Date post: | 14-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | duongthuan |
View: | 235 times |
Download: | 11 times |
The Future of American School Boards
Maryland Association of Boards
of Education
2015 Annual Conference
Ocean City, MD
“God made the Idiot
for practice….
…and then he made
the school board.”
Mark Twain, 1897
“The local school board, especially
the elected kind, is an anachronism
and an outrage....”
“We can no longer pretend it’s
working well…..”
“We need to…..put this dysfunctional
arrangement out of its misery….” Chester E. Finn Jr., President,
Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2014
Headline
“First, Kill All the School Boards A modest proposal to fix the schools”
-Headline: Special “State of the Union” Issue
The national Atlantic Monthly magazine, 2008
“I can state unequivocally, that
neither state nor federal policy
makers can redesign school
districts. Only those leading districts
can.”
“Board members…. are close
enough to communities and schools
to see what needs to be done….”
Former Secretary of Education, Rod Paige
Knowledge of governance data to….
….understand their importance
…….inspire their service
…..lobby/influence state & national leaders
Local board members do not come with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints
33%
24%
15%
28%
Board Occupation
Education
Business
Professional
Labor, Other
Local board members do not come with adequate background or experience to govern a school district.
What composition of occupational background would create the best school board?
___% Educators
___% Business persons
___% Professional
___% Labor & Other
Less Effective Boards = Majority Businessperson
Less Effective Boards = Majority Educators
More Effective Boards = Majority Other Occupation
Pair share: Why do you think this is?
*Fordham Institute Report: Shober & Hartney, 2014-Does School Board
Leadership Matter?
“The fact that board members can influence achievement, even loosely, merits much more attention—surely by scholars but also by voters,
parents, taxpayers, and other policy-makers.” *Chester Finn-Fordham Institute Report: Shober & Hartney, 2014-Does School Board Leadership Matter?
Boards do not have equitable representation.
What do the data say?
Gender & Ethnicity
Equity Issue Local Boards 2012 U.S. Congress
Gender 44% Female 25% Female
Ethnicity-overall 12% AA/3% HS House 9.4% AA Senate 1% AA
Ethnicity-Urban 37% AA/8% HS
Politically 32% Con. 47% Mod. 21% Lib.
“Everyone knows that local school boards don’t work…..the top performing countries don’t use local governance”
-SPU Keynote: Dr. Thomas Maridada, Children’s
Defense Fund- Director of Education Policy, Practice and Strategic Initiatives, 2014
Centralized Decentralized
Governance Governance
Australia Hong Kong Finland New-Zealand
Canada Sweden Singapore
USA England
Comparing Governance Models
(Vitikka & Hurmerinta, 2011; Risku, 2013)
Centralized Decentralized
Governance Governance
Australia Hong Kong Finland New-Zealand
(#12) (#1) (#5) (#13)
Canada Sweden Singapore
(#8) (#36) (#2)
USA England
(#23) (#22)
Comparing 2012 PISA Reading Scores
1995-2011 TIMMS Performance Trends Country 4th Math 8th Math Governance
United States + 17 pts +23 pts Decentralized??
Finland +20 pts +21 pts Decentralized
Sweden -55 pts -43 pts Centralized
Japan -11 pts -18 pts Centralized
Korea + 32 pts +24 pts Centralized
“..systems that grant more autonomy to schools to define and elaborate their curriculum and assessments perform better than systems that don’t..”
“there is a positive correlation in school autonomy for resource allocation and improved student performance”
Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in
Education – PISA Report 2012
GERM
Global Educational Reform Movement
standardization
emphasis on literacy and numeracy
teaching prescribed curriculum
control
test-based accountability
(Sahlberg, 2011; pp. 99-106, Kuusilehto & Lahtero, 2011; Risku, 2013)
“As we have said before, local school boards are the crucible of democracy. Local school elections in America provide the closest example of democracy for the American people.”
Laurence Iannaccone/Frank Lutz, 2008
Professors Emeritus,
Univ. of California/Texas A & M
Democratic board theorists, 1959
The use of
Balanced Governance
Disengaged Board
Integrated Governance (Wong & Shen) Democractic Governance (Hill)
Policy Governance (Carver/Broad)
Coherent Governance (Quinn & Dawson)
Balanced Governance (Alsbury)
Lighthouse Governance (Delagardelle)
Over-Reaching Board
Ba L anced ??
Governance Continuum
Disengaged Balanced
Governance
Over-
Reaching
Processes-
Means
Balanced
Governance
Outcomes-
Ends
Disengaged Board = Uniformed Defense
“You don’t understand how hard our teachers work”
“ We use research based best practices to ensure all kids can learn”
“We need to improve/replace teachers or leaders”
“It is not the school’s fault….it’s broken families”
Over-Reaching Board
“If our teachers and administrators don’t meet the goals, they will eventually not work here anymore. Boards members must monitor what is happening in schools because school employees will naturally spin things for their own benefit. I have no problem criticizing failures in board meetings to show that I am doing my job of ensuring accountability.”
Balanced Governance = Informed Oversight
“We measure individual student growth and for any student with slower than expected math improvement, schools use a proven program [name it] adapted to meet individual student needs and local community goals. We monitor the student progress quarterly and show 150% growth for most students. Alternative programs [name them] are being used for the 10% of students not showing growth. For example….”
Disengaged Board = Uninformed Compliance
“Math scores will increase by 20% by Spring 2014 on the State achievement exam”
Over-Reaching Board
“Math scores will increase by 20% by Spring 2014 on the State achievement exam. Board members will spend time in schools to ensure the adopted program is being implemented properly. Those not meeting the goal will have reduced pay and be on a plan of improvement.”
Writing a Balanced Governance Policy
Balanced Governance Criteria: ◦ Measureable outcomes identified
◦ Specify data type to be presented to the board
◦ Specify frequency and time of data presentation
◦ Specify format of data presentation
◦ Require identification of policy alignment to strategic goal
Balanced Governance= Informed Oversight
“Cohort-tracked math test scores on multiple measures (classroom work, class content tests, state exam) showing student growth (by student on class measures & by District on Standardized exams) and disaggregated by SES & ethnicity will be presented quarterly to target effect of focused reform programs”
Use of Board Practices that improve
student performance
?? % Strongly Agree
85% Strongly Agree
(Alsbury & Mountford, 2012; Hess & Meeks, NSBA, 2010)
How?
Do you think intra-board conflict or frequent contentious board turnover can hurt student achievement?
If so, how is the damage done?
Frequent Politically-Contentious Board turnover
Frequent Superintendent turnover
Student achievement decline
Board and superintendent tenure is declining (Glass, 2009) ◦ Loss of organizational memory
◦ Loss of board training by experienced members
Indirect but significant influence (Glass, 2007) ◦ Decline of staff morale/security
◦ Discontinuity of goals/purpose
◦ Declining community confidence in schools
◦ Personnel instability & Lack of confidence
The use of elevating beliefs and
promotion of effective conditions
Boards in high achieving districts were consistently different from boards in low achieving districts:
They held differing Beliefs
(Delagardelle, 2001-2015)
Elevating Beliefs Conditions for Success
Students viewed as emerging and flexible
School’s job is to release student’s potential
No excuses
Constant quest for improvement of system
Connections across the system
Knowing what it takes to change achievement
Workplace support Professional development Use of data to balance
districtwide direction and building autonomy
Community connection Distributed leadership
The use of Effective Board Behaviors
Elevating
Board
Activities
Elevating
Superintendent
Activities
Student
Achievement
Increases
Option #1: Board member values and beliefs influence superintendent to engage in more student achievement activities.
Student Achievement
Option #2: Board member have no elevating values and beliefs but hire a superintendent who engages in more student achievement activities and they do not interfere.
Student Achievement
Given the Shelton study findings:
◦ Why should board members be trained to improve
student achievement?
◦ Why not just hire well and leave it all to the superintendent?
Ineffective board
values and beliefs (Delagardelle, 2008)
Increased political
conflict & board
turnover (Alsbury,
2008)
Loss of effective
superintendent (Alsbury, 2003)
Lower Achievement
The use of Strategic Role Shift
The Trustee/Delegate Dance
Delegate (Arena) role:
◦ Open Debate
◦ Frequent split votes
◦ Focus on special interest
◦ Values individual viewpoints
◦ Doesn’t expect collective support of final board decisions
Trustee (Elite) role:
◦ Open Dialogue
◦ Unanimous votes
◦ Focus on general interests
◦ Welcomes various viewpoints
◦ Expects collective support of final board decisions
Non-critical Level of Dissatisfaction
Trustee Role =
Looking Inward
Board Addresses
Collective Interests
Delegate Role =
Looking Outward
Board Addresses
Special Interests
1. Monitor community values change (10 years)
2. Know your board election history (20+ years)
3. Know your turnover history (20 years+) [See Handout]
Solution: Boards with growing community dissatisfaction need to move temporarily to a
“delegate” board role before the “line” is crossed.
Identify a potential shift in “community values” in your district.
What evidence predicted the shift?
What are 2-3 action steps that might work to stabilize your situation?
Use of Effective Board Standards
What is missing?
What is different?
All members of the community are stakeholders in the success of their schools.
Community engagement is a reciprocal advocacy process that creates and sustains meaningful conversations, systems connections, and feedback loops with all groups in the community.
Successful community engagement results in collaborative partnerships and new types and levels of community participation in schools.
Board leadership is proactive, integrated, and distributed.
Boards establish focus, direction, and expectations that foster student learning.
Across education systems, boards develop and implement collaborative leadership models and practices that are guided by shared student learning goals.
Within organizations, boards align authority and responsibility so that decisions can be made at levels close to implementation.
The cultural diversity of a community has many facets – social, economic, political, religious, geographical, generational, linguistic, ethnic, racial, and gender. Boards develop an understanding of this diversity and hold perspectives that reflect the cultures in their community.
Effective community engagement and expectancy strategies build on the strengths of a community’s cultural diversity.
Innovation and creativity are assets to the process of development and change, leading to new types of thinking and better ways of meeting student needs.
Innovation and creativity are not predictable, but can flourish when boards align vision throughout the organization, engage in collaborative partnerships, and encourage dialogue, new ideas, and differing perspectives.
Select one of the Balanced Governance Standards
Discuss: ◦ How is this standard different from your current
standard?
◦ Does your board currently assess this standard?
◦ How does your board rate on this standard?
◦ How could your board improve in this area?
Use of Effective
Individual Board Member Characteristics
Some individual attributes, beliefs, and behaviors are ◦ Linked to longer board member tenure
◦ Linked to improved district success
Understands the difference between being position-driven and interest-driven.
◦ A position is often polarizing and identifies
“friends” versus “enemies”.
◦ An interest is discovered through conversation to get to shared solutions that can be applied to many students and achieved through various means.
Understands the difference between standardized and contextualized solutions.
◦ The understanding that the local school district,
and each school has unique and shifting needs; often requiring innovative solutions.
Understands the difference between the use of voice to tell and sell their position versus seeking to hear and understand interests, and come to resolution and reconciliation.
Select one of the Individual Board Member Characteristics
Discuss: ◦ How are you and other board members doing on
this characteristic?
◦ How could board members improve in this area?
Use of Board Assessments
Self Reflection
Motivation
Voice
Decision-Making
Power Over
Power
Altruistic
With & thru
Others
Low vocal
Silenced
Individually
Personal
Highly
Verbal
Power With
Motivation
Voice
Decision-Making
Power Over
Power
Altruistic
With & thru
Others
Low vocal
Silenced
Individually
Personal
Highly
Verbal
Power With
Table Share ◦ How well would you predict this board works
together?
◦ What could be done to address the disconnection between board members who are willing to function as a team?
Meeting Dynamics/Interactions
Topic Analysis
Topic Comparison to Strategic Goals
Topic/Behavior Comparison to National Performance
Topic/Behavior Comparison to High Performing Boards
Direct Instructional Focus vs. Supporting Instructional Focus
Goal Monitoring vs. Management Inquiry
Bridging vs. Bonding
Perceived Values & Beliefs
Use of District Strategic Teams
How can the district better measure, monitor, and fix organizational barriers and processes?
How can a board over-see without over-reach regarding organizational health and process?
DST Goals: ◦ Identifying and removing systems barriers
◦ Identifying and Improving elements of organizational health
◦ Increasing organizational capacity for sustainable reform
Monitor
Analyze
Report Support
Plan
Implement
Action
Harvard Press
Available July 1, 2015 for Pre-Order
Thomas L. Alsbury, EdD Professor, Seattle Pacific University
President, Balanced Governance Solutions©
Director, UCEA Center for Research
on the Superintendency
& District Governance
Thomas L. Alsbury
Professor, Educational Leadership
Seattle Pacific University
Director, UCEA Center for Research on the
Superintendency & District Governance
President, Balanced Governance Solutions™
www.balancedgovernancesolutions.com
Phone: 919-961-3496