Kansas legislators are right to be looking at ways to fix the Kansas State Board of Education.

It probably should be no surprise that state legislators once again are raising the possibility of reconfiguring the Kansas State Board of Education or even making it an appointed, rather than elected, body.

The current state school board bears a striking resemblance to the board of six years ago, which was caught in a 5-5 standoff between moderate and conservative members. That stalemate was broken four years ago by elections that brought a conservative majority to the board and subsequently brought national attention to Kansas and its debate about teaching evolution.

Two years ago, voters returned a moderate majority and relative calm to the board, thereby deflecting legislative attention. But last November, voters replaced two moderate incumbents with conservative members, once again creating the 5-5 split.

The problems created by such a split were instantly apparent. In its opening session last week, it took the board two days just to elect a chairwoman. The stalemate finally was broken by a 7-3 vote to elect Janet Waugh, a Democrat from Kansas City, Kan., to lead the board and Sue Gamble, a Shawnee Republican, as vice chairwoman. Both are identified as moderates.

As an indication of how little trust exists on the board, however, both Waugh and Gamble voted against their own election. Gamble said later that she was worried that conservatives were setting up the moderate leadership in an effort to “blackmail” them by claiming that conservative viewpoints weren’t being well represented.

With the current mistrust and policy differences on the board, it’s easy to see why legislators might be thinking changes are needed.

One obvious problem is the even number of members on the board. The Kansas Constitution calls for members to be elected from 10 school board districts, each made up of four Kansas Senate districts. But the even number on the board makes it impossible to break a tie on difficult issues, thereby stalling many board actions. More moderate changes being kicked around in the Legislature would simply add another seat to the board — perhaps a chairman appointed by the governor — to prevent tie votes.

However, some legislators don’t think that’s enough and are questioning whether an elected board serves the best interests of the state. So many voters know nothing about the state school board candidates for whom they are casting a ballot. Only a tiny percentage of Kansas residents could even tell you who represents them on the board. Wouldn’t it be better to allow the governor to appoint well-qualified board members to set school policy?

The great drawback to an appointed board is that it cuts Kansas voters out of the loop in the selection of a board that has a primary control over such areas as teacher certification, standardized testing and graduation requirements. Turning the state board into an appointed body would require a constitutional amendment that would have to be approved by Kansas voters. It would be interesting, in a way, to see how voters would respond to such a proposal. Would they want to keep their right to vote on the board members? If so, would they pay more attention to the people they are electing?

Whether it’s a simple matter of adding a member or a more extreme overhaul, it seems clear that some action is warranted to prevent the sort of stalemates that result from philosophical splits on the board. This is an important board that makes policies that affect every school district in the state. We can’t afford to have it paralyzed by philosophical differences.