This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE --This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
March/April 2006

A practical approach to communicating

by Gary W. Tucker

Gary W. Tucker is a former superintendent of schools in Illinois and is now retired.

After 34 years as a public school educator and administrator, I now have had time to reflect on the communications model that we used in Danville Community Consolidated School District 118 while I was superintendent. It's a model I believe could help districts of any size.

District 118, with an ethnically and socio-economically diverse student base of more than 6,000, has one comprehensive high school, two middle schools, eight elementary schools and several alternative education sites that serve the Danville and Tilton population of more than 35,000. The communities are east of Champaign-Urbana along the I-74 corridor.

First, any board/superintendent communication model must be based on a consensus among the administrative team. That team, while traditionally the board of education and the superintendent, may include others as well. During my years as superintendent, our team included board members, the associate superintendent, the non-elected board secretary (a full-time, paid position in District 118) and me.

To reach consensus, the team typically held two board retreats during the calendar year. A much-discussed topic during those retreats was communication between the administrative portion of the team and the board.

The model we developed, while constantly being refined, was the result of those discussions. In the end, while the board was firm in its resolve not to micromanage, they wanted to be informed about events in the district. To achieve that level of information, we divided our model into verbal and written communications.

Getting the word out

Our focus was to communicate the same basic information to all team members. This was especially crucial with verbal communications.

As superintendent, I wanted — if at all possible — to make phone calls to board members to inform them of anything that might end up at their doorstep, either collectively or individually. However, if I could not make those calls, the associate superintendent and/or the board secretary made the calls. And, even if I did call, those two individuals were informed of the situation as well.

When making calls, we noted key points, so the same details of an event were communicated to each board member. When a board member could not be reached via telephone, we left a message to contact the superintendent's office, to call me at home or to call my cell phone. We avoided leaving details of an event on voice mail to maintain confidentiality.

We did not filter or edit these verbal communiqués, unless dictated by district policy or the school code. For example, if a student had allegedly committed a high-profile infraction of the discipline code, we would verbally give only the most basic of details to board members in order to keep them from getting blindsided by the public.

In all likelihood the board would eventually hear the details of the infraction in closed session and have to decide whether the student(s) involved would be excluded from school for more than 10 days. Our goal was not to prejudice the board's decision before they heard the case, but still give them a "heads-up."

While our building-level administrators were extremely competent at guarding the confidentiality of the nature and participants in all such alleged infractions, in many instances the details of such incidents would be known on the street shortly after students arrived home from school.

Other examples of this verbal communication included informing board members of the presence of emergency vehicles at schools, accidents involving students or staff, emergency buildings and grounds issues, upcoming media coverage (positive or negative) or incidents that occurred during extracurricular activities. And, if resolution of such incidents did not require board action, a follow-up call informed them of that.

The question we always asked in deciding whether to call board members or not: Is there a possibility one or more board members will be questioned about an incident?

If there was a remote chance, we called. And, in the end, I believe the board appreciated our efforts to communicate with them in this manner. In return, the board agreed to refer any further questions by parents, the media and/or the general public to the superintendent's office.

Before board meetings

District 118 had and continues to hold regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. Packets for each meeting were delivered to board members on Friday afternoon prior to the meeting. Packets included a letter from the superintendent summarizing each item on the meeting's agenda.

I believe this digested version of the information was invaluable. As is typical in many school districts, the information to support items on the agenda was frequently quite detailed. While we encouraged board members to read the information provided thoroughly, we knew this would not always be the case.

The letter assisted board members with meeting preparation. Frequently, it also provided the stimulus for board members to call and ask questions about specific agenda items prior to the meeting. Unless the questions were to clear up minor issues, I encouraged the board member who called to ask that same question in open session at the board meeting. If the issue was confusing to a member of the administrative team, then it also might be confusing to the media, unions representatives and other central office administrators who also received board meeting packets, or those who attended the meetings or viewed them on the local public access television station.

Newsletter updates

The other regular form of written communication the team received was a newsletter on the Fridays they did not receive a meeting packet. The newsletter consisted of a recap of the previous board meeting and a thank you for board member support at that meeting. It also included reminders of high-profile agenda items for upcoming meetings.

My approach on such agenda items was to begin mentioning them in the newsletter, then put them on an agenda as information-only items and then finally as action items. It was always my hope that board members never felt rushed or pressured to make decisions on such agenda items.

In addition to board meeting information, I included reminders of upcoming district events. Our board members were (and still are) very conscientious about attending as many district functions as possible. This was especially helpful as the end of the year approached and the functions board members attended dramatically increased.

I concluded the newsletter with updates of agenda items that were approved at previous meetings. For example, if the board approved contracts to renovate a building, I would update the board on their progress. To me, it was both logical and courteous to keep them informed of progress and the completion of such issues.

Individual requests

The final type of written communication was ad hoc information one or more board members requested. That information would usually take the form of documents or data that would normally not be a part of a board meeting.

For example, a board member might request trend data over a period of years on some subject such as student attendance. While only a single board member might have requested such information, all members received the same information, along with an explanation. At no time did the administrative portion of the team want to segment the board by selectively providing such information.

No communication model is perfect or foolproof. At times, board members might not get the information to prepare them to deal with an issue or an event immediately. However, because we were so conscientious in our efforts to keep them informed, when the flow of information was not as it should have been, they were very understanding, generally.

I believe the entire communication process helped build a more effective and cohesive board/superintendent team. And, in the end, those who profited most from this relationship were students, parents and staff in our district.