Question #44 – Does Your Board Monitor Board Performance?

Rick Maloney

(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)

The unexamined life is not worth living.

– Socrates

Becoming a Better Board Member offers advice to boards for monitoring their own performance:

It is a rare community member who understands the roles and responsibilities of a board and measures a board’s performance in light of them. Instead, board members need to engage in regular self-evaluations to make sure they continue to exercise the most effective leadership possible. Yet many school boards have no regular self-evaluation process. Some essential evaluation elements and outcomes:

  • An evaluation should be constructive.
  • Board members should develop the standards against which they will evaluate themselves.
  • Evaluation should be based on goals the board sets for itself – not goals it sets for the entire school system.
  • The process should include board establishment of goals and strategies for improving board performance.
  • The board should not limit itself to those items that appear on the evaluation form.
  • Formal evaluation should occur at least once a year and at a scheduled time and place.
  • A composite picture of board strengths and weaknesses is best.
  • The board should be evaluated as a whole, not as individuals.
  • The board should have an orientation and in-service program for its members.1

Reviewing our own performance can be a healing experience.

Scenario: A year and a half after two new members joined the South Valley School Board, deep divisions remain among board members and between the board and top district leadership. The board and senior staff, interviewed anonymously by an outside consultant, said that the trust level among board members is low and that the board fails to work well with top leadership. Some staff members said they fear for their jobs if they don’t comply with board members’ wishes. “I think all board members, with one exception, tell staff what to do,” said one staff member. “And it’s getting worse by the month.” The board heard a summary of the consultant’s findings as part of the board’s annual self-evaluation. Members said the report held no big surprises and pledged to improve how they carry out their duties. “This should be a real wake-up call,” board member Michelle said, quoting from the Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm.” The board seems to have nowhere to go but up in many areas, especially trust. Board member Harry said he thought the distrust stemmed from a lack of clear understanding about the board’s work. Just two months into the terms of the newest members, the board fought publicly over a policy proposal aimed at limiting board interference in the district’s day-to-day operations.

Despite being far from perfect, this board gets an ‘A’ for having the courage to receive public criticism. Although delivered by an external consultant (who doesn’t have to mince words) the contents of the criticism originate from its own members and senior staff members.

Scenario: A press release announced a board’s intent to self-assess for continuous improvement, announcing “The Woodlake School board is taking stock of itself, with each member filling out a board self-assessment questionnaire including: whether the board ever considered a different course as a result of a mistake it made; if the board has taken stands inconsistent with its values; whether board members seem informed and aware of the subtleties of the issues it considers; whether consensus or split votes characterize board decisions; and many other questions. Community and staff members are encouraged to fill out a questionnaire posted online. Questions begin with whether the person has watched a school board meeting in person or online and asks some of the same questions posed in the board self-evaluation, plus some questions about how well the board communicates its business to the public, and others about its values and operations.”

This board seems to truly understand the value of monitoring board performance and has chosen some probing questions that will likely inspire valuable feedback and self-improvement.

The effective board formally self-assesses at least annually. It is committed to accounting for its own performance and dedicates meeting time to board improvement. The board gathers or receives data, looking for evidence of progress as a board and demonstrated compliance with its governing commitments. It publicly monitors areas of board performance to determine whether governance standards are met. It can cite examples of its work that are correlated in research with higher levels of student learning outcomes. The board is willing to discuss negative data in its pursuit of board development designed to lead to school improvement. It enables the public to review its self-assessment results. It orients new members to the board’s intended monitoring and self-assessment process.

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 #45 – Does Your Board Respond to Board Monitoring?