Angie Peifer is IASB associate executive director for board development and Targeting Achievement through Governance. John J. Cassel served as an IASB field services director for 18 years before retiring in August 2011.
Editor’s note: John J Cassel and Angie Peifer have been among a select few Association personnel who answered monthly questions for the American School Board Journal. These questions and their answers are representative of the knowledge of board issues and culture that have been shared, and they are used with that publication’s permission.
The question: A longtime school board member had suffered from a debilitating illness and requested that he be able to participate in school board meetings remotely, by telephone. His board colleagues gladly gave him the opportunity. When he recovered, he began attending meetings in person. Another board member wanted the same privilege, but for a different reason: she lived about 20 miles from the board meeting office. She was asking for this to be a permanent arrangement. What should the board do?
Angie’s answer: New technologies have caused many board and state legislative bodies to reconsider their definitions of “meeting attendance.” This board should first check its policy, which should reflect the board’s thinking about meeting attendance as well as any current state statutes defining a legally convened meeting. In Illinois, a quorum of the board must be physically present at the meeting and participation by telephone or audio conferencing is restricted to 1) personal illness or disability, 2) employment or district business, or 3) a family or other emergency. Absent policy or state legal guidance, this board needs to have a policy-level conversation about its expectations for meeting attendance and participation and then adopt those expectations as board policy.
The question: A longtime varsity basketball coach at an urban high school had a reputation as an inspiring teacher and a great guy. In the past five years, however, his team had a losing record. Some parents and community members were pressuring the superintendent and the school board to fire this coach and replace him with someone who could produce a winning season. Parents complained that their students were missing out on scholarship opportunities because of the team’s poor performance. Some school board members thought this attitude of “win at any cost” was misguided, and that the coach put teaching above competition. Other members agreed with the parents. What should the board do?
John’s answer: I strongly support the idea of “the board has one employee — the superintendent.” That is, everyone else in the system works for the superintendent. A wise board will not want to interject itself into the relations between the superintendent and his or her staff — in this instance, the principal and basketball coach.
At the same time, how does the superintendent know if he or she has the right employee for this important part of the school’s athletic program? It depends on what benefits the school expects to receive from its investment in basketball. This is the key board question: What does our community want from our sports program?
The board serves the superintendent — as well as the staff, students and community — by providing an answer to this foundational question. The answer is likely some mix of school reputation, team building and cooperative learning, character development, co-curricular opportunities and nurturing excellence. How the board weighs these and other values can be expected to shape the work of the coach. Is he the right person? That’s a superintendent question. Is the program working? That’s a board question, which can only be answered with helpful policy in place.
The question: A school board in a small town had a contentious election that resulted in a new slate of board members serving alongside longtime members. Board relations started out strained and went downhill from there. The board president decided a board retreat could help rebuild frayed relationships. The other board members had one stipulation: They wanted to meet in private, where they could feel safe to discuss their conflicts. Retreats in private clearly violate Sunshine Laws. What should the board do?
Angie’s answer: The board has no choice but to work within the boundaries of their state’s Sunshine Laws. Although a private retreat might help repair member relationships, it would seriously damage the board’s relationship with the press and its community. As a possible compromise, the board president might consider contacting the local media outlets to explain the purpose of the retreat, providing any relevant information about the retreat (who will be facilitating, etc.), and asking if they would cooperate by not covering this particular session. The board might provide the media with copies of any board agreements that came out of this session.
The question: A school board in a Midwestern town had a great relationship with its state legislators, one of whom had previously served on the board before being elected to state office. Board members prided themselves on being good advocates for their district and public education by regularly meeting with state reps to discuss district and statewide issues. One new board member, however, didn’t value the connections to the state legislature. She believed that school board members should be focused only on their districts, and not get mixed up with politics. Her insistence was causing friction on the board, and community members began to question it, too. What should the board do?
John’s answer: I like to think about school board members as community (not just district) leaders. So, a board that does not attempt to engage the wider issues — especially the state legislature, since they have the key responsibility for education — may be defaulting on an important board function. Of course this is tough and exasperating stuff — it would be easier to just focus on local district issues. Perhaps this particular board might agree that some of its members will be focused internally while others invest energy externally. In practice, the two may not be easily separated. Bottom line: Public schools, by definition, are “mixed up in politics” and those who provide board leadership need to engage the larger community as this context is part of the very meaning of public education.
The question: A district superintendent and administration were putting an anti-bullying program/curriculum in place for the schools, with a different program for each age level: elementary, middle and high school. The superintendent brought to the board a proposal that it get involved in the initiative by leading by example. He asked that the board revamp and reemphasize its civility code and ethics code, and mention specifically that bullying behavior among adults would not be tolerated. Some board members thought it was a great idea. A few members, however, were offended. They thought that being part of the initiative would suggest that they were having difficulties getting along. What should the board do?
John’s answer: The example of the board always sets the pace for the district. The board’s influence by example is often subtle, operating at the level of culture and expectations. So, it seems to me the superintendent is appropriately concerned about alignment — is the whole district, including the board, on the same page? Do we have a clear focus and a commitment toward our common goals? Boards are wise to make explicit the connection between their values and hopes for the district and the various programs and activities of the district, In this instance, the board should actively and explicitly explore the connection between its anti-bullying program and its stated values and goals. Then it should discuss how its own behavior and modeling support those same values and goals.