Question #33 – Does Your Board Define the Superintendent Role?

Rick Maloney

(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)

“To start the role clarification process, a board can adopt or revise policies that specify what the board can expect from the superintendent and what the superintendent can expect of the board.”

― NSBA1

Boards should periodically review the board-superintendent relationship. A breakdown in that relationship is inevitable when the superintendent’s role, and how it differs from the board’s role, lacks clarity. Clarity in her role starts with alignment of board policy, the contract, and the job description, and improves with written expectations for performance and criteria that are to be used in evaluating the superintendent. These written measures are of course meaningless if they are not reflected in the board’s actual behavior when working with the superintendent.

Scenario: The board held a special meeting to review student test scores for the year. The superintendent reported results, emphasizing positives while obscuring or ignoring several negative trends. Rather than explain what the district was doing to raise reading and math results the superintendent spent the bulk of the meeting describing a new initiative for a social-emotional development program. The board also avoided troubling low scores and lack of progress, chiming in whenever positive results were noted, thanking the superintendent and congratulating staff for doing well in a challenging test environment. Even in the face of data showing most measures of student learning were below par, with significantly lower results than other communities with similar demographic make-up, the board seemed willing to do anything but demand that the superintendent address problem areas, and clearly communicated the message: “We love her, and all is ok.”

This board has lost its objectivity in favor of a cozy board-superintendent relationship. It has given away its responsibility to represent the community in an accountability context and has abandoned its leverage as the superintendent’s supervisory authority. John Carver calls this a cheerleader board.

Cheerleader boards see themselves as lofty volunteers working ‘for’ a capable CEO whom they can trust and confidently support. Administration even at its topmost pertinence is no concern of theirs, they feel; and they display their confidence and appreciation for a job well-done by use of the symbolic ink pad and rubber stamp of approval.

― Gene Royer2

Whenever a board has had a long-term superintendent with whom it has grown comfortable, superintendent turnover proves challenging, particularly if the board has never taken the time to write down what it expects from the superintendent, nor assert its own voice as a board.

Scenario: Sally, newly hired to replace a long-term superintendent, launched an initiative to improve test scores with a focus on improving classroom instruction. She cultivated close relationships with community leaders, city officials, newspaper editors, and special interest groups to court support for her plans. Board members were upset that they weren’t invited to take part in those meetings as district officials and external ambassadors. When a new teacher evaluation system was initiated, again without involving the board, and the teacher’s union opposed its plan to link pay incentives with student test scores, board members who had worked closely with teacher union leaders over the years were again upset when a no confidence vote passed. When the first year’s superintendent evaluation was complete, the board president announced with regret the superintendent’s resignation due to “philosophical differences” and the board’s launch of another national search.

This board, unaware it had developed expectations about board and superintendent roles that were not communicated, either in person or in writing, had assumed Sally understood what those expectations were. The board failed in one of the most important tasks of an organizational leader: clarification of roles. As a result, the leadership transition was a failure.

The effective board declares and acts as if the superintendent for all practical purposes is its only real employee, because when it directs the superintendent it directs the district. When it intends to direct the district, it does so only through the superintendent. It develops a strong relationship with the superintendent. It treats staff work as superintendent, not board, business. Therefore, the board avoids giving instructions to staff except through guidance it gives to the superintendent. The board defines the superintendent’s role, distinguishing it from that of the board, with expectations for the superintendent written as criteria by which the board will judge her success. Such expectations treat the district and superintendent mission as the same, so that district success equals superintendent success.

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

ALSO: Please feel free to register in order to receive future posts like this one as soon as they are published.

Excerpt from:

Additional References:

Next: Question #34 Is Your Board Ready to Hire the Next Superintendent?