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
May-June 1999

Stay in your own canoe

A school board-administration fable

By Thomas M.P. Hannigan

The Lost Tribe, as later generations would call it, was located on the northern shores of an immense lake. The Lost Tribe relied upon both crops and hunting to provide food. It was July of a difficult year. The previous year’s crops were damaged by unusually poor weather. Later generations would attribute the poor weather to "El Nino." The resulting grain shortage necessitated increased hunting, which in turn caused an overkill of game in the surrounding area. Unless the food supplies were supplemented, most, if not all, tribal members would starve. Decisive action was needed from tribal leaders.

The tribal leadership was made up of the hunters and the council members. The council members were chosen by the tribe, based upon leadership, wisdom and empathy. The tribal council chose the hunters from the tribe, based upon strength, bravery and hunting skills. The council could appoint or remove a hunter at will.

Neither side trusted the other. Not even the gravity of the food crisis was enough to force sustained harmony between the hunters and council members. The hunters and council did agree that the tribe’s only hope was to find and capture more game. All knew that there was ample game on the far side of the lake. However, the hunters feared that if they left for the distant shore, the council members would take upon themselves the duties of the hunters. The council members feared that if only the hunters crossed the lake and secured the necessary food, the hunters would be exalted and the position of the council members within the tribe would be diminished. Neither side would budge.

Win Wyn

In late July, as the stores of food dwindled, a shaman visited the tribe. His name was Win Wyn. He gave the council members and the hunters a proposal to settle the impasse — the tribe called it a "win wyn" proposition. Later generations would appreciate the significance of the name. The shaman suggested that the head of the council members and the head of the hunters should, each in his own canoe, paddle across the lake to seek the game needed to insure the survival of the tribe.

It was agreed. Each leader entered his own canoe. Not wishing the other to be first to the opposite shore, each paddled as fast as possible. They reached landfall, disembarked and walked inland in unison. Later generations would call this "parallel playing."

Approximately 100 yards inland, an enormous elk became visible on the ridge above them. Each drew an arrow, put it to bow, and simultaneously shot at the elk. Each arrow struck home. The elk died instantly. Hunter and councilman each knew that his arrow alone was the cause of the elk’s demise. Side by side, they ran to where the elk fell. They grabbed the carcass and dragged it to the canoes. The elk was so immense that one canoe would not hold it. After loud argument and debate, the two finally agreed that the elk would be draped across both canoes. That way each would have equal claim to returning with food for the tribe.

The elk was carefully suspended between the canoes. Hunter and council member reentered their own canoes. Without further conversation, they independently pushed off from the shore. Hunter put oar to water. Councilman did the same. Each one’s stroke was out of unison and harmony with the other, making progress slow, drifting and antagonistic. Neither man said a word aloud. Thoughts of blame, anger and frustration abounded.

The two traveled a third of the distance needed to cross the lake after many hours of wasted effort. Off in the distance, storm clouds arose. Both recognized the danger. Unless the opposite shore was reached before the storm hit, the storm would prove fatal to both of them and their mission. Neither signal nor sound was exchanged. Hunter pulled harder on his oar. Council member increased his stroke speed. The pace was frantic, but every new stroke only threw the canoes further off-course.

Who decides

Hunter canoe went left. Council canoe went right. The elk shivered between the canoes. Council member and hunter knew that the canoes needed to be aligned. Each decided to take matters into his own hands. Hunter grabbed the council member’s canoe. At the same time, council member grabbed the opposite canoe. Both acted in silence. The delicate balance was destroyed. The canoes rocked, then capsized. The elk sank, dragging both the hunter and the council member to the bottom of the lake. Each of the leaders drowned. And the whole tribe starved.

There were many things wrong with the relationship between the hunters and the council members. However, they did reach some accords. They had articulated a clear and present problem — the tribe needed food. They agreed upon the goal and the need for immediate action. The mission to secure food failed because the head of the hunters and the head of the council could not decide who was to decide.

"Who decides who decides" is a basic principle of governance and management. There is a spectrum along which responsibility for all school district activities can be plotted, with managing day-to-day operations at the left end and setting long range goals and articulating the vision and mission for the district at the right end. Along that spectrum are placed specific activities. School bus routes, cafeteria menus, class schedules, and other routine matters fall on the left portion of the spectrum. Moving across the spectrum, one finds employment of non-certified and certified personnel, curriculum design, athletic conference affiliation, and similar responsibilities. To the far right of the spectrum fall budget approval, goal development and long range strategy.

When you apply the question, "who decides who decides," to the spectrum of activities, specific delegation occurs. The ultimate arbiter of "who decides who decides" is the school board. If a school board so chooses, it may decide to decide all matters. A school board is within its rights to determine the daily menu in the cafeteria. Fortunately, most boards do not so choose. When a school board begins to operate at the far left end of the spectrum, the school board engages in true micro-management and becomes ineffective in its governance role — and makes effective management impossible as well.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the rubber stamp board, which decides to allow the superintendent to decide all matters. The board merely ratifies the recommendations of the administration. While a board may choose this route, to do so is to negate the citizen stewardship that is the strength of the American educational system.

Middle ground

Very few boards are at the extremes of the rubber-stamping/ micro-managing spectrum. Most boards find a middle ground allowing the superintendent and administration to decide day-to-day operations matters, and policy decisions to be made by the board. There is an ongoing positive tension in the middle ground where decision making is collaborative. Input comes from both board and administration. In that area of ongoing positive tension, the board may delegate or retain certain aspects of decision making after intense communication. After discussion of pros and cons, a decision is reached.

The area of ongoing positive tension is fluid. For example, boards take different approaches to the hiring of certified staff. Some boards treat this as strictly an administrative activity. The administration will present to the board the administration’s candidate along with the candidate’s resume. The board, pro forma, accepts the administration’s recommendation. Other boards treat the hiring of staff as a board function. All candidates are presented to the board, which reviews the applications and in some instances, takes part in the interview process. The board hires upon its own evaluations. Although the latter method is not recommended, whichever method is chosen, "who decides who decides" is clear.

Incidentally, the width of this area of ongoing positive tension has a direct relation to the length of board meetings: the wider it is, the longer the meetings will last.

Once the board determines "who decides," both sides must honor that decision. Once certain decisions are delegated, the board’s role is to support and assess the results of the decision. In matters in which the board decides to allow the administration to decide, the board must abide by the administrative decision. If circumstances change, the board reviews and amends the process and procedure. Second-guessing the superintendent’s decisions quickly leads to chaos.

Similarly, if the board decides that it will decide, the administration must abide by the board’s decision.

The school board may alter the process at any time, but any change in process should be justified and clearly communicated. When change is about to occur, the lines of communication must be open. Discussion and deliberation can lead to improvement in the "who decides" rules. So long as there is ongoing positive tension in the middle ground area, progress can be made. If, on the other hand, the board decides to change the process because it doesn’t trust the superintendent, it would be better off looking for a new superintendent it can trust. Second-guessing the superintendent’s decisions quickly leads to chaos.

Delegation of authority by a board is not abdication of authority. Insistence upon active intense communication between the administration and the board is not micro-managing. The administration is duty- bound to keep the board well-informed of its decisions. Information is the food of the administration/ school board relationship. The board needs to be fully informed of the decisions made by the administration. The board should not second guess the administration’s choice if it has delegated the decision making. Unless it is illegal, the board should allow the administrative decision to stand. To do so is governance. The board’s duty is to set the policy as to decision making. The board then reviews to see if the policy is adhered to and moves on.

Openness and candor are by-products of that intense communication. Trust in engendered. Lines of responsibility are clear. A clearly defined and communicated process allows both superintendent and school board to fulfill their roles effectively, without misunderstanding.

Ultimately, the Lost Tribe became lost because of the lack of positive ongoing communication between the elected leaders and the chosen hunters. Had the head of the council members and the head of the hunters been able to decide who was to decide on the manner of the paddling of the canoes, they would have held a true course to the opposite shore. It was of no importance which of the leaders called the strokes. What was important was that someone be given the authority to do it. They needed to decide who was to decide. Their failure to do so caused the ultimate destruction of the common good. In your district, be clear about "who decides who decides." If you then stay in your own canoe, later generations will not refer to you as the Lost District.

Thomas M.P. Hannigan is an attorney with office in Mundelein. He is president of the Mundelein High School District 120 Board of Education.