PHOTO CREDIT: PRESSMASTER/STOCK.ADOBE.COM

 

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of ____ and will faithfully discharge the duties of school director to the best of my ability.”

School board members begin their first and each subsequent term with an oath of office. Other board members, anticipating normal business to be conducted at the meeting, are silent witnesses. But these swearing-in ceremonies can be opportunities to help our newest colleagues rapidly become contributing members of a governing team.

We often hear that whenever the board gets a new member, a new board is formed. You could make the new member’s first day on the job one of intentional induction, not just for the new member but also for the other members of the “new board.”

The board could publicly declare its commitment as a body, seizing this opportunity to reaffirm previously stated board commitments. If you are willing to try, use the following commitments as a blueprint for whole board renewal.

Board readiness—To establish a solid foundation for the board’s work, we solemnly swear (or affirm):

To instill and reinforce a commitment to a mindset reflecting servant-leadership and growth, establishing a priority of “service first” to all those whom the board leads and on whose behalf it governs the district, and dedicating to the belief that all students can learn at high levels.

Why? In his classic work Servant Leadership (1977), Robert Greenleaf offers a persuasive rationale for a
philosophy that puts service as a leader’s first priority. Simon Sinek echoes this sentiment in his book Leaders Eat Last (2014.) According to Greenleaf and Sinek, the best leaders pursue their goals after assuring the welfare and capacity of those who are to achieve those goals. In the case of a school board, this includes all students, staff, and the superintendent.

Carol Dweck, in her 2006 book, Mindset, shows how students encouraged by their teachers to abandon a fixed mindset in favor of a “growth mindset” are more likely to result in higher student learning outcomes than those with a “fixed mindset.” Related research conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards (Lighthouse I, conducted in the late 1990s) yielded a similar lesson, reporting that boards expressing an “elevating view” of students are more likely to have higher-achieving students (controlling for factors such as student demographics). Boards expressing an “acceptance of students’ limitations” are associated with lower student achievement.

A board that serves itself first doesn’t lead. It merely “presides” and allows its members to prioritize the prestige and perks of office over service to others. Boards with a fixed mindset tend to make excuses for marginalized students and end up with lower levels of student learning.

To adopt a strategic approach to the job, operating on a higher level than that of district administrators to remain above the fray of operational detail and maintain a long-term focus on results.

Why? Because boards can only act when convened (usually 1 or 2 times a month), they are not present when almost all district work is performed. The board’s value as an operational leader is, practically speaking, minimal or nonexistent. Control is exercised indirectly, through policy written from a strategic perspective. It must rely on the superintendent and staff to carry out policy. Ironically, the more priority the board gives to operational detail, the less will be its strategic impact because in the board’s absence, strategic decisions are by default made by the superintendent, in a role reversal that the board never intends.

Micro-managing by the board leads to mediocre results. It kills initiative for district leaders who feel compelled to follow what Randy Quinn and Linda J. Dawson, in their 2011 book, Boards That Matter, call a “Mother may I?” protocol.

Strategic Voice—To give strategic-level
voice to community values, we solemnly
swear (or affirm):

To frequently connect and reconnect with our community to listen, learn the enduring values it will use to guide the district, and give voice to those values.

Why? The board is not an independent actor. It has a duty to represent constituents and to reflect the community’s values in its work. It does so through policy (the board’s internal voice) that communicates community values internally to district staff, and through advocacy (its external voice) that communicates community values externally to outside stakeholders who influence the district.

Board members carrying out personal agendas are not well-aligned with their community when doing board work. The board will do well to review its views on responsibility, first considering the community that it is “responsible to…” and then thinking about the organization and students it is “responsible for…”).

To set and maintain an enduring vision for the community’s desired outcomes for student success.

Why? Robert J. Marzano and Timothy Waters, in their extensive 2009 review of research into district leadership effectiveness, District Leadership That Works, found that adopting and adhering to broad, five-year goals lead to higher student achievement.

Short-term goals promoted by the superintendent or individual board members tend to enjoy a brief shelf life whose impact is diminished by subsequent goals. Superintendents and board members, especially in large districts, often come and go after just a few years, while the board, as steward of the community vision, is the only permanent entity on the board-superintendent team. Marzano and Waters found that individual board members sometimes work “in opposition to [district success] when their interests and expectations distract attention from board-
adopted achievement and instructional goals.” Annual goals that change from year to year tend to be short-term and forgettable rather than unifying and enduring.

Operational guidance—To assure the success of ongoing board and district operations, we solemnly swear (or affirm):

To guide and promote excellence in boardsmanship by defining the board member’s role and guiding performance in that role through policy expectations that help shape accountability in that role.

Why?  Leaders set the example. If their efforts are to be taken seriously, boards should demonstrate self-discipline through a willingness to set standards for their members. Doing so in a transparent, public way is what Davis W. Campbell and Michael Fullan, in their 2019 book, The Governance Core, refer to as “managing public manner.”

Without role clarity and monitored expectations, the board tolerates and therefore encourages board member indiscipline, which in turn impacts board effectiveness.

To guide and promote excellence in governance by defining the board’s collective role, then drive performance in that role through policy expectations that set the stage for accountability in that role.

Why? When governing superintendents and staff, boards set the example by first governing themselves.

Collective leadership tasks such as establishing a vision, communicating principled guidance through policy, and ensuring accountability are weakened if the top-level
authority fails to govern itself.

To guide and promote excellence in management by defining the superintendent’s role and guiding performance with policy that assigns clear responsibility, delegates sufficient authority, and demands accountability for that role.

Why? Boards are responsible for district success, but they cannot do it alone. They must hire, assign responsibility to, and delegate authority to someone who can lead the staff on a day-to-day basis (when the board is not present) and see to it that operational conditions are supportive of success.

Without such role clarity and adherence to expectations, over-control by the board (micromanagement) limits the capability and undermines the authority of leaders at a lower level, while under-control (abdication) can lead to the same result: a failed district.

Accountability—To assure a continuing focus on accountability to the community,
we solemnly swear (or affirm):

To account for district performance, reporting to the community whether the district is achieving desired results for students while complying with law, regulation, and policy guidance. It follows through on its delegation of authority to the superintendent by holding the superintendent accountable for organizational success.

Why? The board must not only give the superintendent the authority, resources, and freedom of action needed to do the job; it also must hold the superintendent accountable for district success. It is unacceptable to achieve results through illegal, unethical, or otherwise improper means. It also is unacceptable to fail to achieve desired outcomes ultimately.

Without an ongoing commitment to accountability, the board fails to assure that the district meets community expectations for students.

To account for board performance, self-assessing, self-reporting, and self-correcting according to agreed-upon governing commitments, and with a transparency that assures public accountability.

Why? As in the case of operational guidance, accountability demands that the leader set the example. Research into the effects of boardsmanship and governance on student learning supports long-standing guidance about appropriate boardsmanship and governance behavior.

Setting but not enforcing expectations is probably worse than failing to set such expectations in the first place,
because if they are set but not enforced, others can easily see that the board’s words have no meaning.

To provide a structure for individual board members to account for board member performance.

Why? Elected board members are ultimately accountable to the voting public, but if they expect to be treated with respect by their board colleagues, they also are accountable to their colleagues for contributing as board members to overall board effectiveness.

Students suffer whenever individual board members violate reasonable expectations for boardsmanship that impacts board effectiveness, which in turn impacts overall district success.

Keeping the 10 commitments

In the interest of ongoing board renewal, members should periodically renew an expanded oath of office, making (and keeping) these 10 commitments. What better time than when new members come aboard? The new member’s oath-taking ceremony and publicly declared individual commitment offers an ideal opportunity to collectively renew the entire board’s commitments.

What this might look like: New board members in my state take the oath in December, at the first meeting after November election results are validated. The whole board can follow up on the swearing-in of its newest members by jointly conducting a collective oath-taking ceremony, celebrating and welcoming its newest board members with a set of collective commitments that renew and unify the whole board. After the oath-taking ceremony, as the first item on its meeting agenda, the board might conduct a discussion of the meaning of these commitments before moving on to regular board business.

Taking these steps whenever new members assume office offers a timely and profound introduction for new members, who will find that they are joining a board committed to developing and reinforcing a continuing culture of excellence in governance.