Boards Matter – Part IV (4th of 4 parts)
Only boards, because of the democratic power they derive from the people, because of their close links with the people, and because of their stability, can provide the leadership required to redesign and sustain over decades school districts that provide equity and results for all children. – Don McAdams
The board contributes to stability. Because of its institutional nature, it is the board, not the superintendent and not its individual members, that is capable of assuring the long-term future of the district. Don McAdams (What School Boards Can Do) makes the point that “the board” must step up to this responsibility:
The board is the stable, long-term voice of institutional memory. The inherent institutional stability of boards, often viewed as a symptom of its inflexibility, enables it to be the permanent partner in the board-superintendent governing team. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) reminds us of the impermanence of superintendents (most notably urban superintendents) in a study of superintendent turnover by NSBA’s Council of Urban Boards of Education. “Findings indicated that [superintendents] who had completed their superintendency most recently averaged 4.6 to 5 years of service.” Since the time needed by a superintendent to institutionalize even modest change could be 4-5 years, this research does not support the notion of superintendent-as-change-agent. At best such average tenure, without the stabilizing influence of a board of directors with a truly long-term viewpoint, assures ongoing system disruption.
Considering their relative importance in regard to their terms of service (the board as a whole is a permanent entity) it is the board, not the superintendent, that is capable of influencing and sustaining the long-term future of the district.
Through its institutional longevity, the board can offer stability over time. In contrast with the various individuals who make up the board-superintendent team, “the board” is the most permanent partner on the governing team. Maintaining a long-term perspective is not easy, since the average individual member lasts barely one term (if that long) in office, and superintendent turnover (most notably in the case of urban superintendents) vividly illustrates the impermanence of that office.
So, returning to the question posted in Part I of this series, are you prepared for the job? The answer really boils down to what we mean by the question. If “the job” of the board member is to be a good citizen, as I believe it is, then you are prepared if you can employ a citizen’s skillset and are willing to focus, not just on your individual job, but also on the job of the board. It is through “the board” – not any individual board member – that you can and will make a difference for students.