in the United
States
Bobby Chandler
Politics
491
Dr. Paul Peterson
Coastal Carolina University
Spring 2013
Copyright © Bobby Chandler
In this blog format, page numbers do not cooperate, so the following table of contents gives the reader an estimation of the number of pages for each section. This entire work run 49 pages.
In addition, the longer, original work which I did on this topic is more readable on my blog "Teachers Are Citizens Too," although it can be found on my blog entitled "Policy Governance: Chandler Chimes." It is entitled "The Viability of the Carver Policy Governance Model for District Boards of Education in the United States." This was done in 2007 and runs about 90 pages.
Table of Contents
Abstract 2 pp.
Prologue 6 pp.
Current Practice 29 pp.
Evaluation and Conclusion 12 pp.
Works Cited 3 pp.
Abstract
Boards of education in the United States
have a long-standing, historical tradition, established in law, of acting as trustees
for the children of parents and local communities. This responsibility requires
careful oversight of the personal welfare of students under their charge. Since public education is a tax-supported
initiative, this duty also entails conscientious stewardship and appropriate
dispensation of all funds.
Carver’s trademarked model requires the
use of capital letters (Policy Governance).
Other user-friendly models have emerged and are also generally
capitalized (ex. Coherent Governance, Reform Governance, Strategic
Governance). In referring to all related
versions, the use of “policy governance,” not capitalized, delineates the basic
attributes which are generally common to all.
Common traits of boards of education in
policy governance school districts include no standing committees, delegation
of operational policy-making and authority to a superintendent, a different
system of checks and balances for a superintendent’s activities, called
monitoring, referral of constituent services to the superintendent, linkage
meetings with stakeholders, the team approach, and speaking with one voice.
Carver claims that his model for public
education replaces the corporate board’s goal of money-making with a
results-oriented approach. Setting
quantifiable “Ends,” a board employs a superintendent to use whatever “Means”
are necessary to achieve them. This
necessarily removes a board from the traditional hands-on involvement in
district operations.
An examination of Carver’s model and the
current practice of policy governance reveals that this radical form of
governance for public education violates all of the basic tenets of a
legally-constituted, democratic-republican body, a board of education, and is
fundamentally flawed in its oversight design for both instructional and
monetary responsibilities. As such,
policy governance is a tragedy for public school districts in the United
States.
Public education in the United States was
embraced gradually by the American people.
Having its origins in the colony of
Massachusetts in the early seventeenth century, public education was a rare
commodity throughout colonial America.
The first public schools were designed by the Puritans for other-worldly
affairs, not the practical concerns of today.
The Bible was central to instruction, and moral training was the
focus. The purpose was to grow spiritual
youth and to help them avoid the enticements of the old deluder, Satan.
Schooling in the thirteen English colonies
of North America was a varied endeavor for the masses. Those who could afford it would hire tutors
or send their children to far-off places such as London, Boston, or
Charlestowne for the best formal education.
Apprenticeships were common for the learning of a trade, but book
learning, reading, writing, and arithmetic were often picked up through
schooling at home or through one’s church or other social interactions.
The United States gained its independence
from England in the late eighteenth century, and public education remained the
exception rather than the rule in the former colonies. Not until the early nineteenth century was
there a serious push for universal schooling.
Thomas Jefferson and others had earlier
advocated public education as a means to an end – the building of our
republic. The argument was that an
uneducated population could not maintain and contribute effectively to
republican government. People needed to
be knowledgeable in order to be good citizens.
There was a societal obligation to ensure that all would contribute
positively. This idea caught on and
became an additional focus of the early public education movement. Now, in addition to schooling being for moral
training, with a focus on the Bible, public schooling would be promoting
citizenship skills.
Still, many resisted tax-supported public
education and would not accept the idea that those with means should have to
fund an education for those who were less fortunate. Also, besides the issue of equity, there was
a general reluctance on the part of many to turn their children over to the
state. Fearful that the government could
promote ideas and directions which would not exemplify what parents wanted
their children to learn, many believed that unwelcomed government
indoctrination could result.
Tax-supported public education took much
time to be accepted by the majority of the American people, but as the
nineteenth century progressed, the masses began to give their consent. Parents and communities were still very
concerned about their children’s welfare, and boards of education developed in
local communities to represent their interests.
Elected trustees would oversee curriculum, instruction, finances, and
operations.
Following
democratic traditions, trustees were generally elected to serve for a specified
amount of time. Parents and other
citizens expected board members to be heavily involved in the management of
their schools, and, if board members ever failed to meet their expectations,
they would actively make their displeasure known. They expected action and their needs met,
both educational and monetary.
Massive changes occurred in American
public education during the early twentieth century. The focus was now gravitating more towards
career preparation, without abandoning citizenship and moral development. The scientific revolution and the impact of
the modern university in the nineteenth century were beginning to have a
significant impact on society in the new century.
The complexity of the modern era seemed to
demand that educational leaders have more expertise. There was a general trend to put more trust
in a well-trained specialist in a local school district - a superintendent of
education, and to allow boards of education less influence over day-to-day
affairs. Due to the fact that there were not nearly as many experts as there
were school districts, the some 118,000 districts were reduced over the next
century to the approximately 14,000 of today.
Since districts became bigger
geographically, parents and local communities were physically distanced and
often inconvenienced in the degree to which they could assert their desires
over the internal workings of their schools.
As complexities increased, many boards became more laissez-faire type
overseers, giving more authority to trained experts – superintendents, through
what became known as the policy board model of governance.
The policy board model began to develop in
the Progressive Era as a means to turn over more authority to superintendents
of education. By having boards of education establish general guidelines
(policies), but maintain effective oversight of superintendents, the idea was
for boards not to overly interfere in the management of school districts by
superintendents. Although traditional
governance procedures did not radically change, the degree to which board
members found themselves involved in the day-to-day management of district
operations gradually declined throughout the twentieth century, and the trend
has continued to the present date.
With growing complexity reducing the power
of boards of education, many boards have deferred to superintendents’
expertise, generating the claim of rubber-stamping of administrative directions
and causing more citizens to be concerned that they are losing influence in
their public schools. This factor, among
others, has contributed to the decline of the traditional board of education.
Although taking a more laissez-faire
approach to management, the vast majority of United States school districts’
boards of education still retain all policy making authority and have
traditional standing committees in areas such as curriculum, finance,
operations, and audit in their attempts to maintain sufficient oversight of
superintendents’ activities.
Boards of education lost additional
autonomy in the late twentieth century, with the increased roles of the
national government and big business in public education. National legislation and court rulings have
taken many matters out of the hands of state governments which have largely
overseen public education and local boards of education since the nation’s
founding. With the advent of the
personal computer in the early 1980s, technological concerns have seen public
education as a monetary gold mine and have found ways to influence state
legislation and to promote initiatives to effectively and efficiently market
their products and services. Desirous of
getting around traditional, conservative local boards of education, various
ideological and utilitarian interests have put district boards of education
under serious attack from all directions.
The question of whether or not boards of education should be eliminated has
been raised.
The public, however, is still working with
the mindset that nothing has changed, and the places to go to get desired
results are their elected board representatives. Citizens, especially parents, still have the
same needs they always had, the best educational interests for their children
and the wise expenditure of their tax dollars.
Not knowing or understanding the changing roles of boards of education
and superintendents, many are at a loss as to what they can do to effect
desired actions or change.
Boards of education have indeed lost much
historical influence but still retain many powers. To varying degrees, they involve themselves
in the management of school districts across the nation. Although there has been a trend toward
granting the superintendent greater authority, recent developments over the
last couple of decades are bringing the question of who should govern America’s
schools into the public arena for a debate that is long overdue. The two most controversial are mayoral
takeovers of large, urban school districts and the new, extreme version of the
policy board model, Dr. John Carver’s trademarked Policy Governance.
These two radical governance initiatives
are virtually eliminating the traditional roles of boards of education as
representatives of the people and placing more decision-making authority than
ever in the hands of superintendents of education and their professional
cohorts. As such, the people are being
further removed from having their voices as viable and concerns dealt with by
trustees. The original intent of boards
of education has virtually disappeared with both.
Mayoral takeovers of a number of cities
have either eliminated or seriously reduced the role of boards of
education. This has caused much
conflict, since many still believe that they should have a meaningful voice and
vote in matters related to the education of their children. However, due to chaotic and challenging times
in a growing number of urban districts, mayors are redirecting public education
by placing power in professional managers who are often acting in ways not
necessarily satisfying to parents and other affected citizens. For the purpose of this investigation,
however, focus will be placed upon Carver’s Policy Governance model and its
close offshoots of Coherent Governance, Reform Governance, and Strategic
Governance, hereafter referred to as models of “policy governance” (not
capitalized).
To what extent and in what ways has
Carver’s Policy Governance construct, and its close relatives, been implemented
in local school districts across the United States, and how is it affecting
them? This question will be answered as
a follow-up to the 2007 Policy Governance research found on the blogspot titled
“Policy Governance: Chandler
Chimes.”
As such, a personal rationale, Carver’s
background and credentials, detailed description of the model itself, and how
it is marketed will not be explored again in-depth. Relevant summaries of essential
understandings of the model will be presented first as an introduction to help
the reader interpret an examination of the current practice of policy
governance around the country which will follow.
This examination will show where the model
predominates, noting both favorable and unfavorable perspectives of those
directly and indirectly affected. Particular attention will be placed on what
has changed over the last five or six years.
Finally, an evaluation and conclusion will
be presented about the use of policy governance by public school districts in
the United States.
This introduction is a summary of the
essential elements of Dr. John Carver’s Policy Governance model as presented in
Bobby Chandler’s “The Viability of the Carver Governance Model for District
Boards of Education in the United States” which can be found on the blogspot
“Policy Governance: Chandler
Chimes.” It is offered here for anyone
not familiar with this model of governance, and as a refresher for those who
are, to set the stage for a proper interpretation of the current practice and
influence of the model across the United States.
United States' public school districts
which practice various forms of policy governance give unprecedented power to
superintendents of education and have one major common trait – the absence of
standing committees of boards of education in areas such as curriculum,
instruction, finance, budget, and operations.
Standing committees have been the checks
and balances mechanisms used by boards to ensure proper oversight of superintendents’
activities. Instead, they are replaced by
a type of monitoring system in policy governance districts that allows a board
of education to conduct periodic evaluations of a superintendent’s performance
in predetermined categories. A superintendent is to be held accountable for
meeting board-specified, measurable results in each category. As long as results are being produced at a
satisfactory level, a superintendent is generally free to determine the means
of achieving those results, subject only to the requirement that there be no
violation of ethical standards or laws.
Monitoring of a superintendent’s
activities and performance is prepared by various members of a superintendent’s
administrative staff. Since a board of
education has no standing committees in which to involve itself regularly in
the internal workings of a district’s operations, board members are further
removed from having a deep, personal understanding of management issues. As such, boards rely largely on
administrative reports, prepared under the supervision of the
superintendent. These are generally
scheduled and spaced throughout the year as presentations for board
meetings. Boards can discuss the
reports, ask for clarification, and/or direct that certain actions be taken by
administration before final consent is given that a superintendent has
demonstrated success in any given category.
Traditionally, a board of education cooperates
in the management of a school district with a superintendent of education. The board is the sole policy maker for the
district, establishes the parameters of operation in all areas, and expects its
hired professional, the superintendent, to carry out the day-to-day affairs of
the district under its tutelage. To
varying degrees, it involves itself in the management of the district. If the board is too lax, it might be
criticized for being too hands-off (laissez-faire). If its involvement becomes too extreme, it
could be faulted for being too hands-on (micromanaging).
Micromanagement in traditional school
districts could occur through standing committees and/or individual board
members’ actions. Having standing
committees, a traditional board can delve deeply into district operations,
creating the potential for board members to interfere with the professional
expertise of the superintendent. Also,
an individual board member can attempt to take care of a constituent’s concerns
personally, perhaps encroaching upon and complicating administrative
operations.
Under policy governance, board members are
to pass constituent concerns on to the superintendent for resolution. This procedure helps to keep individual board
members from getting involved in the day-to-day workings of administration.
The elimination of management by standing
committees and individual board members changes the traditional role of school
boards in policy governance school districts.
Policy governance attempts to free superintendents from overzealous
boards and board members and to allow them to operate creatively in ways they
deem necessary to achieve board-established results.
Interestingly, the shift in policy
governance districts to focus on results has been done despite the fact that
there has never been a definitive study showing any causal relationship, or effect,
between mode of governance and quantifiable results of any kind. Traditionally, boards and superintendents
have both focused on management and results.
Policy governance splits the focus, and, as a result, radically changes
the roles of boards and superintendents.
Now the superintendent alone is held
responsible for results and is the only person evaluated by the board of
education. Since the superintendent is
the board’s only point of contact, the board does not get involved in the work
of administrative staff or any other employee of the district. All board actions must be collective through
voting. No official action of an individual
board member is allowed in any administrative activity. According to Dr. John Carver, creator of
Policy Governance, boards of education are to “speak with one voice.”
The concept of speaking with one voice is
also common to policy governance school districts. Board members are free to discuss and debate
educational matters, but once a board decision has been made, no member is
supposed to try to get it reversed publicly.
In addition, a board member is not to criticize superintendent or staff
performance publicly. This should take
place exclusively in executive session. Only
praise should be public. If there is a
violation, board policies are designed to punish a member through some type of
censure, not allowing special participation in various activities, and/or service
in an honored position on a particular ad hoc committee.
Solidarity of support is to help ensure
community confidence in the district and stability for ongoing operations. The team approach, consensus thinking, and
positive public relations are supposed to be promoted, instead of the divisive
nature of traditional democratic practice.
Carver contends that traditional
democratic practice interferes with efficient operations by having board
members
focus on non-representative, individual, and constituent interests to the
detriment of discovering the desires of the entire community. Operating as individual board members in a
traditional school district, a board of education can become meddlesome, and
discord can abound.
However, where the team approach
predominates in policy governance districts, boards are supposed to conduct
what Carver calls linkage meetings with representative samples of all the
various stakeholders to learn the needs of the whole community. This ensures an end to the practice of letting
squeaky wheels, special interests, and constituent concerns direct public
education. He sees this as a purer
democratic practice and one which helps to develop a board mentality known as
servant-leadership.
Based on the servant-leadership philosophy
of Robert Greenleaf, Carver believes that boards of education ought to work
together to promote the collective will of the community, with the goal of
moving a school district forward toward common goals. According to Carver, traditional democratic
conduct by board members causes inefficiency, wastes time, and contributes to
political posturing, petty politics, and selfish ambitions. He contends that this is too unpredictable for
garnering stable and consistent momentum to advance the collective will.
As a board of education takes on the
servant-leadership role, it has a higher calling to set the destination of the
school district and hire a superintendent to chart the course for getting
there. The clarity of role distinctions
in policy governance districts for boards and superintendents is a key element
in Carver’s thinking. However, not only
do the traditional roles of a board of education and a superintendent change,
but the role of a stakeholder is radically altered.
A stakeholder’s role changes in terms of
the degree to which he/she can have viable influence over educational and
monetary directions taken by a school district.
Since policy governance boards of education give over authority to
superintendents of education in all operational areas, traditional voting by
boards in these areas does not take place, making all citizen input in the
superintendent's arena completely advisory in nature. This violates the original intent and
historical nature of United States’ boards of education as trustees of parental
and community desires, for most concerns in policy governance districts fall
within the superintendent's domain.
As boards of education are bypassed to
promote national directions, national standards, and professional expertise in
a more complex age, traditional democratic practice and involvement of parents
and communities become impediments to those who have specific agendas to
promulgate. Inefficiency cannot be
tolerated in the operation of America’s public schools, for barriers created by
the more hands-on boards of education impede the expansion of private
interests, especially technological, into the lucrative sector of public
education.
Since public education has been
transformed increasingly into a bonanza for the free market, corporate
enterprises have had less trouble marketing their wares and services in the
more laissez-faire traditional districts and especially in policy governance
districts. This is due to the fact that
superintendents are granted much greater freedom in the negotiation of
contracts which do not have to be approved and/or are not scrutinized by boards
of education.
Many traditional district boards of
education, as well, are moving towards the new focus on results and becoming
more hands-off in the means of district operations. They have not embraced the radical philosophy
of policy governance and have not dispensed with standing committees but have
been giving over more and more control to superintendents. Not implementing the monitoring process of
policy governance, they simply rely more on the expertise of administration by
not delving deeply into management through their standing committees or
individual board member activities.
The changing nature of public schools in
preparing students for twenty-first century realities and jobs, coupled with
the growing accountability movement to increase America’s academic standing in
the world, has created challenges for those who see boards of education
standing in their way. Boards of
education, traditional stalwarts of conservatism, are increasingly deemed
antiquated for the modern world, their value systems more consistent with the
pre-modern age. Ideological agendas and
utilitarian concerns of individuals and special interest groups move front and
center in policy governance school districts, replacing many time-honored
beliefs about school boards held by the American people and circumventing
traditional roles of citizens in public education.
Current Practice
Based on e-mail and telephone contact with
about 3/5 of state school boards associations, extensive internet searches, and
review of available literature, the practice of policy governance has not shown
significant growth since 2007. Less than
1% of the roughly 14,000 public school districts employ some form of the
governance construct, about the same as in 2007. The actual number is dynamic, some districts
moving to it and others away, but does not run higher than the low 100s. If one were to count only those which adhere
to the purity of the model in all of its details, the number would be
exceedingly low, for most veer away in at least one fundamental aspect.
Dr. John Carver claims that his trademarked
Policy Governance cannot be diluted or changed in any manner, for every element
of the model is fundamental to its effective and efficient operation. Removing one parameter would be like removing
a vital thread of a carefully woven blanket.
Holes will appear, and the blanket will soon need to be replaced
(Carver). Thus, policy governance, to
the extent that it varies from Carver’s trademarked Policy Governance, would
not be approved by Carver. However,
since policy governance school districts share essential common traits of
Carver’s model and are the extremities of the policy board concept, they, along
with their common principles, are the focus of this investigation.
Not only has policy governance shown no
significant growth, but it actually might be making a decline. The fact that there has been no substantial
increase over the last five or six years could be interpreted as a decline, for
a desirable model of governance might be expected to catch on and blossom. Instead, there is growing evidence to the
contrary.
Ron Harder, Policy Service and Advocacy
Director of the Arkansas School Boards Association, states, “I am a member of a
national policy service listserve; the issue of the Carver model has made the
rounds on more than one occasion over the years. To the best of my knowledge, there are no
districts in Arkansas that use any version of Carver and, based on past email
response, the national use of his model is declining” (Harder).
Janine Murphy, Assistant Legal Counsel of the
North Carolina School Boards Association says, “In the years I have been
employed here I have probably talked to board members or school administrators
from almost all 115 boards and no one has ever told me that they operated under
the Carver model… If I were talking
about the recent political winds, I would say that elected board members are
‘less inclined’ to defer to the superintendent than might have been true 10 or
20 years ago” (Murphy).
Joseph Reeves, Associate Executive
Director of the Alaska State School Boards Association, writes, “Fortunately,
we have no districts in Alaska using the Carver Model. School districts are not like corporations,
which is where Carver developed his approach, and CEOs are not like
superintendents. I would think that the
corporate governance debacle that resulted in the economic meltdown of 2008
would have quashed any further discussion of these models” (Reeves).
Chris Thomas, Director of Legal and Policy
Services and General Counsel for the Arizona State School Boards Association
writes, “ASBA does not recommend the Carver model to school boards as we see it
as incompatible with accountability expectations of communities and
voters. In short, school communities are
not like for-profit corporations and expectations of elected public officials
by their constituents are much different than corporate boards to their
shareholders” (Thomas).
Close to half of the states have no policy
governance school districts. Those which
implement some form of the construct generally have five or less. Only four states, Colorado, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming have double digit districts practicing policy
governance, with approximately 30, 13, 10, and 10 respectively. These four states, having a total of about 63
districts, comprise somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of all United States’
districts which practice some form of the model. Again, exact figures are difficult to
determine due to interpretation of what constitutes a policy governance
district, determined by adherence to most of Carver’s fundamentals, and because
some are abandoning the model, while others are embracing it.
Complicating this study are districts that
are variant or hybrid in nature. Claiming to operate under policy governance,
for example, they dispense with one or more fundamental aspects of Carver’s
model. A variant district would be one
such as Horry County Schools in northeastern South Carolina. Operating in name under Coherent Governance,
the district utilizes policy governance rather extensively but makes no serious
effort to employ linkage meetings with its various communities to help the
board explore substantial stakeholder input.
Since the board does not have standing committees, it must rely largely
on individual board member contact with constituents and the rarely used public
comments medium of board meetings to gain insight into what the public thinks
about any issue. A hybrid district would
be one like Beaufort County School District in southeastern South
Carolina. Operating under a policy
governance model termed Strategic Governance, it has recently put into effect a
couple of standing committees and plans on implementing more (Sanz). A district which does this is bordering on
dispensing with policy governance, for standing committees can put boards
substantially into the means of district operations, violating the essence of
policy governance. Thus, districts
practice varying degrees of policy governance, making difficult one’s interpretation
of the model in any given district.
Some might argue that most of Illinois’
872 public school districts should be counted as policy governance
districts. If this were the case, the
percentage of districts using policy governance in the United States could
reach as high as 7%. Although the
Illinois State School Boards Association promotes policy principles which
reflect Carver, many state mandates for school boards put them heavily into
significant operational means, rendering policy governance in Illinois more to
the realm of the laissez-faire board variety in non-mandated operational areas
(Talbert).
If a district uses any form of policy
governance, by any name, even if not implementing all of Carver’s fundamentals,
it is considered as part of this study of the current practice of the model
around the United States, which begins with where the model predominates and
then proceeds to areas of less usage.
The state that far outdistances all others is Colorado.
Colorado alone, with about 30 policy
governance districts (Weigel), has somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of all policy
governance public school districts in the United States. It had the most in the nation in 2007 and
still does. Why? The answer is primarily one of marketing.
Dr. John Carver and his wife Miriam have
personally marketed Policy Governance to school districts, but not many. Their work has focused primarily on
non-governmental entities in the corporate world and in non-profit
organizations. However, Carver has
always contended that his model is appropriate for governmental bodies, as well
(Carver). He has trained about 350
people worldwide through his Policy Governance Institute (Sjogren), some of
whom have gone on to establish marketing firms such Linda and Randy Quinn’s
Aspen Group International which operates out of Castle Rock, Colorado, and Jim
Weigel who is in charge of policy services for the Colorado School Boards
Association (Weigel). The Aspen Group
and Weigel are the primary forces behind the approximately 1/6 of Colorado’s
178 school districts which use policy governance.
The Aspen Group started marketing Carver’s
Policy Governance in the 1990s but has largely shifted to marketing its own
model of Coherent Governance, a more user-friendly version, in 2006. Although marketing from the east to the west
coasts, they have worked with quite a few in their home state (The Aspen Group
International LLC, 1).
Jim Weigel’s home state is also
Colorado. Weigel marketed Carver’s
Policy Governance independently for a while but has recently been promoting
policy governance principles in his role as director of policy services for the
Colorado School Boards Association. (Weigel)
The Aspen Group International has been the
most prolific marketing firm of policy governance in the United States. According to its website, it has worked with
close to 60 public school districts, roughly 1/2 to 3/5 of all districts
nationwide (The Aspen Group International LLC, 1). The Aspen Group, working with the Colorado
Association of School Boards, first tried to interest Colorado school boards in
1993 and again in 1994, to no avail.
Then, after the enthusiastic support of a lone board member in
converting his board to the concept succeeded, the Quinns tried again to
interest the boards of Colorado in 1997.
This third attempt succeeded, and as the two top executives of the
Colorado School Boards Association, they began to offer its members a Policy
Governance service. This service was
comprehensive and included a process known as the blitz, a two-day training
session for a board of education, followed up with periodic sessions of
support. According to the Quinns,
success came rapidly, and by 1999 they were working with 12 boards of education
in Colorado. Today, the Quinns work
independently as the Aspen Group International, and Jim Weigel conducts policy
services for the Colorado School Boards Association (The Aspen Group
International LLC, 2).
Weigel is a firm believer in policy
governance principles and promotes them but also works with districts which
practice other forms of governance. He
believes that the principles of policy governance promote greater efficiency
and keep board members from getting too deeply into the means of district
operations. Weigel especially likes the
results-oriented approach that boards use under policy governance (Weigel). He has continued to fly the banner of policy
governance that was first waved strongly by Linda and Randy Quinn in Colorado
through its school boards association.
Colorado has certainly led the way with the promotion of policy
governance.
Washington state has more than doubled,
perhaps tripled, its number of policy governance districts since 2007. About 13 are currently operating, the
majority being serviced by Policy Governance Associates of the Pacific
Northwest, led by Bob Hughes and Rick Maloney.
Before retiring from the Boeing
Corporation, Hughes served for two years as a loaned executive to Washington’s
State Superintendent of Education to assist in the statewide development plan
for the implementation of technology in its schools. These were the early years of the personal
computer, when school districts nationwide were beginning to move toward the
use of integrating new technologies as fundamental tools in public
education. Hughes used this experience
to springboard into his new role, a Policy Governance consultant. Having been trained by Dr. John Carver, and
having experienced the Aspen Group and its costly services while serving on a
district board of education, Hughes began to market the model in the Pacific
Northwest for much less expense than the Aspen Group (Hughes).
One of the first districts in Washington
to adopt Policy Governance was the Issaquah School Board, about ten years ago. Board President Jan Woldseth Colbrese said
that over time the model did not totally work for Issaquah. Colbrese said that Policy Governance was
originally adopted because their board had been working through some difficult
governance issues and desired to put in a new management system which would
streamline the board’s business. She said that some parts seemed to work but
others did not and that the board took parts of it and made up their own model,
a type of hybrid (McNamara).
South Kitsap School District in Washington
voted to move to Policy Governance in 2009.
However, Central Kitsap and North Kitsap decided not to do so, after
serious consideration. Curtailment of
free speech for board members and speaking with one voice seemed to be major
factors, causing many to decry the principle of silencing of board members who would
want to offer vocal dissent of board decisions and act in the interests of
their constituents.
North Kitsap board member Ed Strickland
said that the principle of speaking with one voice inhibited dissent. He said that he would not adhere to it and
would continue to fight for the principles he believed in and to represent the
voices of the people who elected him.
When fellow board member Val Torrens tried to reassure Strickland that
the principle was really meant to stop sabotage of decisions after they were
made, and not while they were being made, Strickland made it clear that was the
part he did not like. Strickland
believes that board members who dissent on majority decisions should have the
right to speak against them publicly (Strickland).
North Kitsap community member Bob Meadows
agrees with Strickland and stated, “The rule against ever again expressing
disagreement with a policy decision once the board votes and a director finds
himself in the minority on the vote would preclude any change ever again
occurring no matter what, wouldn’t it?
Speak now and then forever hold your peace and always toe the party line
may work for tightly controlled political parties, but how can it work for a
group of directors elected by the voters and given the responsibility to
exercise their own best judgment in representing the people who elected
them?” He went on to add, “No policy
could ever be revisited or revised once the vote is taken, since the board must
‘speak with one voice’ and otherwise shut up once the policy decision has been made”
(Meadows).
Mike Sheldon, also of North Kitsap,
concurs with Meadows and adds, “Almost sounds like they are trying to make
people work together. Group think and
participation is quite popular in academia.
Grading in groups, doing reports and assignments in groups,
individualism is sometimes seen as something that gets in the way. Thank God for individuals” (Sheldon)
Washington’s Federal Way School District
adopted Policy Governance in 2009. The
Bellingham Board of Education adopted the model in 2010. Despite being turned down in Central Kitsap
and North Kitsap, the model has shown tremendous growth in Washington since
2007. Like Colorado, marketing is
probably the key. Besides the majority
of Washington’s districts being serviced by Hughes’ and Maloney’s Policy
Governance Associates of the Pacific Northwest, the Aspen Group International
has also worked with several of Washington’s school districts (The Aspen Group
International LLC).
Wisconsin
has about 10 policy governance districts and has remained relatively stable
since 2007. Racine Unified School
District and La Crosse School District both experienced some difficulties
mid-decade, Racine with financial concerns and La Crosse with vocal opposition
by a board member over board policy restricting his free speech concerning
numerous matters.
Racine had operated under Policy
Governance beginning in 2005 but switched to the Aspen Group’s Coherent
Governance in 2008. David Hazen, RUSD
Chief Financial Officer believes that Racine has overcome much of its prior
difficulties and is headed in a positive direction. He states, “In 2006, the Independent
Commission on Education released a report after a review of Racine Unified
operations. The purpose was to ‘provide
a fresh, informed and wholly independent perspective on the operational and
financial challenges facing RUSD.’ Some
of the recommendations from that report have been implemented and have put the
District in better financial condition” (Hazen).
La Crosse School District seemed to settle
down after the board member, Lambeth, who had been vocally disruptive, was not
re-elected after all the chaos. The
school board did not enforce its own policy of censure against Lambert. According to Anastasia Mercer of the La
Crosse Tribune, David Hudson of the First Amendment Center of Nashville,
Tennessee, stated that if the board had tried to enforce its policies to limit
Lambert’s free speech through censure that it would have run into some first
amendment hurdles which are insurmountable.
Hudson stated, “The board policy may be more efficient, but the first
amendment should not be sacrificed on the altar of unanimity” (Mercer).
La Crosse board member Mary Larson
recently confirmed the district’s positive directions by highlighting what she
sees as exemplary board functions. She
states, “Our board governs by policy. We
are in contact with students, parents, teachers, community groups, businesses,
and legislators through meetings called Linkages. Our policies are derived from and inspired by
these Linkages. We also attend state and
national conventions and regional meetings to educate ourselves on current
educational initiatives” (Larson).
Although Wyoming may have as many as 10
districts which practice some form of policy governance, Mark Higdon, Executive
Director of the Wyoming School Boards Association, in reference to their
training program of 26 of 48 school districts in Wyoming, states that “the
Carver people do not think our program is very similar to their model and we
note that in our training” (Higdon). Wyoming
warrants further investigation, but an examination of the principles espoused
by the Wyoming School Boards Association and as practiced in Uinta County
School District #1 and throughout Wyoming virtually confirms that this is not
policy governance at all (Wyoming State School Boards Association). Wyoming’s Leadership Governance, although
touching on some policy governance principles such as speaking with one voice,
praising publicly, and not criticizing superintendent and staff performance
publicly, has the board making all district policy and cooperatively managing
the school district with the superintendent, placing the board heavily into the
operational means. This essentially negates
a fundamental cornerstone of Carver’s Policy Governance. Whether we should count Wyoming’s 10
districts under policy governance or not is problematic. If we do not, the percentage of policy
governance districts around the country is substantially reduced.
Vermont has toyed with the idea of policy
governance ever since it was first introduced into the state by Dr. John Carver
in 1993 at the annual convention of the Vermont State School Boards
Association. In 2003 the association
contracted with the Aspen Group International through a grant it received from
the Wallace Foundation. With additional
training in 2005, a number of districts in the state were on their way towards
implementing policy governance. The
current number of districts using the model is about 8. While some state school boards associations
adamantly oppose policy governance, the Vermont School Boards Association is
particularly active in its promotion (Frank).
JoAnn Taft-Blakely did a case study of the
implementation of policy governance from the school board members’ perspective
of four diverse school districts in Vermont.
She stated, “Results suggested that school boards … felt Policy
Governance created clarity of roles, lines of authority and communication
between board members and superintendent… Concerns related to community
understanding of this model of governance emerged, creating new challenges for
board members. Turnover of
superintendents and board members also had impact on the sustainability of the
initiative.”
Vermont’s Montpelier school board had a
problem last spring. A couple of school
board members were upset with the superintendent who refused their request for
more information about the budget. The
superintendent denied the request, citing Policy Governance. A local newspaper was also denied requested
information. The superintendent provided
it, only after a Freedom of Information Act request was submitted and reviewed
by a lawyer (“School Board Wants More Information from Superintendent”).
Board
member Kenneth Jones was being asked questions about the budget by his
constituents. He said, “My inability to
even know where the money is being spent made it very difficult for me to wrap
my head around the whole picture.” Not
only was Jones concerned about the budget, but he wanted more information about
what was happening academically, such as anecdotal information about art and
music. In the aftermath of these
concerns, the board attempted to address rectification and to find ways to get
needed information (“School Board Wants More Information from Superintendent”).
Colorado, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming,
and Vermont together have about 70 of the nation’s policy governance districts,
representing approximately 60%-70% of the roughly 14,000 school districts. The 45 remaining states generally have five
or less policy governance districts. An examination of selected states and local
school district developments follows.
Angie Kendall, Policy/Online Services
Specialist for the Iowa Association of School Boards on February 1, 2013, writes,
“After some research we have two school districts in Iowa who had the Carver
Model of Governance. Council Bluffs CSD
moved away from Carver two years ago.
Iowa City CSD is moving away now” (Kendall).
Cathy Miller, Director of Legal and Policy
Services of Minnesota, states, “The only Minnesota school district I know of
that is using some form of Policy Governance is Eden Prairie, which is using a
version of Coherent Governance with consultants other than the Aspen Group”
(Miller).
Although board member Jim Mortenson had
reported that Eden Prairie had adopted Policy Governance on July 1, 2007, it
seems that it had actually adopted Coherent Governance. According to a 2012 Minnesota Sun newspaper article, Eden
Prairie replaced Coherent Governance with Policy Governance. Writer Paul Groessel states that “the switch
is an effort to more clearly delineate roles, responsibilities, policies and
the conduct of the school board and the superintendent of the Eden Prairie
School District. Coherent Governance
provided parameters for what the superintendent could do, and the policy
governance switch is intended to add an additional component – delineating what
the superintendent is not allowed to do” (Groessel).
Nevada’s Clark County School District has
seen some topsy-turvy times since its adoption of Policy Governance in
2001. Karen Gray has written numerous
newspaper articles about the nation’s fifth largest public school district,
serving the Las Vegas area, which uses this model of governance. Gray is an education researcher at the Nevada
Policy Research Institute. Highly
critical of Policy Governance, she has issues with just about every aspect of
the model and has detailed her concerns in how the Clark County School District
operates. She is particularly concerned
with a tremendous decrease in graduation rates and test scores and the practical
complications with the language and time-consuming nature of the model,
especially with respect to interpretation differences (Gray).
Stephen Bounds, Director of Legal and
Policy Services for the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, writes
simply, “None of the 24 School Boards in Maryland use a Carver Model now or in
the past” (Bounds).
Carl Smith, writing about policy
governance for Maryland’s association in 2007, stated, “We do not advocate its use, as we believe it
is an unsatisfactory model for school board governance, as it does not take
into account the leadership role of boards of education in this day and age and
all but ignores the political context in which boards operate and the challenge
of making good decisions in light of conflicting, sometimes contradictory, often
overlapping and frequently competing priorities, mandates, and special
interests” (Smith).
Christina Barrett, staff attorney for the
New Hampshire School Boards Association, writes, “The roles and
responsibilities of New Hampshire school boards are established in both state
statute and New Hampshire Department of Education Rules. New Hampshire school boards do not transfer
much authority to the superintendent. In
New Hampshire, the school board is ultimately responsible for adopting local
school district policies” (Barrett).
According to Chris Thomas of the Arizona
State School Boards Association, Arizona has implemented policy governance in
the Scottsdale Unified School District and in the Dysart Unified School
District (Thomas).
Dysart is a large, growing district in the
northeastern Phoenix area.
Superintendent Gail Pletnik said that during a strategic planning
process led by Dr. Thomas Jandris of Progress Education that the community was
struggling with issues concerning trust and effectiveness of board leadership
and that the board began to investigate board models to address their concerns
(Pletnik). Dr. Jandris markets the
Policy Governance model through his Progress Education Corporation centered in
Chicago, Illinois, which offers a full array of school district services,
including high-tech products and services.
On May 11, 2011, the Dysart Unified School
District Governing Board held a special meeting in which Dr. Jandris reviewed
with the board why the Policy Governance Model was adopted in response to the
2008 Strategic Plan. According to the
minutes of that meeting, “The Governing Board expressed their concerns regarding
the full implementation of the Policy Governance Model with phrases such as,
‘don’t feel good about it’; ‘uneasy feeling’; ‘not sure about it’; ‘questioning
it’; ‘concerned about aspects of it’; ‘loss of authority’. Dr. Jandris respectfully indicated the Board
has made a legal commitment through the adoption of Strategic Plan goals in
both 2008 and 2010 to Policy Governance.
Dr. Jandris recommended the Board needs to either move forward with its
adopted goals regarding Policy Governance or legally act to reverse its
decision” (Dysart Governing Board Minutes).
Dysart has continued with the model.
Megan Greulich, Policy Consultant for The
Ohio State School Boards Association, says that the association does not
recommend the Carver model for Ohio’s 722 public school districts but that Columbus
City Schools uses it (Greulich).
Columbus has used Policy Governance since 2007. Many problems have surfaced since 2009.
Mary Taylor, auditor for Columbus City
Schools, warned in 2009 that the school board’s oversight method could lead to
“errors, irregularities, or misappropriations of board funds.” She said that the board had not reviewed
details of the district funds during the past year and that their methodology
was different from “when board members reviewed details of the contracts with a
fine-toothed comb” (Sebastian).
Some in the community thought this was
undemocratic and risky. Brian Dey,
former Wisconsin board member, said this was “the lazy man’s way of running government.” Ann Allen, assistant professor at Ohio State
University School of Education, Policy, and Leadership, said that the original
intent of a school board was to provide citizens a voice in operation of
districts. Allen said that she does not
like micromanaging but questions whether Policy Governance does enough for the
representative role that citizens play on these boards. Others did not like the policies that forbade
members publicly criticizing the superintendent and staff. Particularly distasteful was, after voting,
members’ discussion and airing of opinions were forbidden. Criticism was also rendered that applicants
for vacancies on the school board were told that they must subscribe to Policy
Governance. Further angst was with the
monitoring process that reports only gave three or four sentences on some items
before board members were expected to vote on them (Sebastian).
However, President Carol Perkins took
serious exception to the criticism in reflecting on Policy Governance by saying,
“It creates a team environment. If you
don’t have that in any situation, that could produce dissension” (Sebastian).
Bill Bush, writer for the Columbus Dispatch, revealed that after
the adoption of Policy Governance, unanimous votes of the board, expressions of
teamwork, and deference to the superintendent became the norm. However, he noted that recent developments
had made those practices not so normal anymore.
Heated battles, divided votes, and controversy were becoming common
(Bush, 1).
When board member Stephanie Groce
criticized the district in a newspaper column for the implementation of a
particular middle school program, the board criticized her for violation of the
speaking with one voice principle (Bush, 1).
After the superintendent revoked public
transit passes for high schoolers, the board restored them (Bush, 1).
Board members were complaining that they
were kept in the dark on the budget in 2011.
Bill Bush noted that Franklin County, of which Columbus is a part,
hammers out its budget after grilling department heads on their spending. Columbus City Council meetings can be
standing room only scenes, involving the public heavily, and detailed
discussions occur about what will be kept and what will be cut. However, when it comes to Columbus City
Schools' budget of over $1.3 billion, there are no hearings and almost no
questions asked. Board members Stephanie
Groce, Shawn Gibbs, and Mike Wiles were extremely frustrated after repeated
attempts to get information and believed they were stonewalled at every point
(Bush, 2)
There was other trouble in 2011 for the
school board. Superintendent Gene Harris
had been getting around a board policy for years that established a $25,000
limit for purchases from any firm or person in a given year, by having the
board authorize a resolution authorizing any amount of purchasing for a lengthy
list of people and firms. Without
explanation, the board shot down the maneuver in June (Bush, 3).
Bigger trouble erupted in 2012, when
Superintendent Harris said she did not know about millions of state-required
records being deleted by some of her highest-paid administrators. Tied to cash bonuses for improvement in state
report cards, board members said they knew nothing about the allegations. All of this originated from Columbus City
Schools’ internal auditor, Carolyn Smith, who claimed that Harris put pressure
on her to end her data-rigging probe, charges that Harris denies. This situation has led to a criminal
investigation currently underway by the FBI (Bush, 4).
Beaufort County School District in South
Carolina adopted Policy Governance in 2000 but dispensed with it in 2004. Experiencing various problems with contracts
and finances, it resorted to the practice of traditional governance (Gaither). Continuing to experience difficulties, it
adopted Strategic Governance, a user-friendly model, in 2008 (Vadney). Beaufort hired the services of Dr. Gerrita
Postlewait, former Superintendent of Horry County Schools in South Carolina,
who had transitioned Horry County from traditional governance to Policy
Governance in 2000, to lead the board in the development of another version of
policy governance (Skalski).
Horry County Schools in South Carolina has
operated under policy governance continuously since 2000. It did change from Policy Governance, termed
Board Governance by the district, to Coherent Governance in 2007. The Aspen Group International had been its consultants
from the inception of the model until about 2008. The district has not experienced any serious
complications with policy governance, but the board did not seem to like its
consultants’ claim that a major change it wanted would be inappropriate, for it
would be delving into operational means. As a result, it took back some of its
authority in 2007 by taking control of the hiring and transfers of principals,
executive directors, and officers. Other
than this, operations have apparently been rather smooth.
The district has come under attack from one
very vocal critic of the model who has written and spoken extensively about the
antidemocratic, authoritarian nature of policy governance and how it takes the
“public” out of public education in its application. Bobby Chandler has taught history for 40 years
in South Carolina’s public schools. For
the last 31 years, he has taught in the Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate history programs at Socastee High School.
Chandler contends that policy governance
is a disaster in practice, despite apparent good results achieved by the
district, because it violates the original intent of school boards as
representatives of the community and transfers too much authority to the
superintendent to make monetary and instructional decisions that more properly
belong with the electorate. He also
contends that it is another disaster waiting to happen because its lack of
oversight, due to having no standing committees, and a superficial checks and
balances mechanism, known as monitoring, create a tempting environment in which
administrative wrongdoing can occur much more easily than in districts which
boards take an active, hands-on approach to operations.
More often than not, districts do not
receive much publicity and are not in the news for the public’s excitement
about policy governance. Generally, it
is either the support by superintendents and/or board members that advances the
model. Add to these the consultants
which market policy governance, various sponsors, such as the National School
Boards Association, the Education Commission of the States, the Wallace
Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and some state school boards associations
which actively endorse the model, and one has a good picture of how the model
is promoted. Of course, there are also
the business interests which benefit from not having their relationships to
district operations under board scrutiny and which enter into lucrative
district contracts without board approval, many of these being sponsors of the
organizations which endorse policy governance.
The bottom line is that money talks.
Most people have no clue what all is
entailed in the model, its origins, its philosophical tenets, how and why it is
marketed, and how it is practiced across the United States. Adherents often spout the same rhetorical
language about boards focusing on results, not micromanaging, and freeing the
superintendent to work as the expert to develop the means to achieve district
goals. In most cases, the voices of
proponents are of a cookie cutter variety.
Of course, the same can be said of those who oppose the model, crying
too much power in the hands of the superintendent, restriction of board
members’ free speech, and constituent concerns not being properly
addressed. Which of these views is more
credible?
Since there has been no definitive study
showing any causal relationship between models of governance and quantifiable
results produced, trying to decide whether a district should use a particular
model of governance might be problematic.
A decision could necessarily be dependent upon one’s beliefs about
governmental philosophy. This was the
conclusion reached in Bobby Chandler’s “The Viability of the Carver Policy
Governance Model for District Boards of Education in the United States” in
2007.
Chandler seemed to leave open the
possibility that a district could embrace the policy governance model and make
it work, if the right people were in charge and diligent in the execution of
all its major tenets. Although
definitely biased towards traditional governance over policy governance,
Chandler seemed to leave the question about the viability of the model for district
boards of education in the United States to the discretion of the user. This conclusion was seriously in error.
Policy governance should not be used by
any public school district in the United States.
The team approach, as a central tenet of
policy governance, is not a democratic-republican ideal and more appropriately
belongs with totalitarian thinking. The
main idea is to get everyone onboard and supportive of a board decision. Once a board of education has voted, then all
board members are expected to support the decision, not try to undermine it in
any way, and definitely not try to gain public support for its reversal.
Maintaining the status quo becomes the
overarching goal. If a board member is
not allowed to challenge decisions publicly, bad board decisions will have
little chance of ever being changed, for the public will not be engaged largely
with the board in discourse and debate.
As far as linkage meetings are concerned,
meetings which a board has with various community stakeholders, would these not
be more public relations’ activities to promote the team approach? If a board member cannot have public
discourse about what he thinks as an individual concerning board actions, he
would be limited to only listening to stakeholder concerns on many issues and
not allowed to respond, except with the party line.
This “speaking with one voice” principle
is supposed to steer the district toward a common goal, create less
controversy, and maintain a stable direction for the district. Working together as a team, a board of
education is to put forth a positive image of the district. This all might sound well and fine, may
produce desired results, and enhance public relations, but it is not consistent
with the principles upon which our nation was founded.
Healthy discourse and debate, although
contentious and often messy, are the foundational pillars of a republic. People, as individuals, are to speak their
minds and actively engage one another in intellectual argument. Using the biblical adage of iron sharpening
iron, forces of the left and right battle it out between the opposing needs and
desires of people for order and liberty to work towards the Aristotelian golden
mean. This principle includes board of
education members who should never give up trying to promote their beliefs and
ideas, even after a vote is taken.
Embracing the principle of praising publicly
and criticizing privately administrative and staff operations, policy
governance takes away the free speech of board members and does not allow for
their public criticism of a school district’s leaders. The United States tried this during the Adams’
administration with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and further curtailment of
criticism of the government was enacted during World War I. However, Americans generally find free
expression necessary to keep our country the land of the free and the home of the
brave. Yet, for some strange reason,
policy governance practitioners think restrictions are appropriate for public
school districts. Their main concerns
are operational efficiency and results.
If a board of education puts operational
efficiency and results above operational effectiveness and the means to desired
ends, then it becomes autocratic, not democratic. Board delegation of operational policy-making
and authority to a superintendent of education produces this kind of efficiency
and autocracy, for the superintendent does not need to continually find out
what the board wants concerning the day-to-day operations of a district. As long as desired results are achieved, a
board of education does not concern itself with the means.
Philosophy is also important. For
example, if the public believes that writing in cursive, mastery of
multiplication tables, regular instruction in grammar, an emphasis on
individual expressive writing, and learning how to use one’s mind well should
take precedence over a superintendent’s promotion of early keyboarding, use of
calculators, group dynamics, and the use of every available technology, it is
of no consequence, for whatever the superintendent wants, the superintendent
gets.
Of course, great results can be achieved,
but at what cost, monetarily and in human terms, and how can policy governance
receive credit, especially since there has been no established
correlation? Could the efforts of many
have produced them, in spite of governance?
Governance should not be about the kinds
of results produced but about how those results are obtained. Success can be achieved by awful means, at
least for a while. After World War I,
Germany was devastated. She was stripped
of over 20% of her land and lost all of her worldwide colonies. Forced to pay reparations to the allies, she
struggled to survive. People were out of
work and hungry. The streets were
chaotic. Hope for a better life had
vanished.
Germany shifted from a democratic-republic
to a fascist, authoritarian regime in 1934 through democratic means by way of a
law, the Enabling Act, which allowed its new leader to confer upon himself
dictatorial power. Over the next seven
years, 1934-1941, Germany saw much success, by just about any measure. Most Germans were applauding their leader and
new governance.
In a very short period of time, Germany
saw a miraculous turnaround. The
machinery was churning, people were working, and hope restored. Lands lost in World War I were regained,
pride was restored, and most Germans were counting their blessings that they
lived in such a wonderful country. The
evidence or results were clear that Germany was indeed a successful country.
Germany did not think she was doing
anything wrong. She was acting
ethically. She was the country that had
been wronged in World War I. She should
never have been forced to sign the war guilt clause. What Germany was doing was righting a
terrible wrong. Germans trusted their
leader to produce the results that all desired.
The means were largely in his hands.
Well, we know the end of this story.
Nothing more need be said.
Of course, policy governance districts
could easily take offense to such a harsh analogy, and although they in no way
compare to the most horrific aspects of the Nazi regime, they must be seen in a
very similar light in that they place lawmaking authority and operations into
the hands of one person, albeit in one whom they expect to operate ethically
and lawfully.
However, chicanery can more easily take
place in a policy governance district than in one which a board of education
takes a much more hands-on approach to district operations. This is the case because of a superficial
checks and balances mechanism – monitoring.
A
fundamental design flaw of policy governance is the monitoring process. In effect, it has the administration checking
on itself and preparing reports of administrative activities for the board. Using statistical analysis, administration
conveys facts and figures, with its own interpretation and spin. Unless a board itself is involved through
committee work and regular, individual investigation in operational areas, it
simply cannot have sufficient information from which to draw its own
conclusions. Occasional inquiries by
board members of certain prepared items and administrative responses cannot
possibly produce the depth of knowledge needed by members to oversee
administrative activities properly. Not
only does a policy governance board transfer its lawmaking authority for
district operations to a superintendent, but it also transfers its
responsibility for its constituents to the superintendent, as well.
Constituents’ concerns are simply relayed
by a board of education to a superintendent for consideration and/or
resolution. Board members are often kept
in the dark about the disposition of a matter.
As a result, a constituent’s satisfaction becomes entirely dependent on
a superintendent and various district staff members. He may or may not get what he desires, and his
proposals become only advisory because there is no vote or action taken by the
board or his representative board member on operational matters. The constituent is effectively
disenfranchised.
School boards existed long before the
modern era and its increasing complexity.
Parental and community involvement in the intricate development of young
people’s minds and well-being did also.
As parallel institutions modeled on republican government, boards of
education were given, and still should have, representative oversight of
student welfare, taxpayer dollars, and district operations in public education.
Board members should still be considered
trustees, those who act in the stead of parents and local communities who have
vested interests in their children.
Boards of education should not voluntarily relinquish this trust by
passing on their responsibilities to a superintendent of education, no matter
how complex the times. To do so is an unethical violation of historical trust
and should be ruled an illegal act for denying citizens the franchise and
operational intervention through their board representatives in public school
districts.
Yet, Dr. John Carver’s trademarked Policy
Governance, and its user-friendly offshoots, has ended the principle of
representative government in those districts which practice the model. Although boards of education have lost much
power due to law and the courts whittling away, and sometimes axing, certain
responsibilities, this should not be a reason to further emasculate the
time-honored school board.
The sad part of all of this is that the
public has not pushed this change.
Without exception, all over the country, policy governance has quietly
and cleverly been voted in by boards of education which have been heavily
influenced by those with vested interests in promoting this extreme policy
board concept. There has never been a
grassroots movement or public drive to see policy governance implemented. In fact, even after the model is in place,
the public, in most cases, has no idea that a change has occurred. Through apathy and ignorance, citizens have
gradually removed themselves from the governmental processes in which they were,
once upon a time, more intimately acquainted.
Consolidation of school districts,
distance from meeting locations, very busy lives, many interests, and numerous distractions in this modern age,
adding to apathy and ignorance, people generally let their vote at the polls
count as doing their part in the democratic process, even if they bother to
participate. Of course, this is not good
enough for a democratic-republic to function well, let alone survive. This principle is not exclusive to school
districts. It is endemic at all levels
of governance, but it is particularly significant when it comes to the survival
of public education.
Board members who are involved in this
tragedy often go along with it, citing too little time for the traditional
standing committee commitments and not enough pay for what would be
required. Living busy lives, as well,
they succumb to and embrace the rhetoric of proponents of policy governance who
say that board members are doing a greater work by focusing on the big picture
and results. This is seen as being
meaningful, whereas contentious and controversial disagreements, resulting from
digging into district operations, are seen as non-productive and unfulfilling. Promoters often harp on these points.
Organizational culture of a school board
is as unique as any culture, and, as such, resistant to change. The status quo is often maintained for long
periods of time. Sociolinguistic and
cultural anthropology teaches this basic truism. The majority, more often than not, resists
change. There is usually a small number
who always buck the system, who are outspoken and who have no trouble even
standing alone. Unless something drastic
happens to change the culture, however, change occurs only gradually.
Slavery, for example, was the norm in
colonial America. Voices rising in
opposition were few in number. No
organized group opposed its existence, with the exception of the Quakers, and
even they, at first, were not opposed as a group. Some Quaker voices began to be heard in
opposition but were frowned upon. Over
time, as they continued, more came on board, and the group became the first
recognized body in the colonies to actively work against the institution. We know the rest of this story, but the death
of slavery, as a cultural institution, was a long time coming.
Policy governance, even though practiced
in a small percentage of public school districts nationwide, must be examined
as a cultural phenomenon within the context of where it is practiced, for most
people are not cognizant of any district other than their own, and many not
even of their own.
Group dynamics would suggest that some
board members resort to peer pressure to maintain the status quo. Others, because of personality, are not
outspoken and tend to go with the flow.
Newcomers to a board of education often need time to learn existing
operations and will not readily question existing cultural norms, thereby
accepting the governance rules into which they are acclimated. Still other members want to get along, do not
like tension, want to please, and especially want to be seen by the superintendent
as team players and good board members.
Even if questions might arise about how things are done or should be
done, they can easily be quashed and never see the light of day.
If opposition occurs to any cultural norm,
whether from within or without, there is always the tendency of participants to
either rationalize or justify practices, for one does not want to be seen as
participating in any activity that would be considered bad or improper. Arguments and rhetoric often become rote and
common, to be promulgated and propagated at any necessary juncture as an
apologetic. This is done as defensive
and offensive mechanisms to maintain existing cultural norms and, at the same
time, to allay any feelings or misgivings that one might have about
participation in, or acceptance of, any cultural norm.
All of this said, convincing those in
policy governance districts to see the error of their ways is not easy. Especially difficult to change are those who
strongly believe that policy governance does not violate democratic practice
and historical norms. As conscientious
as they are in defending their point of view, their arguments are vacuous.
Relying primarily on the concept of
delegated authority by legislative bodies to regulatory agencies and reference
to forms of city governance that transfer decision-making authority to city
managers, policy governance apologists fail to recognize that these modern
practices emerged as practical necessities to deal with complex activities in
the management of resources and supporting services that are exclusively unique
to a modern society. Education, however,
is a very different animal and not unique to a modern society. A Jeffersonian education, for example, is
needed today, if not more so, than it was a couple of hundred years ago.
Learning to write well, to make
well-reasoned arguments, to express oneself in an articulate manner, to use
one’s mind well, in the absence of technology, to think on one’s feet, to know
material and not just how to look it up or use some piece of technology to access
it, to know how to spell a word, to grow primarily as an individual, to develop
ethically, to become an involved human being with citizenship skills, to take
responsibility for oneself, to learn how
to learn, distinguishing the good from the bad, especially the need to analyze
and evaluate critically, these are timeless educational activities. Boards of education which transfer these
responsibilities to a superintendent, thereby removing the viable involvement
of the people and their right to vote through their board representatives, are
inexcusable in a democratic-republic.
Parents and community members have never
relinquished the control and well-being of their children to anyone. This is the primary argument against any who
would offer that the practice of policy governance, or any extensive hands-off
board, is analogous to the modern practice of delegating authority to complex
institutions which assist us in our daily lives. Granted, public education has become
increasingly complex and has demanded greater expertise from those in
leadership roles, especially superintendents.
This should not, however, preclude the idea, even with increasing complexity,
that the basics of education are, and will remain, unchanging.
No matter how complex modern society is,
no matter how much technology is used as assisting tools, no matter how
difficult financial matters and operational concerns are, the educational
development of students must take into consideration the beliefs, desires, and
philosophies of those most concerned with them – parents and other community
members - who see their development as a unique activity, unlike any
other.
Administration of national resources,
sewer systems, public transportation, and many other intensive, supportive
public services can in no way compare with public education. Levels of public involvement and oversight
can exist in all of these, to varying degrees.
However, there should be no greater oversight than in public education.
Not only should this be the case because parents
and communities have the right to be significantly involved in the education of
their children but because public education is a much more expensive endeavor
than ever before. There is, or should
be, an even greater role played by boards of education in the oversight of tax
dollars.
Our nation is bordering on bankruptcy, and
we use the proverbial credit card like there is no end in sight to how we spend
money. Of course, parents and
communities will always want what is best for their children, but we all know
that we cannot always have everything we want.
Boards of education which increasingly turn over the management of
school district operations to administration are washing their hands of their
fiduciary responsibilities to taxpayers, for many problems can result. Administration can be wasteful,
misappropriate funds, and, of course, find ways to encourage greater
spending. Whether this is through
promotion of bond referendums, securing funds from other sources, no matter
what requirements are attached, or actively seeking millage increases, the
natural tendency is always to want more.
When has any public school district’s administration actually sought a
decrease in funding?
Finally, the corporate model of policy
governance is flawed through and through for public school districts in the
United States. Improper oversight
mechanisms, curtailment of board members’ free speech, impotent constituent
services, and taking away the vote from community members on district
operations make a mockery of the concept of representative government and
violate the historical trust placed in a board of education by those who most
need their public servants to act in their stead for their children’s welfare
and to watch over the expenditure of their hard-earned tax dollars.
Policy governance is a tragedy for public
school districts in the United States.
The sooner boards of education which practice the model return to more
traditional practice, the sooner the “public” will be put back into public
education, where it rightfully belongs.
Aspen Group
International LLC (1). 1 February 2013.
<http://www.aspengroup.org/clients.jsp
Aspen Group
International LLC (2). “Policy Governance
and School Boards? You’ve Got To
Be Kidding!”
Board Leadership. September-October 1999.
Bakst,
Linda. E-mail. 1 February 2013.
Barrett,
Christina. E-mail. 5 February 2013.
Bounds,
Stephen. E-mail. 5 February 2013.
Bush, Bill
(1). “Tiffs Rupture School Board Model
Behavior.” Columbus Dispatch. 23
November 2010.
Bush, Bill
(2). “Columbus School Board Members Say
They’re Kept in the Dark on Budget.”
Columbus
Dispatch. 6 May 2011.
Bush, Bill
(3). “Trouble in Policy Governance
Land.” Columbus Dispatch. 9 June
2011.
Bush, Bill
(4). “School Board Policy Puts All
Responsibility on Harris.” Columbus Dispatch.
17 August 2012.
Carver,
John. Telephone interview. 3,7 July 2007.
Dysart Governing
Board Minutes. Dysart Unified School
District #89. 11 May 2011.
Frank,
Harry. Telephone interview. 29 January 2013.
Gaither,
Herman. Telephone interview. 28 June 2007.
Gray,
Karen. “Evaluating ‘Policy
Governance’.” Nevada Policy Research
Institute. 2 January
2009.
<http://www.npri.org/publications/evaluating-policy-governance
Greulich,
Megan. Telephone interview. 5 February 2013.
Groessel,
Paul. “Eden Prairie School Board Drafts,
Approves Governance Policy Changes.”
Minnesota
Sun. 24 October 2012. <http://current.mnsun.com/2012/10/eden-prairie-school-
Board-drafts-approves-governance
Harder,
Ron. E-mail. 27 January 2013.
Hazen,
David. “Unified Moving in Right
Direction.” Racine Journal Times. 25
April 2013.
<http://www.racine.k12.wi.us/?do=about.content&pageID=837
Higdon,
Mark. E-mail. 31 January 2013.
Hughes,
Bob. Telephone interview. 9-10 July 2007.
Kendall,
Angie. E-mail. 1 February 2013.
Larson,
Mary. “Candidates and Issues: La Crosse School Board – Mary Larson. WXOW News
19. 22 February 2013.
<http://www.wxow.com/story/21310035/2013/02/22/candidates-and-
Issues-la-crosse-school
McNamara,
Neal. “Federal Way School Board Learns
Blueprint for Management: Pros and
Cons of Policy Governance.” Federal
Way Mirror. [Federal Way,
Washington]. 4 February
2011.
Meadows,
Bob. “Kitsap Education Blog.” 15 February 2013.
Mercer, Anastasia. “La Crosse School Board to Reconsider
Governing Style and Free Speech
Concerns.”
La Crosse Tribune. 1 February 2004. 4 July 2007<http://www.lacrossetribune.
com/articles/2004/02/01/news/00lead.txt>.
Miller,
Cathy. E-mail. 1 February 2013.
Murphy,
Janine. E-mail. 4 February 2013.
Pletnik,
Gail. E-mail. 9 April 2013.
Reeves,
Joseph. E-mail. 26 January 2013.
Sanz, Mike. Telephone interview. 3 March 2013.
“School Board
Wants More Information from Superintendent.”
Vermont Today. 23 March
2012.
Sebastian,
Simon. “Columbus School Board Shift Hits
a Nerve: Policy Governance Cuts
Oversight, Gives Away Too Much Control, Some
Say.” Columbus Dispatch. 1 June
2009.
Sheldon,
Mike. “Kitsap Education Blog.” 15 February 2013.
Sjogren,
Stacy. “About Stacy Sjogren.” 4 April 2013.
<http://outofthewoodsconsulting.com/
Pages/AboutStacySjogren/
Skalski, Ginny. “School District Reshapes Its System of Governance.” Island Packet. 11
December 2007.
Smith,
Carl. E-mail. 5 February 2013.
Strickland,
Ed. “Kitsap Education Blog.” 15 February 2013.
Talbert,
Cathy. E-mail. 31 January 2013.
Thomas,
Chris. E-mail. 26 January 2013.
Vadney,
Kelly. “Education Board Adopts Strategic
Governance Plan.” Island Packet. 6
January 2008.
Weigel,
Jim. Telephone interview. 18 February 2013.
Wyoming State
School Boards Association. “Professional
Governance Standards.” <http://
www.wsba-wy.org/_pdf/2012/June%20121/publications/Professional%20Governance%20
Standards
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment