The Job of a School Board Member

Jim Zellmer, proprietor of the School Information System blog, sent an email to School Board members last week asking our views on our roles. The email  stated in part, “I recall a BOE discussion where Ed argued that there are things that should be left to the Administration (inferring limits on the BOE’s oversight and ability to ask questions). I am writing to obtain your thoughts on this, particularly in light of: a) ongoing budget and accounting issues (how many years has this been discussed?), and b) the lack of substantive program review to date (is 6 years really appropriate, given reading and math requirements of many Madison students?). I’d like to post your responses, particularly in light of the proposed Administrative re-org and how that may or may not address these and other matters.”

I didn’t quite know what Jim was requesting, and asked him if he could clarify a little. He responded: “I am looking for your views on BOE responsibilities vis a vis the Administration, staff and the community. Two timely specifics, certainly are: a) ongoing budget problems, such as the maintenance referendum spending, and b) curricular matters such as reading programs, which, despite decades of annual multi-million dollar expenditures have failed to “move the needle”. The Seattle District’s “problems managing its money” matter apparently prompted more Board involvement. Finally, I do recall a BOE discussion where you argued in favor of limits on Administrative oversight. Does my memory serve?”

In response to Jim’s request, here are some thoughts on the role and responsibilities of a member of the Madison School Board. I don’t know what Jim is referring to when he mentions that I argued in favor of limits on Administrative oversight, but whatever I said, I hope it’s consistent with the following paragraphs.

There are no qualifications to be a School Board member, beyond living in the district and getting elected. Wis. Stat. §120.06(2). (Those who run unopposed, like me, essentially establish their qualifications by getting 100 people to sign their nomination papers.) But once elected, an MMSD School Board member – regardless of his or her background, knowledge base, or skill set – possesses one of the four votes required to commit the District to expenditures that will total well over a billion dollars during a School Board member’s three-year term, to employment decisions affecting thousands of employees, and to curricular and other academic choices that help shape the education of about 25,000 students.

It seems to me that this way of selecting the leadership to run a huge and hugely important organization should inspire a sense of humility and responsibility on the part of a School Board member. Humility in that we shouldn’t pretend to possess expertise or qualifications that we lack. Responsibility in that we need to work hard to discharge our duties in ways that are best for our schools, our students and our community and that foster systems and practices that make School Board members partners rather than obstacles in achieving District goals.

With respect to the budget, our primary responsibility is to determine where to draw the line between imposing an excessive tax burden on our property owners and ensuring that our schools have the resources they need to provide the quality of education that our community wants and expects. There are a lot of ways to go about this. As a Board member, I think I need to examine carefully whatever budget cuts are proposed and investigate additional cuts that make sense to me. I also think I have an obligation to have a reasonable understanding of the consequences of whatever it is I propose before I propose it. The same goes for proposals to increase spending in particular areas.

I believe that another of my responsibilities as a Board member is to do what I can to dispel misinformation in the community about school issues. School maintenance referendum spending is an obvious example. The degree of misunderstanding that currently exists in the community regarding past maintenance spending is unfortunate. We Board members should be trying to correct the record. For example, it simply is not the case that we don’t know what maintenance projects were funded by referendum money. We do. More detail would be good, but I assume we can dig out the details on specific projects to the extent we need to.

In my view, the primary problem with maintenance spending in recent years is that the administration did not make regular reports to the Board to explain and defend the list of maintenance projects that were scheduled for the upcoming year. I assume that the projects that were undertaken were necessary, but they weren’t necessarily the ones that the district was talking about when the referendum was passed and a number of those projects were never completed. Going forward, we have to do a much better job of providing ongoing big-picture information on maintenance projects and spending.

As to curricular matters, Board members should look to see that there are sound procedures in place for regularly reviewing curriculum and adopting appropriate materials. When we have a process in place, we need to respect the process. When you’ve got a School Board picking the curriculum, you’ve got a mess.

For critics of the Board’s curricular oversight, Reading Recovery is usually held out as Exhibit A for a district program that just seem to continue on and on despite high costs and mixed results. Last December we received what I thought was a well-done study on the effectiveness of Reading Recovery. It raised significant questions about the program. After much discussion, the Board decided to authorize an evaluation of our entire literacy program, rather than acting on Reading Recovery alone. That evaluation is due in February. Once we receive it, it will be up to the Board to make intelligent decisions based on what we learn. To my mind, it would have short-circuited the process we established to eliminate Reading Recovery as part of our recent budget deliberations, as had been proposed.

The Board should focus on policy matters, particularly those that affect student achievement, and resist the temptation to get involved in matters of day-to-day administration of the district, or in other issues that can divert us, and others, from our principal focus.

In order for the Board to do its job properly, we need timely, reliable and cogent information from the administration, like the Reading Recovery study. I think we have significant room for improvement in the areas of data analyses and program evaluations, and I also think we are understaffed in these areas. We’ve got to do better. I think the administration recognizes these shortcomings as well. I might well be willing to increase our budget to add additional resources in this area.

School Board members should respond to questions and concerns about our schools that are directed our way, and do our best to ensure that all voices are heard. I also believe that Board members should be ambassadors for our schools to the community at large, consistently talking up the benefits that our students derive from the education that our schools provide.

Finally, Board members should not be adversarial to the superintendent or the administration. We’re all on the same team, trying to accomplish the same goals. We should strive to work in partnership, with a high level of trust on both sides, and to develop productive and collaborative working relationships. I know from my previous service on other Boards that things go a lot more smoothly that way.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Job of a School Board Member

  1. barb s says:

    “As to curricular matters, Board members should look to see that there are sound procedures in place for regularly reviewing curriculum and adopting appropriate materials. When we have a process in place, we need to respect the process. When you’ve got a School Board picking the curriculum, you’ve got a mess.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with this paragraph, but would add the following: Board members should “look to see” that there are sound procedures in place to develop curriculum plans that are implemented and subsequently assessed in accordance with state law, district strategic plans and objectives, best practices, etc. I’d also add the Board might want to check in on any process, even before evaluation, to see if it’s meeting a board’s expectations.

    As with the extensive program evaluation protocols approved this evening, has the School Board done the same for a protocol for curriculum plans upon which program evaluations would follow and be designed? I kept wondering this as I listened to the discussion and will follow up with a question to all board members via email when I get the chance.

    In a comment regarding governance on SIS, I pointed to the WI Administrative Code Chapter PI 8 and curriculum plans. While the code says “…Each school district board shall develop, adopt and implement a written school district curriculum plan which includes…” it does not say the board members are expected, or required, to do the work. As you noted that would be a disaster. I would agree with your comment that board members need to know adequate processes and procedures are in place.

    I watched the entire Board meeting this evening, and I did not see any signs of board members being adversarial toward the Superintendent during this evening’s meeting. I did notice some questions that might appear to some to be more pointed, some minor flashes of irritation with the course of discussion or with one another. But, overall, my sense is that each board member is doing his/her best to be responsible to their elected position and to the agreed upon goals of the board and the district and generally trying to work together despite some tweaking of one another. Didn’t seem unusual to me. Having to do all your work in public is challenging.

  2. Barb –

    Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my post and for watching the entirety of last night’s School Board meeting, which was a long one.

    I agree that it’s not enough to approve a curriculum — we also need to ensure that it is presented in the classroom in a way that is faithful to the materials and applicable academic standards. I’m no expert in this area, but I’d think that curriculum plans would be developed or reviewed as part of the curriculum evaluation process that was part of the protocol we adopted last night.

    Chapter PI 8 of the Administrative Code does include a daunting list of obligations for all school districts. I don’t know how the requirements are implemented by DPI in practice or how widely the waiver process is used. I’d venture to guess that there is not a school district in the state that is in compliance with all the varied obligations that the chapter imposes.

    As to the conduct of last night’s meeting, I’m glad that you thought it was conducted in a way that was roughly consistent with what I described as my conception of how school board members should function.


  3. barb s says:

    I feel the requirements re a curriculum plan in the Administrative Code are basic and not restrictive, giving school districts the flexibility and the authority via School Boards to develop curriculum plans to meet their students’ needs. Currently MMSD does not have such curriculum plans with the basics outlined in the code (per discussions with Supt.). While the required “pieces” for such a plan exist in different parts of the MMSD organization – I don’t mean to imply the District is not in compliance – they are not organized under a cohesive framework. Hopefully, the proposed evaluation/curriculum planning cycles will address this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s