School Board Appreciation

Ah, January is School Board Appreciation month in Texas, and so I sit on the last day of this month to ponder such   Some call it Board Recognition month, but that may be because most of the folks in town do not know or recognize school board members.  Previously the governor signed a proclamation declaring it so, but he no longer does that.  I do not know if it is because he refuses as he has no respect for school boards, or if the school board association stopped asking because they have no respect for the governor.  Regardless, across Texas at January Board Meetings there is “hurrah” regarding our appreciation for the folks who step forward to serve as school board members.  It is not a mere coincidence that January is also the month wherein most Boards evaluate their superintendents, act on their contracts and set their salary.  There is nothing like a public display of affection on the part of the victim prior to a secret screwing behind closed doors. 

(If you think I exaggerate, check on the list of articles on TexasISD.com regarding superintendent changes this month.  Districts listed include Cleveland, Manor, College Station, Canutillo, and Boswell.  And that is just this week!)

There is a mantra taught to superintendents regarding the relationship between school boards and the superintendents of schools. The superintendent is to be ever mindful that from the board’s point of view it is, “My kids, my schools, my money.”  The implication is the superintendent serves the wishes of the board.  I would propose a mantra for superintendents:  “My profession, my experience, my knowledge.”  And therein lies the rub.  What happens when a superintendent acting on best practices, best research, best knowledge, best experience, and policy and procedure finds him or herself at odds with the wants and wishes of a board?  Simple answer: the superintendent will lose and leave, or cave and stay becoming a politician rather than an educator.  I look at the number of superintendent vacancies in this state and read the data that implies most superintendent turnover is triggered by “governance” issues (read that as conflict with the Board) and I wonder what the heck we are doing to our public schools.

So, what do school boards do, anyway, he pines rhetorically?  The powers and duties assigned to the Board are listed in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 11, Subchapter D.  There is a précis version of the list in Board Policy BAA (LEGAL). 

The law and the policy begin with the phrase, “The Trustees, as a body corporate, have the exclusive power and duty to govern and oversee the management of the public schools of the District.”  In other words, individual board members do not have any more authority than any other member of the community.  Only when they meet as a legal body, only when they vote in public, do they have authority.  That is really hard for many board members to accept.  Individual members feel free to simply communicate to the superintendent that they would like to see such and such, or have the superintendent do so and so.  Legally such requests carry no weight.  In fact, such requests are contrary to the required relationship of boards and superintendents.  However, it is very difficult for a supe to ignore such requests, legal or not.

The phrase “oversee the management of the district,” is the source of much of the potential conflict between the board and the supe.  There is a huge difference in overseeing the management of the district and managing the district.  The supe manages the district.  He or she is responsible for all the day-to-day operations of the system, supervision, evaluation and assignment of all employees, implementation of the budget, compliance with all state and federal regulations and mandates, accomplishing the goals and objectives of the district, etc.  School Boards are not qualified to manage a public school system and the law is clear that the CEO, the superintendent, is responsible for that.  But Board members have a really tough time with that as well.  Many board members operate on the assumption that they could run the district, or that they should run the district.  Some board members feel free to conduct professional personnel evaluations which is clearly illegal and beyond their scope.  Some board members feel free to intervene in superintendent assignment of personnel which is clearly illegal and beyond their scope.  But they just cannot stay out of it.  These conflicts are structured by lack of board understanding of what boards are tasked to do.

Of the 19 powers and duties listed in law and policy, only a few trigger conflicts.  (Many, like the requirement to set up grievance procedure, adopt goals and objectives, have an annual financial audit, etc., are perfunctory practices in all districts and do not require any board action save approval.)  The two main sources of conflict are (1) the requirement that the board collaborate with the superintendent, and (2) the requirement that the board hold the superintendent accountable for achieving district goals.  Boards do not like the first one and fail to understand the second one.

The median size school district in Texas has less than 1,000 students.  That means that more than half of the districts in the state are in small towns.  School boards in such settings are very different than school boards in large urban and suburban districts.  In small towns many, many board members grew up there, attended school there, and have not really lived anywhere else.  Small towns provide very few opportunities for citizens to gain any type of corporate experience and most board members are either sole proprietors or punch the clock for someone else.  Sole proprietors do not understand why the supe cannot just order things to be done, and clock punchers generally resent management and yearn for the opportunity to be a “boss.”  Those two dynamics wreck havoc with the board and superintendent relationship.  Large systems are much more likely to have professionals like lawyers and corporate executives on the board.  Such people understand both the expertise inherent in the superintendent’s role and corporate decision making.  Not so in small towns. 

In small towns it is very difficult for boards to collaborate with the superintendent if the board believes they know all they need to know to manage the district.  Further, such board members receive informal input from life-long friends and from teachers; input that matters a great deal to them and they tend to be very reluctant to share.  Rather than review data for decision making, they act on perceptions formed by an invisible constituency.  Members of a seven member school board in a district with 100 teachers are much more likely to have long standing personal relationships with some teachers.  Members of a seven member board in a district with 9,000 teachers are not so likely to know and interact with teachers, much less a teacher from every campus.  Add to that the fact that many board members have children in the system and/or relatives on the payroll and it is clear that input from kids and kin will always carry more weight with a board member than professionally collected data presented to the board.  In other words, in small systems a professionally trained superintendent is much more likely to have conflict with a board or board members who wish to manage the district, and a board or board members are much less likely to collaborate with a superintendent if they perceive they can do the job themselves and perceive themselves to be the “boss” of the superintendent.

Further, if the district meets the goals stated in the district plan there is no reason to run off the superintendent.  In fact, doing so would violate the procedure and the intent of the law.

Most interesting to me is the fact that since the early 1900’s the prerequisites, knowledge and training required to be a superintendent has increased dramatically.  There have been no similar changes in the prerequisites to run and be elected to the school board.  As long as a person is at least 18 years old, registered to vote and a resident of the district he or she can run for the board.  That allows the possibility of a highly complex, highly regulated professional learning organization to be governed by high school drop outs.  One cannot be elected judge unless one is an attorney.  One can be elected to the education board and lack education.

Once elected, a board member is safely set until the next election.  There is no recall provision for board members.  Further, there are no prerequisite trainings for board members.  The state lists required hours and topics for training to be completed by board members each year, but there are no teeth in that law, just jaw.  Failure to procure the required hours results in no consequences for the board member save having his or her name read aloud at the December Board Meeting as a member who lacks training hours.  A newly elected board member in May is allowed to participate in the superintendent’s evaluation in June with no training at all.

That fact leads to further issues.  Every employee in the school district is evaluated by a professional, certified administrator.  From principals to teacher’s aides, evaluation is conducted professionally by someone who holds at least a master’s degree, has received hours and hours of rigorous training in evaluation, has passed a test certifying they can evaluate staff, and passed a rigorous test certifying that they are an administrator.  Any employee who feels he or she has been evaluated in ways not appropriate has the opportunity to request an additional observation, file a grievance, have a hearing, appeal not only to the superintendent and the school board, but may appeal all the way to the Commissioner of Education.  To recommend nonrenewal of a professional the supervisor must identify weaknesses in writing, share all the data with the professional leading to the recommendation, develop a growth plan for the professional, and notify the professional in advance that he or she will not be recommended for further employment. 

All of the above is true for everyone in the system except the superintendent.  The superintendent is the only employee in a school district who is evaluated by lay people with no required training.  The board does not have to provide data to the superintendent in advance of their action on his or contract.  The board does not have to notify the superintendent in advance that they are going to non-renew the superintendent.  The board is not required to develop a growth plan for a superintendent.  The board is not even required to document what they perceive to be shortcomings in the supe’s performance.  And, there is no provision for the superintendent to appeal the board’s evaluation and contractual decision to anyone.  It is amazing that anyone agrees to be a superintendent under those terms.

All of this is to say that a group of lay people with no required level of education or training are empowered to non-renew a superintendent without advanced notice, without a growth plan, without documentation and based on perception, hearsay and rumor from an invisible constituency.  That may have made sense in 1903 when less than 25% of our population had a high school diploma.  It surely does not make sense in our current regulated, high stakes, research based educational organizations.  Further, the board can attempt to operate in areas beyond their legal authority and hold the superintendent accountable for not supporting them.  Surprisingly, Texas experiences a high degree of superintendent turnover. 

What can we do about all the above?  I know it will come as surprise to you that I have some suggestions.  The first are pretty simple.  School Boards should delegate all hiring, all non-renewal and all personnel assignments to the superintendent and get out of the evaluation model.  Should they relinquish that authority, two things will happen.  One, when they receive complaints from their invisible constituency they will be forced to refer those complaints to the supe else wise nothing will happen.  Second, if they really want to hold the supe accountable then the supe should be able to pick and retain his or her staff.  Having the board pick or reject employees and then tell the supe to make things happen is ludicrous.

The second simple thing we could do is limit board meetings to once a quarter and eliminate the Executive Sessions except for those very specific reasons found in law.  Meeting once a month is just often enough to convince the board that they know what is going on.  It also allows them to make decisions and go home leaving the supe with the job of implementation.  There is no reason a board must meet every month, they just do as a matter of tradition.  An alternative to this suggestion would be just the opposite and have a board meeting every week.  If that were the case then the supe could organize trainings for the board on a variety of topics improving their ability to make decisions.  It should be one or the other, rarely meet or meet each week.

Other suggestions include asking the legislature to provide for the possibility of a recall vote for school board members.  Virtually every other elected official in the state is subject to a possible recall by the voters.  Not school board members.  Secondly, there should be some teeth in the required training components for board members.  Such teeth should include the inability of the board member to vote until he or she has received the required training.  Or at least, they should not be allowed to participate in the superintendent’s evaluation if they lack the required training.  There should be accountability tests annually with the results made public after board members receiving the training to ensure they understand their role. 

Superintendents should be afforded the same evaluation requirements as teachers.  There should be advanced notice if there is a non-renewal possibility, there should be required sharing of board collected data and input regarding the superintend tent’s performance.  When boards share complaints and concerns in writing with the supe then he or she should have the opportunity to respond in writing.  There should be an appeal path if the supe feels that his or her evaluation is not grounded in good practice or good judgement.  Perhaps such an appeal could be to an impartial professional hearing officer provided by the state.  Kids, parents and staff are provided such an opportunity.  Yes, that would be added expense, but it would be nothing like the attorney fees and search consultant fees needed to hire a new superintendent.

It might be going too far to require board members to have at least some post-high school education.  It might be going too far to require that no candidate for the board may have a relative already employed by the district or children attending the district’s schools.  If we went that far though, we would have very different school boards. 

In fact, if we implemented all the above reforms we would have board members who have more life experience than current board members.  We would have board members who have more education than some of the current board members.  We would have board members who were much more objective.  We would have boards that are held more accountable for their actions and subject to consequences should they deviate from the legal description of their roles.  We would have board members who rely less on perception and hearsay which they are not required to share to board members who more closely approximate a professional evaluation system.

It is time to up the requirements to serve as a board member, especially in those systems with enrollment in the bottom half of the state’s districts.  I know that serving on a board is volunteer work.  I know boards are subject to constant input and complaints.  I know they are volunteers and spend many hours in meetings and reading to fulfill their role.  I understand that few may be willing to serve on a board with these requirements.  And in all my years as a superintendent I have attempted to reflect the genuine respect I hold for these elected officials.

But if we took the steps outlined above, then serving on the School Board would be a much more rigorous and important role, and Board Appreciation month would have more meaning than an empty public or political gesture. 

Given that, I strongly support Board Appreciation month.