Question #8 – Does Your Board ‘See’ With a Systems Perspective?

Rick Maloney

(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)

Governing with a systems perspective means understanding not only that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but that each of the parts is essential…effective governance flows from understanding and paying attention to all of these elements.

– Katherine Gemberling et al1

A systems perspective enables a board to take a strategic view of the whole district before it acts. It ensures that the board considers how decisions targeting one part, or subsystem, of a district (activities or programs in the district) impact other parts or subsystems elsewhere. This perspective helps the board think and work strategically to ensure all district systems become and remain mutually supporting for optimal overall performance.

The superintendent needs to make it clear that decisions made in one area have both anticipated and unanticipated impact on other parts of the district…Trustees with a governance mindset understand that the board must address system-wide issues and not be focused on single programs and agendas except as part of an integrated educational program.

– Davis Campbell and Michael Fullan2

When deliberating on a board decision we cannot just pick and choose selected areas for our attention. We must anticipate the impact of board decisions on all parts of the school system and look for unintended consequences.

Scenario: The board adopted stringent new standards to increase graduation requirements so that a high school diploma meant the graduate was ready for admission to one of the state’s 4-year colleges. In only its second year after the policy took effect the number of graduates who qualified for college admission went up by a couple of percentage points. Unfortunately, there were other effects. It seems that raising the standard by mandating that all graduates complete a prescriptive series of college-ready course work had an adverse effect on the drop-out rate, as 11th graders, realizing they were not on track to graduate and not envisioning a practical way out, stopped going to school. The percentage of seniors qualifying for graduation dropped by nearly one percent.

In the above case, like a balloon that is pushed in on one end and bulges out elsewhere, a well-intentioned policy decision to raise standards can have unintended and undesirable consequences.

In budget planning we know that the largest part of the budget is allocated to personnel staffing. A board with a systems perspective will recognize the connection between financial decisions and personnel, as well as other subsystems such as facilities operating costs, attendance area impacts, transportation routes, etc.

Scenario: State revenue dropped dramatically in a year when student enrollments were below projections. Patty objected when the superintendent recommended a reduced budget. A major part of the presentation was a proposal to consolidate under-subscribed elementary schools and reduce program offerings in a number of areas involving enhancements beyond what the state budget would support. Patty convinced a slim board majority to save the elementary schools because of the community’s sentimental and historic attachment to them, instead imposing miniscule but symbolic cuts in travel, three days of unpaid furlough days for administrators and classified staff and increases in class size. Several administrators subsequently left the district for neighboring district jobs, while both the classified and certificated unions threatened strikes. Student learning as measured by mandated state tests declined.

All subsystems within the district come into the picture any time the board is faced with budget and program decisions.

Unintended consequences can even prompt role reversal between board and superintendent:

Scenario: Ruth joined the board after a career as an elementary teacher. Discussing school use, it was apparent that a school where she had taught needed to be closed and the property sold. Lengthy and hotly contested board meetings followed, with her arguing to save the building as a historical treasure vs freeing up funds to educate kids. The superintendent (Ethelda) remained as neutral as possible while the debate went on. Over the next several months local media picked it up and heightened community involvement. Nothing of significance was accomplished at school board meetings for over a year. Long after the dust settled, Bob asked Ethelda privately how she was able to stay silent through a year-long series of heated discussions. Her response surprised him. She said there are lots of issues that need to be handled in the district, and the board’s ongoing debate on this low priority issue was an opportunity for her to focus on other, more strategic matters, make decisions and move forward while the board was otherwise fully engaged. As far as she was concerned the board was being ineffective, but in the meantime, although arguably acting in the board’s place, she had become more effective by working at a strategic level. Student test scores in fact went up sharply during this year of board bickering.

So much for the board’s professed intent to play a strategic role, delegating operational matters to the superintendent and reserving important, long-range thinking to itself. Actual board behavior is telling and can impact the system in unpredictable ways.

The effective board understands that the various subsystems that make up the school system interact with and impact one another. It considers the potential effects of any decision or action on all other areas outside the immediate scope of the decision or action. It anticipates and is alert to all potential unintended consequences or costs of its decisions or actions. It is prepared for the likelihood that it must respond to unanticipated events as they occur, in order to mitigate their effects on other subsystems and on the district as a whole.

NOTE: The opinions expressed in these blog entries are informed by references cited herein, the experiences of the author, and those of his colleagues. Your comments are welcome additions to the conversation.

Excerpt from:

Additional References:

Next: Question #9 – Does Your Board Act in a Systematic Way?