, as shown by KRS 156.160, which presently states in pertinent part:
(1) The state board of education shall adopt rules and regulations relating to: (a) Minimum courses of study for the different grades and kinds of common schools, and regulations governing educational equipment of the schools; (b) Grading, classifying and accrediting all common schools, and for determining the scope of instruction that may be offered in the different classes of schools, and the minimum requirements for graduation from the courses offered. [Emphasis added.]
Although this statutory provision will change effective July 13, 1990, that change, which reads as follows, does not alter this basic concept of central control:
The State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education shall adopt administrative regulations establishing standards which school districts shall meet in student, program, service, and operational performance. These regulations shall comply with the expected outcomes for students and schools set forth in Section 3 of this Act. Administrative regulations shall be adopted for the following:(a) Courses of studies for the different grades and kinds of common schools . . .(b) The acquisition and use of educational equipment for the schools as recommended by the Council for Education Technology . . . .
The Council for Educational Technology, referred to in this new provision, is described in a new section of KRS Chapter 156, found in Section 21 of House Bill 940, which provides that the Council shall serve as an advisory group to the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education. The Council shall develop a plan by January 1, 1991, for the use of technology in schools within broad parameters set by the Board. The plan shall cover all aspects of the use of technology including working with private enterprise to develop technology and shall be approved by the Legislative Research Commission. The Council shall also recommend regulations to the Board which shall accept them unless they are inconsistent with basic policies of the Board. [See Attachment B.]
Based on the above discussion, it is our opinion that the State Board has the authority to ban television instruction with commercial advertising if the board determines, as a matter of public policy, that such should not be utilized in the classroom. It is also within the State Board's authority, after July 13, 1990, to rely on the Council for Educational Technology to advise it on this issue and to issue regulations based on the Council's recommendations.
In addition, it is our opinion that the State Board also has the authority to allow this issue to be resolved at the local school board level. It is important to understand that when the General Assembly reformed the system of common schools, House Bill 940 combined central control with local control via site based decision making. See House Bill 940, Sections 1 and 14 on pp. 1 and 36, enacted by the General Assembly in the 1990 Regular Session. Curriculum is no longer mandated by the General Assembly. Rather, the Council on School Performance Standards will frame goals and the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education will disseminate a model curriculum based on those goals. By January, 1991, each local board of education is to adopt a plan for school based decision making. School councils shall have the authority to determine how to meet the goals, inter alia, by:
1. Determination of curriculum including needs assessment, curriculum devfelopment, alignment with state standards, technology utilization , and program appraisal within the local school board's policy. [Emphasis added.]
Therefore, the State Board may allow curriculum and educational technology decisions to be strictly a local matter. Yet, even the new language of House Bill 940 requires that curricular materials be developed and reviewed by the local board, or, where in operation, by the school council. Therefore, if the State Board decides to allow this issue to be resolved at the local level, the local boards will need to assume the responsibility for reviewing any instructional television materials that are developed.
In summary, it is our opinion that the State Board has the authority either to ban television instruction with commercial advertising from the public schools or to allow a decision regarding that issue to be made at the local school board level.
While there are policy arguments to be made both in favor of and against the showing of educational news programs sponsored by advertisers, it is not the role of this office to make public policy but to define what is permissible under the law. Policy decisions remain the purview of the legislature and of those public bodies or political subdivisions to which it has granted discretion.
Baughn v. Gorrell and Riley, Ky., 224 S.W.2d 436 (1949).
We note for your information that there are policy arguments for both sides. Arguments against the program include the idea that it involves selling access to children's minds, that the program would result in over-commercialization of the schools which contain a captive audience due to the compulsory attendance rules. Others have maintained that providing commercial television in the schools suggests endorsement for the products, or may result in sponsors controlling the content of the programs. Some have pointed out that the television news is not screened in the same manner as other instructional materials. There have been charges that television lures children away from books, and that to provide commercial television in schools is hard on students who live in poverty and have no hope of being able to acquire the products that they are encouraged to buy, and even that children who are encouraged to buy brands may be at risk in areas where owning popular items may make them subject to robbery or personal danger. Some would complain that if the principal tells teachers to show the program, the teachers have lost discretion in the area of instruction, while others argue that it is not good to take away class time for commercial material.
Policy arguments in favor of the program have emphasized that there is a great need for resources in our schools, which for various reasons have not been forthcoming. Mr. Chris Whittle of Whittle Communications admits that in an ideal world it would be good to provide all equipment and programs without advertising, but that advertising makes this offer possible. Proponents state that the programming is a good and effective learning aid, combining well with instructional material already on hand and enhancing cultural literacy among an age group that traditionally does not read or watch the news and has little knowledge of geography, of political events or of their relevance. Others have pointed out that it is important for the private sector to work with schools in that the private sector experiences the direct result of our educational process and has experienced difficulty in finding qualified applicants for positions. Many educators have pointed out that commercial influences have existed in school systems for years, and that there is no material difference between providing two minutes of television advertisement on a twelve minute tape and in providing written materials that contain advertisements free or at a reduced rate, posters, electronic scoreboards, vending machines, commercially sponsored film strips, or allowing corporate sponsorship of athletic events in return for concession rights. Moreover, teachers have testified that students who have watched Channel One have improved in their knowledge of geography and their knowledge of world events and their relevance.
Other issues include whether decision making should be on a state level or local level, in central office or in the classroom; the proper balance between private participation in the public sector; the willingness and/or ability of taxpayers to provide the recommended equipment to the schools versus accessibility from the private sector; and the role of leaders of private business versus the role of educators.
An additional consideration for policy makers concerns current resources. The General Assembly increased Kentucky Educational Television's budget in 1990 for educational technology. The General Assembly appropriated approximately $ 3.6 million for KET to provide a Cabinet of Interactive Equipment for each school which will allow that school to communicate with a teacher who is in the process of a live broadcast. All schools will have satellite dishes, but not all classrooms will have televisions.
Finally, to the extent that the State Board considers regulation of instructional television programming that includes advertisements, the Board should be aware of other forms of commercial influence in the common schools, and may wish to consider their ramifications. Commercial sponsorship and promotion in elementary and secondary schools are not new in Kentucky. Examples include electronic scoreboards that carry the logo of the sponsor, vending machines of which schools may keep a portion of receipts, rights to advertise with banners at sports events in return for providing refreshments for players, mention of sponsors on programs and tickets, provision of computer equipment in exchange for grocery receipts, sponsoring of athletic championships, participation in programs which award food coupons to readers, advertisements in yearbooks and newspapers, fund raising campaigns which provide personal bonuses to fundraisers, and materials carrying the advertisers' logo or advertisements of sponsors such as newspapers and magazines provided for free or at reduced rates.
In summary:
(1) No existing law prohibits, outright, local districts from showing instructional TV programming with minimal commercials included so long as curricular materials are properly reviewed.
(2) If instructional TV programming, with minimal commercials included, is allowed in the public schools, then the two minutes of advertising do not have to be excluded from the six hour day.
(3) The state board has the authority to ban any television instruction with commercial advertising if the board determines as a matter of public policy that such should not be utilized in the classroom. The Board also has the authority to allow the local boards of education and school councils to decide this matter.
ATTACHMENT A
Note that the General Assembly spoke directly to the issue of educational television in 1962 when it passed certain provisions of KRS 168 on Educational Television (See KRS 168.010), and when it amended KRS 156.070, General powers and duties of state boards. In particular, the legislature authorized the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education to lease from the State Property and Buildings Commission or others any lands, buildings or facilities needed to establish and further television and related services to supplement classroom instruction throughout the Commonwealth. See KRS 156.070(3)(a).
While the legislature prohibited the State Board from operating the television facilities or from undertaking preparation of the educational material to be transmitted, the Board could do so by entering into contracts with a public agency or instrumentality of the Commonwealth. The Board was required be represented in the agency by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Department of Education to ensure coordination on matters of curricular materials with the curricula prescribed for the schools in the Commonwealth . A contract for use of the facilities would permit limited and special uses for other programs in the public interest, but the statute made it clear that " any such contract shall affirmatively forbid the use of the television or related facilities, at any time or in any manner, in the dissemination of political propaganda or in furtherance of the interest of any political party or candidate for public office, or for commercial advertising. " (Emphasis added.)
This language on commercial advertising may reflect the federal requirements concerning grants for educational television broadcasting facilities. 47 U.S.C. 392. In particular, the applicant, which could include, among others, an agency responsible for supervising public elementary or secondary education, or the State educational television agency had to assure the Secretary of the Federal Communications Commission of its eligibility under the regulations for a license for a noncommercial educational television broadcasting station.
Nevertheless, clearly the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education would be precluded from contracting with a private commercial television broadcasting facility. In its capacity as lessee, the State Board must comply with the provisions of KRS 156.070(3). This subsection, however, while perhaps advisory, does not expressly address the authority of the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education to rule on whether local boards of education may contract for television programming that includes commercials in the local schools nor does it prohibit local boards from entering into such contracts. This subsection does, however, emphasize that the State Board has responsibility to review and coordinate presentation of curricular materials under the current law.
This language undoubtedly stems from 47 U.S.C. 390 under part 4 on grants for educational television broadcasting facilities, which states:
The purpose of Sections 390 to 397 of this title is to assist (through matching grants) in the construction of educational television broadcasting facilities. June 19, 1934, C.c. 652, Title III, Section No. 390, as added May 1, 1962, Pub. L. 87-447, 76 Stat. 64.
In particular, Section 392 on grants for construction and on applications for grants required assurance "(1) that the applicant is (A) an agency or officer responsible for the supervision of public elementary or secondary education . . . , (B) the state educational television agency . . . for a noncommercial educational television broadcasting station pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission (FTC) in effect on April 12, 1962; (2) that the operation of such educational television broadcasting facilities will be under the control of the applicant . . . (4) that such television broadcasting facilities will be used only for educational purposes.
Based on the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, the statute, KRS 156.070, set forth standards under which the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education might lease facilities and thereby participate in the development of educational television in Kentucky. Note that 47 U.S.C. 392, on grants for construction, has been amended and reads as follows in pertinent part:
(1) The applicant is (A) a public broadcast station; (B) a noncommercial telecommunications entity; a system of public telecommunications entity; (D) a nonprofit foundation, corporation, institution, or association organized primarily for educational or cultural purposes; or (E) a State or local government (or any agency thereof, or a political or special purpose of division of a State; (2) The operation of such public telecommunications facilities will be under the control of the applicant . . . (4) Such public telecommunications facilities will be used primarily for the provision of public telecommunication services, and that the use of such public telecommunications facilities for purposes other than the provision of public telecommunications services will not interfere with the provision of such public telecommunication services as required in this part.
Note also that "noncommercial educational broadcast station" or "public broadcast station" is defined in 15 CFR 2301.1 as "a television or radio broadcast station which is eligible to be licensed by the FCC as a noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast station and which is owned (controlled) and operated by a state, a political or special purpose subdivision of the state, public agency or nonprofit private foundation, corporation, institution, or association, or owned (controlled) and operated by a municipality and transmits only noncommercial educational, cultural or instructional programs."
ATTACHMENT B
The work of the Council for Education Technology is described in a new section of KRS Chapter 156, found in Section 21 of House Bill 940, which provides that the Council shall:
(1) There is hereby established the Council for Education Technology which shall be an advisory group attached to the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education. The Council shall develop a specific plan for education technology within broad parameters established by the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education . . . .(7) The duties and responsibilities of the council shall include, but not be limited to, the following:(a) Developing a long range plan for the efficient and equitable use of technology at all levels from primary school through higher education, including vocational and adult education. The plan shall focus on the technology requirements of classroom instruction, literacy laboratories, instructional management, distance learning, and communications as they relate to the Commonwealth's outcome goals for students as described in Section 3 of this Act.(b) Creating, overseeing, and monitoring a well planned and efficient statewide network of technology services designed to meet the educational and informational needs of the schools.(c) Working with private enterprise to encourage the development of technology products specifically designed to answer Kentucky's educational needs . . . .
Section 22 of House Bill 940 creates a new section of Chapter 156 to read in pertinent part as follows:
(1) By January 1, 1991, the council shall develop the broad parameters of the initial five (5) year plan for education technology and submit the plan to the Legislative Research Commission for approval. Implementation of the final stages of the plan shall begin immediately upon approval. The plan shall outline the Commonwealth's five (5) year activities related to purchasing, developing and using technology to:(a) Improve learning and teaching and the ability to meet individual student's needs to increase student achievement;(b) Improve curriculum delivery to help meet the needs for educational equity across the state; . . .(e) Encourage development by the private sector and acquisition by districts of technologies and applications appropriate for education.
(2) The five (5) year plan shall cover all aspects of education technology, including but not limited to, its use in educational instruction and administration, video and computer systems, software and hardware, multiple delivery systems for satellite, microwave, cable, instructional television fixed service, fiber optic and computer connections products, the preparation of school buildings for technological readiness, and the development of staff necessary to implement the plan.
(3) The five (5) year plan shall include specific recommendations to the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education for the adoption of administrative regulations to establish and implement a uniform and integrated system of standards and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting which shall be used by all school districts. These recommendations shall be submitted January 1, 1991 . . . .
(8) The council shall submit its recommendations to the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education, which shall accept the recommendations, or return them to the council along with suggestions for changes to make the recommendations consistent with the policies of the State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education.