(Questions to Ask Your Board)
Scenario: After annual student test score release the board received staff reports and listened to community feedback, then considered policy on staff evaluation as part of its plan for improvement. It had decided evaluation can be a strategic HR practice if focused on the significant impact of individual performance on organizational performance and the importance of aligning organizational and individual goal-setting. Its policy laid out principles for goal-setting, leadership guidance and coaching, criteria for successful performance, collecting documentation during the year, and formative and summative evaluation for each year of teaching. It scheduled a review of this policy as part of its annual district evaluation. In March, the board received a report, and a subcommittee inspected selected examples of evaluations, to determine whether pre-identified criteria were met, then it prepared a board statement of its conclusions about district performance and its intentions for the future. It placed a copy of the data and board statement into the superintendent’s performance file for the year. Then it conducted a public hearing, followed by reviewing, revising and refining its policy to more closely match its intent for the next year.
This board linked the functions of community engagement – whose strategic purpose is to listen, policymaking – whose strategic purpose is to set expectations, and monitoring – whose strategic purpose is to assure accountability. Doing so in a systematic way sets a pattern and a tone that demonstrates the board has a method to its madness. Tying in the important work of community engagement to learn the values of the community on various issues assures that the board is able to give voice to those values in policies that guide the district. Operating in a predictable, ongoing cycle of such routines communicates to all that the board knows what it is doing, and that its work is purposeful., focused, and effective.
In systematic fashion: The board:
- Engages with its community to listen and learn;
- Sets policy as strategic guidance reflecting community values;
- Schedules monitoring of progress and performance guided by policy;
- Monitors district progress and performance in accordance with policy;
- Uses criteria guided by policy to judge the data the board receives in monitoring;
- Determines through deliberation and discussion the meaning of the data; then
- Updates/revises existing policy as needed for the next round.
Through the above cycle, the board gives meaning to its commitment to follow a systematic process. It also inspires confidence in resulting decisions and actions taken by the board.
Something as simple as developing a routine in policymaking that demands two public readings and demonstrates openness to public and staff input between readings is another example of the board conducting its business using a systematic process. The public, and the staff, are much more likely to trust a board that is open, transparent, deliberative and intentional in principled and systematic decision-making.
The effective board believes that what a board does and how it carries out its work matters. If it seeks to lead effectively, the board exercises discipline in deliberation and decision-making, fitting each board action into a recognizable systematic approach to governance that ensures the board’s structures and routines are guided by intentional decisions made within the boundaries of its strategic role. It has a theory of governing that guides its practice and connects each board action with all other board actions and the work of the staff. Putting in place a process that is systematic and enforcing the self-discipline of adhering to that process assures reliability in board functioning. A key component of its disciplined process is consideration of staff input and precedent before making decisions. Over time, operating through established routines and a predictable board rhythm the board will earn the trust of its board members, staff members, and community members. All will come to trust the process if it is rationally conceived, is easily understood, adheres to board values, and is predictable. The board follows a process that is open and transparent to all, systematic, and aligned with its policy language.
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:
- A Framework for School Governance (2018), Rick Maloney
Next: Question #10 – Does Your Board Take a Strategic Approach to Policy?
Sadly, teaching is not yet a profession.
Very few districts have well defined, rigorous, and accountable career ladders for teachers.
Without that fundamental structure, Board policy about staff evaluations amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
1/2 of our students are illiterate.Fewer than 1/3 can do grade level math. My analysis of NAEP reading and math data for the past 20 years show that almost 50 million 4th graders fail to meet proficiency in reading and math.
Governance cannot fix the widespread lack of excellence in teaching and administrative practices. Too heavy a lift.
Read The Fog of Education.
Bill, boards do impact student learning. They can do so positively or negatively. Ours has focused systematically on the steps described in this blog post for the past 21 years, and our results have been excellent, although our level of student poverty (% free and reduced) and diversity (student subgroups) when compared with other top-tier school districts shows that we are performing above what might be predicted. Both Niche.com and Schooldigger.com rate us among the top ten or top twenty in our state, while almost all other districts at that level have demographics with much lower poverty levels and less diversity. My point is that sustained systematic board work is worth pursuing.
Good for you! You are the exception! Congratulations.
However without a very clear career ladder with well defined standards and quality indicators for specific professional practices, it is problematic attributing student academic gains to governance practices.
Measured systematic professional practices can and should be used in conjunction with improved student achievement. Economically poor students and students of color can learn when there is a strong curriculum, aligned professional practices, and assessments.
Tell us more about these important elements when discussing student achievement and governance.
Thanks.
Will do, insofar as the board’s governance practices are concerned. We do not decide professional educator practices or management practices, but focus our attention on student outcomes. We provide pressure and support – pressure to achieve reasonable progress toward the community’s vision of desired student outcomes, and support for superintendent decision-making within boundaries of ethics and prudence, and in alignment with core district values.
Your governance is very incomplete if you are not regularly looking at systematic data related to the quality implementation of a few key aligned instructional practices like formative assessment with descripive feedback or explicit instuction.
Depending on a superintendent is a fool’s errand and massively incomplete!
You miss the main point of this post, which is to act in a systematic way. The board takes a systematic approach that balances the need for freedom in superintendent decision-making by applying consistent monitoring pressure to assure the district achieves desired results and complies with existing policy guidance. Instructional practices are means to an end, important superintendent responsibility, but not an area of board expertise. To paraphrase a famous phrase: We trust – but verify. We do not meekly ‘depend’ on our superintendent. At the same time, we do not micromanage him. The results of this systematic approach speak for themselves.