What types of boards are there? And how does board governance compare with teaching as a profession? Understanding the Danielson Framework for Teaching may offer a starting point for answering these questions.
Boards might be categorized into one of four different types, the first three of which are readily distinguished by their current levels of performance in the practice of governance. These board types are:
- 1. Dysfunctional – those that do actual harm to the board and the organization governed by the board. These boards may be proactively dysfunctional or react in ways that are dysfunctional.
- 2. Passive-compliant – those that at least do no harm to themselves or the organization. These boards place their success in the hands of their chief executives and respond to their prompting.
- 3. High performing – those that not only avoid doing harm but also do what is needed to ensure the organization achieves what it wants to achieve while avoiding what it wants to avoid. These boards are proactive, not dependent, and are responsive in ways that lead to success.
A fourth type of board is an extension of the third:
- 4. Consistently high performing– those that have institutionalized what they do right, thus assuring that they are more likely than not to do right on a consistent basis
Labels such as the above serve to illustrate what can be observed in the behaviors of boards, but to be useful they must make sense within a broader context.
Phases of Development
Three factors give additional (and helpful) meaning to this typology for boards, especially those that have a desire to improve their performance. First, these descriptions are not really descriptions of ‘the board’ as a fixed entity; they are descriptions of current patterns of behavior. Second, such patterns of behavior are subject to change (up or down in effectiveness) from time to time; they can therefore be developed. Third, the level of effectiveness can vary from one area of board work to another, so a board can at the same time be high performing in one dimension while being dysfunctional in another.
If we consider the board’s governance practices to be as complex a set of competencies as that of a profession, we can aspire to become a more professional board by developing and growing as a board.
A Framework for Teaching
School boards are familiar with the profession of teaching, so in their own professional journey (we can call it the profession of governance) they have an opportunity to learn about approaches to the teaching profession. That was especially true in my case. In addition to my experience as a school director (20+ years on a local board, 9 years also on the state school directors’ association board of directors) I served for 7 years as a district administrator (in a different district) with responsibility for the professional development of teachers, from initial induction (mentor program) through advanced practice (National Board certification).
Charlotte Danielson is a teacher-turned-researcher who has focused on the professional practices of teachers. She has developed what she calls a framework for teaching (see Enhancing Professional Practice) which is used by school districts nationwide to guide the professional development of their teachers.
Enhancing Professional Practice, by Charlotte Danielson
re: https://danielsongroup.org/framework
The Framework for Teaching has also been used as a foundation in many of those districts for their evaluation systems, whose purpose is more than merely the ‘grading’ of teachers. The purpose of such an evaluation system is growth in professional teaching practice. I became intimately familiar with the Danielson Framework because part of my administrative responsibility was the implementation of a new teacher evaluation system whose primary object was growth. Like many other districts, we chose Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching as the theoretical model for evaluation.
Areas of Practice
Danielson’s framework was developed by studying teaching practices, describing those practices that appeared to be more (and less) successful, then categorizing them. Danielson offers four areas (domains) within which teaching responsibilities are done:
- Planning and Preparation, further categorized into six components; each of which is further broken down into elements
- The Classroom Environment, further categorized into five components and their various elements;
- Instruction, with five components and their various elements;
- Professional Responsibilities, with six components and their various elements
All professional teaching practices can be found in the domains, components, and elements of the Danielson Framework.
Levels of Performance
For each professional practice (domain, component, and element) that Danielson described, she sought descriptions of varying levels of performance, from unsatisfactory to basic to proficient to distinguished. In this way, she has provided descriptions of a pathway from the least effective to the most effective performance within a given professional practice.
Phases in Board Development, or Levels of Board Performance:
Recognizing that boards, too, must focus on growth, we can use somewhat similar labels to describe four levels of board performance:
- Ineffective – The board does harm to itself and the organization it governs
- Basic – The board (at least) avoids doing what is harmful
- Proficient – The board is proactive/responsive in doing what is good for organizational success
- Distinguished – The board not only does good today; it institutionalizes its practices, ensuring the likelihood of doing what is good for the organization in the long run
Domains of Board Performance:
In consideration of the fact that a board’s successful governance practice is defined by the success of the organization, we can categorize governance practice into four broad areas or domains, with more specific descriptions contained in the components and elements that make up each domain:
- Board Readiness, further categorized into 2 components, each of which has various elements
- Strategic Voice, with 2 components, each with several elements
- Operational Guidance, with 3 components, each with several elements
- Accountability, with 3 components, each with several elements
A Framework for School Governance
A Framework for School Governance © 2017 describes governance practices at varying levels of performance in these domains, components, and elements.
In total, 4 domains, 10 components, and 35 elements can be identified, each with four levels of performance as described above. They provide for school boards, and for boards in general, a means of assessing current performance and planning a pathway for development toward more optimal performance in the future.
Although stories and examples illustrating the various domains, components, and elements come from the author’s (and others’) observations of school boards, the broadly stated principles contained herein apply to all boards.
See A Framework for School Governance
In more than 20 years as a school board member, Rick Maloney served 8 terms as board president, and 9 years as board member for his state association. He has published numerous articles on governance and board leadership, and repeatedly presented at state, national and international conferences. Since 2006 he has provided consultation to boards in governance. In 2009 his state association implemented a set of professional standards for boards and board members. At the same time, he coordinated implementation of a new teacher evaluation system in his district, using rubrics to describe varying levels of effectiveness for teaching responsibilities. Those discussions coincided with a long-term interest in and review of research into board effectiveness, and together led to the writing of this book.