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 2007
New board devised to advise, not govern
by Alan E. Simon
Alan Simon retired as superintendent for Arlington Heights SD 25 in July 2006 and is currently an associate professor of leadership at Concordia University/Chicago.
Although it is a creation of the state, many functions of a local school board mirror those of a corporate board of directors. In most public and privately held corporations, the board of directors is responsible for setting goals and guiding the chief executive officer or president to develop and implement strategic plans.
Just as CEOs report to their board of directors, public school superintendents report to the school board. Whether elected or appointed, these board members oversee the operation and direction of a school district by setting policies and evaluating the performance of the superintendent.
CEOs and superintendents, on the other hand, are political creatures. They must keep abreast of organizational direction. However, their understanding of the organizational environment gets distorted because leaders often act only on information that typically is collected and easily interpreted, according to classic work on organization by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald Salanick.
School administrators have easy access to achievement, demographic and survey data. Citizen advisory councils, PTAs, student councils, management councils, satisfaction surveys and meetings provide typical feedback about organizational effectiveness. However, to make a difference in the lives of students and other members of the school family, other types of feedback may be needed.
In Arlington Heights School District 25, an additional Superintendent's Board of Directors was created to advise, not govern, and to generate specific ideas for organizational improvement. Education reform experts Michael Fullan, Thomas Sergiovanni and others encourage leaders to identify problems and make needed changes. But changes are more readily accepted if they are suggested and implemented by those most affected.
If leadership is an acceptance and an embodiment of our stewardship responsibilities, as Sergiovanni wrote in 1992, then it is necessary to inform people of the purposes, philosophies, beliefs, values and goals of the leader. Organizational analysts Leo G. Bolman and Terrence Deal note that a decision-maker's power also depends on constituent satisfaction.
Power and managerial effectiveness emanate from having information and the ability to find and solve problems. Thus, the Superintendent's Board of Directors in S.D. 25 was designed to elicit face-to-face, forthright anecdotal information from individuals inside and outside the organization about how things worked, and advice about what needed to be improved.
Getting started
The superintendent began by assembling a diverse group of advisors/directors. These individuals were invited to share their perceptions and ideas about specific policies, procedures and rituals. In the recruitment phase, the superintendent told prospective members that their role would be to make suggestions for improving the organization, "even if they were little things." The committee members were empowered to hold the superintendent accountable for reporting progress on specific projects for the year.
The initial group in Arlington Heights, a K-5 district northwest of Chicago with about 5,000 students, consisted of an attorney and a retired business executive, as well as middle school students and their parents, teachers, board members, PTA officers and two administrators. Members were selected from inside and the outside the district in an attempt to connect with a wider environment.
At the first meeting, the superintendent shared a personal leadership map connecting strategic planning goals with leadership dreams and aspirations. Initially, this map guided discussion about maintaining and enhancing school culture and promoting the success of students. Continuous improvement became the theme of the map and the new board.
The agenda for the first meeting included:
The superintendent and a central office administrator served as facilitators. The activity portion, which was to list two or three important issues that the superintendent and the district should address that school year, generated ideas that were then grouped into categories such as communications, safety, lunchroom issues, curriculum issues, extracurricular issues and school procedures.
Specific issues under each topic were evaluated using a variety of decision making techniques. This format generated many suggestions and recommendations. After the first and subsequent meetings, detailed minutes were sent to the directors, all principals and the school board. The superintendent also provided periodic reports at regular board meetings. Some procedural questions were sent to the principals for clarification or action.
The first two years produced some interesting suggestions and some small successes.
In the first year, parents suggested that the superintendent periodically summarize board actions for the community on television. "Board Update" is now a bi-monthly feature on the public access cable channel. Those with students in school as well as those without have called and e-mailed their satisfaction with this program.
Another issue — lunchroom sanitation — was addressed by students who were dissatisfied with the way lunch tables were cleaned. Student news articles stressed healthy food choices. The homework hotline was evaluated and a consistent format was developed.
Accommodating more voices
After almost two years, it became clear that the student contributions were practical and had the most impact on their day-to-day lives. The composition of the board needed to change to account for the powerful student voices.
Adults agreed. Originally, two middle school students and their parents had been part of the committee. This increased to four middle school students and their parents, as well as two elementary students and their parents.
Teachers, administrators and the PTA president remained. The group's focus changed to student interests and needs. Students were interested in topics such as CDs for all texts, more sports, bus schedules and consideration of band students in scheduling tests and other school activities. Issues of hallway traffic patterns, picnics on good weather days and even the pressure in water fountains were addressed.
The Superintendent's Board of Directors evolved from an outside-in and inside-out committee to a student-led forum searching for site-based improvements. The students, however, were not concerned only with their own plight. They recommended that elementary schools establish service clubs and that the middle school clubs expand community activities. Intergenerational outreach, including concerts and computer clubs, also was suggested by students. Some of these activities had been part of the district culture, and some were enhanced as the result of the suggestions.
Feedback continued. For instance, the district was not aware of the extent of parent anxiety involved with the transition to middle school. The district had a comprehensive transition plan, but parents felt the timing of meetings and notifications should be changed. Recommendations were sent to the principals; times and notifications were changed.
Face-to-face discussion and brainstorming were geared to "doing what we do, but even better." Notice of testing and classroom placements were brought to the superintendent's attention. Again, principals, using helpful feedback, incorporated several suggestions into their communication plans.
More problematic issues were discussed, such as class sizes and pull-out programs. Boys' volleyball was discussed and added to the list of extra-curricular activities by the school board. The after-school sports programs at both middle schools were compared and changes were made to equalize opportunities.
In 2005, students on the board, administrators, teachers and other students developed new forms of school announcements, including video summaries of sporting events, scrolling messages in the lunchrooms, a fourth-grade "Respect Day," and a video and PowerPoint presentation for the school board on their accomplishments in communication and community service.
While originally formed as an idea clearinghouse, the Superintendent's Board of Directors in Arlington Heights S.D. 25 evolved into a student-led discussion group focused on continuous improvement. The structure of this board empowered the superintendent to be a servant leader, to work on issues that mattered to students and other constituents … all at a minimal cost. Food service supplied and served the dinners. And the kids enjoyed being treated like adults with formal meals — including desserts. The results were priceless!
References
Leo G. Bolman and Terrence Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. (third edition) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1993
Michael Fullan. Change Forces. London: The Falmer Press, 1993.
Thomas J. Sergiovanni. Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.
Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald Salanick. The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.