Question #28 – Does Your Board Give Itself Governance Guidance?

Rick Maloney

(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)

Historically, studies of school boards have tended to examine the behavior of members as individuals but not the behavior of the school board as a collective.

― Peter Cistone1

Boards don’t often think of whole board performance. Focusing on individual board members’ boardsmanship behavior, whether in designing training or in developing policy, is certainly necessary but it is not sufficient. The board must also remain aware of its governance performance, defining its expectations of the whole board and directing its own activities with principled guidance. Governance policy gives structure to and guides collective board behavior. It is (of course) tempting for those who shy away from self-discipline to avoid this responsibility entirely, but some boards tackle it head-on.

The Governing Board believes that its primary responsibility is to act in the best interests of every student in the district. The Board also has major commitments to parents, guardians, all members of the community, employees, the state of California, laws pertaining to public education, and established policies of the district. To maximize Board effectiveness and public confidence in district governance, Board Members are expected to govern responsibly and hold themselves to the highest standards of ethical conduct.

― Sacramento USD2

State and national associations offer few opportunities for gaining knowledge about self-governance, and almost no opportunities for whole-board training in the skills of self-governance. One exception is the Council of Great City Schools, which offers systematic coaching of boards in the transition of school board behavior from being adult inputs focused to becoming student outcomes focused.

The importance of this task. Giving guidance to the board is far more important than all other forms of policy guidance, since the board as a collective whole is the district entity that wields the highest authority and that which outlasts all others. Individual board members may come and go (average tenure being about 4 years) and superintendent turnover impacts continuity in the board-superintendent team, but the board is a permanent entity. Also, while the average years of experience of board members is rather low, the board has the ability to accumulate experience and pass along institutional memory, so the board is the most appropriate target of guided development.

Lord Acton famously said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”3 Considering the board’s significant power located atop the chain of command, it is even more important that we prevent misuse of board authority.

Scenario: In his first career, whenever Rick observed a senior executive get into trouble, a common factor, aside from personal or professional lapse, was lack of supervision due to their assignment in a high-level position, often in a remote location. Those leaders (and their organizations) would have been better served if a boss had “been there” to supervise. Thankfully, these incidents didn’t occur often, but over time Rick developed a rule of thumb, and now whenever he sees a superintendent or other senior education administrator let a position of power go to his or her head, he applies the rule in this context as well: “Everyone deserves to be supervised.”

Boards in their solitude at the top also deserve to be supervised. But who does the supervising? Certainly, each board member is formally accountable every few years at the polls, but that does not constitute active “supervision.” Finding ourselves without any ongoing formal means of external supervision, it is incumbent on the board, as representative of the community, to supervise itself.

“In a representative democracy, informed decision making is the purpose for which school board members are elected. America’s system of schooling may yet become effective in its present form of governance, but only informed school board members can make it happen…Does this mean that school board members should no longer listen to their constituents? Of course not, but it does mean that board members have a responsibility to become knowledgeable about education and pass that wisdom on to the community. It means that board members must do what is right before they do what is political.”

― Alan Hafer4

Although not as effective a constraint as being supervised by others, the board should not shrink from its obligation for self-governance. Acting on behalf of the community, the board commits itself (first) to develop and document board guidance as an expression of its public commitment to self-control, and (second) to hold itself accountable (also in public) to that commitment.

“As a school board member, a problem you face is making very tough decisions about issues which the public at large knows little or nothing about.  You’ll find yourself in a room, all alone with just the board members and a few staff, as you get briefed on the potentially draconian circumstance beginning to unfold (quite often involving financial shortfalls, potential lawsuits, a contractual bargaining impasse or even a sexual predator investigation.) You on the other hand look around wondering who, outside this very small group assembled here, will know what is going on and who (if anybody) can help you in making this very tough decision. The fact is you will find yourself very alone.  Once the decision is made it may be weeks or months before you can stop mulling over the pros and cons of the conclusion you came to (and the decision the board as a whole made). Learning to deal with that profound “community trust” is one of the strongest individual growth factors in becoming a good board.“

― Bob Hughes5

Intentional self-governance is the next best thing and often the only realistic alternative to having the community perform this overwatch responsibility. Practically speaking, it is the best thing, because combined with a determination to self-supervise in as transparent a way as possible, this is a solid example of self-discipline and contributes significantly to the public’s confidence in its board.

The effective board carefully defines its own role, distinguishing it from that of the superintendent. It provides policy guidance for carrying out its governance role and structures its operations to ensure timely intervention to keep itself in adherence to that policy guidance.

Governance Guidance consists of 3 elements: Defining the Board Role; Setting Governance Policy; and Facilitating Governance.

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:

References:

Next: Question #29 Does Your Board Define its Own Role?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *