Defining the Role of School Boards: Architect, Communicator, Leader
Introduction
In the world of school reform and improvement, attention is seldom paid
to the role of the school board. Yet most school districts across the
country are governed by an elected or appointed school board whose
members are the ultimate architects of the district’s plan for
increasing student achievement. Therefore, a clear understanding of the
purpose, role, and appropriate functions of school boards—on the part
of both board members and school and district practitioners—can
contribute greatly to accomplishing ambitious improvement goals. This
month’s newsletter explains the difference in purpose and function
between a district’s school board and its administration, summarizes
different approaches to school board organization, and illustrates the
significant role school boards can play in supporting increased student
achievement.
School Boards and District Administration
Many models exist that illustrate appropriate relationships between
school boards and school district administrations, but they all share
one common principle: The school board governs and the superintendent
administers the school district. Although it sounds straightforward,
this underlying principle can be very difficult to fully understand and
even more complicated to implement. A book published by the National
School Boards Association titled The Key Work of School Boards
Guidebook (Gemberling, Smith, & Villani, 2000) delineates the
differences between the two. The school board provides high-level
guidance and direction for the school district. Its job is to
- Build community support by pursuing a broad base of involvement.
- Communicate clearly with all school district stakeholders.
- Adopt policies to support district initiatives
- Approve comprehensive plans developed by the superintendent.
- Allocate adequate funding and align resources.
- Monitor progress toward the achievement of district goals.
The superintendent, on the other hand, serves as
the chief executive officer of the school district with more concrete
responsibilities for leading and managing day-to-day operations. The
superintendent must
- Implement school board decisions.
- Lead strategic planning initiatives.
- Make recommendations to the board.
- Develop, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of programs.
- Model support for district change initiatives and ensure that they are implemented.
Confusion about these roles can cause problems and have a negative
effect on the operation of a school district. Boards that attempt to
micromanage policy implementation, circumvent the superintendent by
working directly with employees, or operate as individuals rather than
as a team can be both divisive and disruptive. In high-functioning
school districts, roles are clearly delineated, and the relationship
between board of education members and the district administration is
clear. Before defining his own and the board’s role, says one Colorado
superintendent, “I had no clear direction, board members were in the
day-to-day business, and I spent my time trying to please five people”
(Dawson & Quinn, 2000). Successful efforts to clarify roles and
responsibilities resulted in a productive transition; the
superintendent later reported: “I have a clear picture of my job and my
relationship with the board acting as one—not five individuals.”
Models for School Boards
Several models exist that help to paint a picture of how a board of
education can establish a productive relationship with school district
administration. Some researchers suggest a corporate model, in which
the school board is seen as a board of directors whose chief
responsibilities are designing the district’s “comprehensive
educational strategy,” selecting an operations manager for the
organization, and answering to the “shareholders”—in this case, the
community, all of whom have a stake in the success of the school
district (Brown, Peterkin, & Finkelstein, 1992).
Another author suggests that an accountability model can address the
common problem of school board interference in the daily administration
of the school district. A relationship based on accountability
reassures school board members because it provides them with data about
district operations that they want and need and establishes a framework
for the ongoing collection and use of data. Author D.B. Reeves (2000)
suggests that a relationship built on accountability “can provide board
members with a blend of very specific school-level information, along
with qualitative and narrative data that puts this information in
proper context” (p. 206). District operations also benefit from the
accountability model since it ensures that administrators have access
to the same information. This system, says Reeves, becomes a functional
framework “within which all other initiatives, programs, evaluations,
plans, and other educational policy matters” facing the district can be
considered (p. 208).
A collaborative learning communities model offers a third picture of
constructive school board and district administration interaction.
Within this model, the board and other members of the school community
work together and learn together for the benefit of the school
district. Author Peter Senge and his coauthors (2000) emphasize
trusting relationships rather than a data or functional structure as
the basis for board-district interaction. To establish a trusting
relationship, Senge suggests it is good practice to make public as much
information as possible, including creating a public record of private
conversations. He stresses that if school board members model the civil
behavior they would like schools to demonstrate, their own tendency to
disagree for the sake of public drama will be eliminated. The school
board also can deflate emotionally charged decisions such as closing a
local school or funding special programs by focusing discussion on the
observable data that have been collected. Senge further suggests that a
school board that wants to operate as a learning community needs to
practice talking about its values and take steps to ensure that
discussions occur with calm consideration.
How School Boards Support Increased Student Achievement
Regardless of which mental model schools boards and district
administrations use to define and implement positive working
relationships, they do best when they remember that the primary
responsibility of everyone is to focus on improving student
achievement. Two of this year’s winners of the American School Board
Journal’s Magna Award illustrate the positive effect that school board
leadership can have on efforts to improve student achievement.
The Board of Education of Lincoln Public Schools in Nebraska
capitalized on its obligation to involve the community and capture its
support by creating the Lincoln Community Learning Centers project in
2001. This initiative, designed to address the achievement gap in the
district’s schools, emphasizes the role of the community in supporting
student achievement. School Neighborhood Advisory Committees ensure
that residents are involved in analyzing the needs of each
participating school and creating a plan to address them. A district
leadership council is charged with supporting the continued growth off
the learning centers and securing financing for them through community
partnerships. Leadership council members include school board members,
the superintendent, the city’s mayor, newspaper publisher, and other
high-profile community participants. These partnerships, says the board
president, “broaden public discussion, increase accountability, and
strengthen the connections between parents, schools, and the community”
(American School Board Journal, 2006a, p. 22).
Taking a similar approach to fulfilling its leadership role, the school
board of San Jose Unified School District in California developed a
two-step plan to address the lack of trust and confidence in the
schools and low student achievement that had plagued the district for
years. Called the Public Engagement Model, the initiative provides the
school board with a set of data-gathering tools that allow it to
conduct widespread, regular, and structured conversation with
constituents. “This program was developed to increase parent and
community participation and understanding within our school district,”
says the San Jose superintendent (American School Board Journal, 2006b,
p. 18), and it appears to be working. In the 10 years the program has
been in existence, the board estimates that it has conducted more than
6,000 conversations with community members that have resulted in
specific plans for improvement. The district now records high rates of
satisfaction on annual surveys and has noted a correlation between
schools that score high on satisfaction surveys and increased student
achievement in those schools.
Conclusion
These two
school boards and many others like them throughout the country have
made a difference in the lives of students by understanding and
embracing their important leadership role. By focusing on their key
functions of communication, leadership, and direction setting, school
boards can make a significant contribution to improved district
functioning and increased student achievement.
References
American School Board Journal. (2006a, April). Learning after school.
2006 Magna Awards, supplement to American School Board Journal, 193(4),
22. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from
http://www.asbj.com/magna/winners2006/lincoln.pdf
American School Board Journal. (2006b, April). Public engagement drives
success. 2006 Magna Awards, supplement to American School Board
Journal, 193(4), 18. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from
http://www.asbj.com/magna/winners2006/sanjose.pdf
Brown, O. S., Peterkin, R. S., & Finkelstein, L. B. (1991, March
13). Urban ‘C.E.O’s’: Untangling the governance knot. Education Week,
10(25), 38, 40.
Dawson, L. J. & Quinn, R. (2000, March). Clarifying board and
superintendent roles. School Administrator, 57(3), 12–19. Retrieved
August 15, 2006, from
http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=3908&snItemNumber=950&tnItemNumber=951
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key
work of school boards guidebook. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards
Association. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from
http://www.nsba.org/keywork2/guidebook/KeyworkGuidebook.pdf
Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver: Advanced Learning Press.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., &
Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook
for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New
York: Doubleday.
For more information about the American School Board Journal’s Magna
Awards and to read profiles of other winners, visit
http://www.asbj.com/magna/index.html
|
