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
January/February 2003
Hazards of success:
How to avoid board troubles when things are going well
by John J. Cassel
John Cassel is IASB field services director for DuPage, North Cook and Starved Rock divisions. You may contact him at jcassel@iasb.com.
Every board, no matter how successful, must attend to certain fundamentals if it is to avoid eventual disaster.
Does this complaint have a familiar ring:
"We don't understand what happened. Our board was doing so well. We have a great district; our students are doing well and our superintendent is a fine leader. But all of a sudden our board is a mess. We're fighting with each other, and our trust is gone."
Even though this situation seems to be rather common, it always comes as a surprise. Let's call it "the hazards of success," explore some typical causes and consider steps a board can take to avoid the condition.
We never planned for board change.
It's amazing if you stop to think about it. The typical board meets almost a hundred times in the four years of a member's term. Often, three or four members on a board will share at least one or two terms of service. After spending a couple of hundred evenings together, they get to know each other pretty well.
Perhaps they know each other too well. They know each other's speeches before they make them. They can read an inflection or a simple nod. And, if the same superintendent has been in place through this period, an extraordinary level of trust and understanding often develops around the board table.
Such boards have every reason to feel good about themselves - so good, in fact, they may be tempted to forget the basics.
Almost every board has new members or, from time to time, a new superintendent. Either way, the board now has at least one individual who does not share the common history nor the common assumptions and understandings.
Though not always apparent, this is a situation ready to come unglued. There is a certain irony in the situation. The very part of the organization that is designed for stability - the board (the group that clarifies who we are as a district and what we care about as a community) - is often the group that changes the most.
Preventive medicine: Board members come and go; superintendents come and go. One way to plan for board change is to write down the board's best wisdom. In the midst of personnel transitions, a board's written policy captures the board's best thinking (ends policies) and basic agreements (board process policies). A good orientation for new members, organized around clear policy statements, will allow a positive board culture and tradition to go forward in part because they are available for review.
We neglected good communications.
One of the first indications of the "shared history" dynamic is sloppy communications. Sometimes there are sub-groups of the board who, because of their history, share excellent communications. But it's behind the scenes, and new members cannot participate in the conversation. Because a school board is first and foremost a public body, this dynamic is especially dangerous. A key board task is engaging the community and engendering trust.
Preventive medicine: A wise board will see itself as a body that does public business and facilitates the engagement between the district and the community. The board has the task of telling the district's story to the community and the community's story to the district. Communication is at the heart of what the board does. Its communication should be visible, clear and meaningful. All members of the community should feel their voice is in the boardroom. If it is not, they cannot feel as though the public schools "belong to me and my community."
Furthermore, because clarifying the mission and identity of the district is a key task of the board, a conversation about ends must be kept alive among all the parts of the district. And that leads to the next issue.
We forgot what our job is.
The board's fundamental job is to clarify the district's identity, purpose and direction. Once this clarity is achieved, the board spends its time monitoring progress toward the vision.
I've never met a board that got into trouble by doing a good job of monitoring. But I have met boards that spent considerable energy on mission and purpose, and then allowed their consensus to fall into disrepair.
Preventive medicine: What some boards do not understand is the reality that mission and vision are constantly moving targets. The world changes, and our vision must adjust. The community changes, and our vision must adapt. We have new players, and the old consensus must be rebuilt.
Boards that successfully inoculate themselves against this condition know they must constantly renew their vision and agreements about their vision. It's not enough for the superintendent to have the vision clearly in his or her head.
It's not enough for four or more members of the board to be clear. It needs to be a conversation of eight people - seven board members and a superintendent - in the midst of the community.
It's not enough for the district to be clear. The community needs to be drawn into the conversation. A wise board will regularly review its "mega ends statements" (mission, vision, beliefs and priorities) to make sure it has a powerful working consensus on these key matters.
Monitoring is one important way to keep the agreements fresh and powerful. Monitoring will help the board know how the world is changing and how the district must change to keep on track. Clarity about vision requires agreement about how to assess performance.
We wanted it all.
Most districts can do anything they choose, but no district can do everything. Some boards act as if this statement is not true.
One way to talk about the board's essential task is "deciding among priorities." In contrast, some boards see their job as thinking up more and more good ideas for the superintendent and district to do.
Preventive medicine: The reality of schools, a reality of human life, is the need to choose among many good things. Wise board members understand this is the board's job and they accept the work with humility and dedication.
We found ourselves fighting over "means."
It's not surprising that boards fight over how to do something. We all have different styles and preferences for how to get things done. Whose is the right way?
Preventive medicine: A board that stays in its role is not solving problems at the day-to-day (means) level. It's helping the district clarify competing values and building an infrastructure to support the district's mission.
Some things are better left in the hands of one person: the superintendent.
Some things are easier with a group: helping the district hear the various voices in the community and coming together around clear priorities.
A group is not good at managing a complex organization. The board (a group) is good at deciding what needs to be accomplished. The superintendent (one) is good at deciding how best to accomplish it.
A board caught up in disputes over "how" should not be surprised by the conflicts; they have taken on the wrong job. A simple solution is to make sure the board's agenda is about "what" - not "how."
Our working agreements were implicit rather than explicit.
All boards have agreed ways of doing business. But for some boards, the "rules" exist only in the minds of a few members. New members don't know where the potholes are, partly because no one told them. In addition, some boards have working understandings regarding roles and relationships that new members are hesitant to accept.
How is a new consensus formed, especially if the old consensus was unwritten and not part of the current board conversation?
Preventive medicine: Because the board is an ever-changing cast of characters and because it does its work under public scrutiny, it's important to have the processes and procedures written down (in policy) rather than in members' minds. How is our agenda constructed? How do we select a president? How do we respond when a newspaper reporter calls us? When do we go into closed session?
These are all examples of processes about which there should be explicit, common agreement. Of course, the agreements can change, but it is difficult to invite new people into the conversation if you have no way of sharing this important information.
Bottom line
A wise school board will adopt a healthy lifestyle that keeps it out of trouble. Consider this sports analogy: a great athletic team must have a sophisticated strategy and play smart. But a great team never neglects the basics.
Board basics are the same as sports basics: