Boards of education: the need for effective leadership - Commentary

No topic seems to gain more attention in local newspapers and in the electronic media than continuing friction among board of education members and between boards and administrators. This increasingly negative spotlight in many school systems makes it more difficult to recruit good superintendents and tougher to interest community leaders in serving on boards of education.

Nearly two decades ago, the American School Board Journal featured John Crawford as an exemplary school board member. The article characterized Crawford, a past chair and member of the Salt Lake City, Utah, board of education, as an effective board member because:

* He was results oriented.

* He knew how to conduct a board meeting.

* He appreciated school-system employees and was fair, with them.

* He communicated forcefully, clearly, and directly with the superintendent.

* He expected high-quality work from administrators.

* He understood the meaning of "public trust" and conducted board business in public view.

* He was a public servant in the truest sense.

Salt Lake's board of education, under the presidency of John Crawford, "set the direction, made tough decisions, showed courage, and held the schools accountable." The board did not interfere with the superintendent's obligation to manage the school system and conduct the day-to-day affairs.

Unfortunately, today the John Crawfords serving as members of boards of education are few and far between. Few individuals possess the courage and determined principles to improve our schools. As pointed out by an Iowa study published by the Educational Research Service (ERS Spectrum, Winter 2001, Vol. 19, No. 1), extensive on-site interviews revealed that "the understandings and beliefs of school boards in high achieving districts differed `markedly' from those in low achieving districts." According to the study, "School Boards and Student Achievement: A Comparison of Governance in High- and Low-Achieving Districts," effective school districts create seven conditions:

1. Shared leadership

2. Continuous improvement

3. Sustained initiatives

4. Supportive workplace for staff

5. Utilization of data

6. Staff development

7. Community involvement

Regrettably, in 2002-03 many boards of education are ineffective and create conditions which impair the ability of schools to provide quality education for their students. Many boards demonstrate the following: fractured relationships among board members; focus on partisan political interests; micromanagement of school affairs; concentration on personal-interest items; ambivalence as to what is and is not important; frequent buy-out of the superintendent; capitulation to special interest groups; and the inability to negotiate with strong teacher unions. As a result, schools are generally operated for the benefit of adults, and children's welfare becomes secondary. Throughout our nation, education is being weakened by poor board of education leadership practices. It is enough to make us say: "John Crawford, where are you when our schools need you?"

Ineffective boards of education are identified by their school system results: large numbers of students failing basic skills tests; high absenteeism of students and staff; extremely high failure rates, particularly at grade nine; a revolving door for school administration; and few students participating in rigorous high-level instructional programs.

School boards need to focus more on setting policy and less on micro-managing superintendents and school systems, according to a New England School Development Council (NESDC) report. The 36 leaders who contributed to the report, "Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance, and Teamwork for High Student Achievement," made several recommendations for building school board-superintendent leadership team relationships, including the need to: clearly define roles of board members and superintendents; provide boards and superintendents more training in working together; develop better college training programs for superintendents; adopt national certification requirements for superintendents; create a national center for school board-superintendent leadership; and revise state laws to enable boards and superintendents to meet privately periodically to evaluate their work. The council advises boards and superintendents to work more as teams and less as adversaries.

Are there other policy solutions for these conditions, besides the cloning of John Crawford? We believe the following considerations are in order:

* Board members should be elected to serve a six-year term without being able to run for re-election until an additional six years have expired.

* Before being seated at the board, members shall participate in 30 hours of training and receive a passing grade on a rigorous examination.

* All board members shall abide by a Code of Ethics and be removed from the board by majority vote of the board if they have failed to abide by the Code.