The Board Takes Responsibility for Board Readiness
Most boards are underperformers when it comes to helping their newest members rapidly become knowledgeable, contributing members of the governing team. Except for the formal swearing-in that is mandated by law, boards leave professional development up to the individual, and for most new board members, that means the slow and haphazard nature of on-the-job experience. This is partly due to board members acknowledging the independent nature of elected (or appointed) office by keeping a respectful distance, but mostly it is due to lack of intentional prior planning, forgetting that it is the board’s responsibility to achieve and maintain effective board performance, while trusting on-the-job learning, which takes time, can take the board in unexpected directions.
Like all public office holders, new school board members participate in a formal swearing-in ceremony, during which they take an oath similar to the following: “I _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of ____ and will faithfully discharge the duties of ____ to the best of my ability.” For most boards this is a formality, observed before getting down to business in the meeting.
A Modest Proposal
There is a saying that whenever the board gets a new member, a new board is formed. Rather than waiting and hoping to see how that new board will turn out, I have a modest proposal: How about making the new members’ first day on the job one of intentional induction, not only for the new member but for the “new board” that is being formed?
What if the board, seriously accepting responsibility for its own performance, took the opportunity to induct its newest members, while at the same time guiding its own development by reviewing as a team its collective board responsibilities and renewing its determination to meet those responsibilities? The swearing-in ceremony is an ideal time for all board members to reflect on and renew their commitment to their boardsmanship responsibilities, while the board as a whole reflects on and renews its collective commitment to the responsibilities of governance. The following promises are offered as a comprehensive oath of governance for the board to reaffirm whenever its newest members take their individual oath of office.
Board Readiness – In order to establish a solid foundation of readiness as a board, we solemnly swear (or affirm):
- To adopt a spirit of servant-leadership, establishing a priority of “service first,” serving all those whom it leads, and all those on whose behalf it governs the district.
- Why? In his classic work Servant Leadership (1977) Robert Greenleaf offers a persuasive rationale for a philosophy that puts service first as a leader’s priority. Simon Sinek echoes this sentiment in his book Leaders Eat Last (2014.) According to Greenleaf and Sinek, the best leaders pursue their goals after assuring the welfare and capacity of those who are to achieve those goals. In the case of a school board, this includes all students, staff, and the superintendent (who is the board’s primary link with the district).
- A board that serves itself first doesn’t lead – it merely “presides,” allowing its members to prioritize the prestige and perks of office over service to others.
- In support of the board’s collective commitment, each member individually promises to contribute to the board’s servant-leader spirit.
- To adopt a growth mindset, dedicated to the belief that all students can learn at high levels.
- Why? Carol Dweck (Mindset, 2006) shows that students encouraged by their teachers to adopt a “growth mindset” are more likely to experience higher student learning outcomes than those who have a “fixed mindset.” Research conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards (The Lighthouse Inquiry, conducted in the late 1990’s) describes a similar phenomenon that extends to the boardroom. Lighthouse researchers report that boards expressing an “elevating view” of students (growth mindset?) are more likely to have higher achieving students (all other factors such as student demographics being equal) while boards expressing an “acceptance of students’ limitations” are associated with lower student achievement.
- Boards that harbor a fixed mindset tend to make excuses for low-income, minority or high risk students, and end up with lower student achievement scores.
- In support of the board’s collective commitment, each member individually promises to reinforce the board’s intended growth mindset.
- To adopt a strategic approach to the job, operating on a higher level, keeping itself above the fray of operational detail, and maintaining a long-term focus on results.
- Why? Because a board can only officially act when convened (usually 1 or 2 times a month) it is not present when almost all district activity is conducted. Therefore the board’s value as an on-scene operational leader is, practically speaking, non-existent. Because only the board acting in its official capacity can “direct” the superintendent and staff, its ability to give instructions can only be exercised indirectly, through written policy and through the actions of others. Therefore, its value as a leader is best expressed in policy written from a strategic perspective. It must of necessity rely on the superintendent and staff to carry out policy. The more emphasis that the board places on operational detail, the less strategic impact it has. Ironically, when the board’s attention increasingly focuses on operational detail, more strategic decisions such as long-term district values and vision are left to the superintendent, in a role reversal that the board never intended.
- Without such a commitment, micro-managing ensues, leading to mediocre results, killing the initiative of district leaders because they are forced to adopt what Dawson and Quinn (Boards That Matter, 2011) call a “Mother may I?” protocol with a board that refuses to recognize a distinction between strategic leadership (the board’s primary role) and operational leadership (the superintendent’s primary role.)
- In support of the board’s collective commitment, each member individually promises to reinforce the board’s strategic approach.
Through the above three promises, the board sets for itself a foundation that assures board readiness to perform its governing role. Periodically reiterating those promises whenever new members take office will reinforce and institutionalize the values described above.
Next: The Board Takes Responsibility for Strategic Voice and Operational Guidance
References
The above promises are derived from:
Maloney, R. (2017) A Framework for School Governance, governance101.com.
Individual references cited above are listed in sequence:
- Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, NY: Paulist Press.
- Sinek, S. (2014) Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don’t, NY: Penguin Group.
- Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, New York, NY: Ballantyne Books.
- Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation. Blue Ridge, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Dawson, L. and Quinn, R. (2011). Boards That Matter. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.