The Commission for School
Board Excellence
Final Report
September 10, 2008
Confidential DRAFT
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................3
Recommendation Category 1: Board Governance Accountability .................................................................................... 3
Recommendation Category 2: Education Task Force .......................................................................................................... 4
Recommendation Category 3: Board Candidacy and Elections ......................................................................................... 6
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................8
Public Education In America .................................................................................................................................................... 8
The Board Governance Model ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Corporate versus School Board Governance ......................................................................................................................... 9
Public School Board Governance ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Brief History of School Boards ............................................................................................................................................. 10
1777.................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1910 – 1940 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Post 1920s .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1970s .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
1980s .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
2007.................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Business Participation In Education ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Compounded Impacts of High School Non-Completion......................................................................................... 11
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 1: BOARD GOVERNANCE ACCOUNTABILITY ............................. 15
Research Review ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Receivership Authority ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Ethical Behavior .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 2: EDUCATION TASK FORCE............................................................ 18
Research Review ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Policy Development and the Board Meeting .......................................................................................................................... 20
The Board Chair ................................................................................................................................................................. 21
The Superintendent .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Superintendent Recruitment .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Succession Planning .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Vision for Continuous Improvement ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Research Review ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Standards that Set High Student Achievement .................................................................................................................... 25
Accountability ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Board Self Performance Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Areas of Measurement ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Assessment Systems ............................................................................................................................................................. 27
Confidential DRAFT
1
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
Reporting ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Community Engagement and Transparency.......................................................................................................................... 28
Strategic Plan....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Stakeholder Communication and Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 29
Research Review ........................................................................................................................................................................ 30
Curriculum .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Governance Leadership Team Training ................................................................................................................................ 31
Pre-Qualifications ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Board Training Accountability............................................................................................................................................. 32
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 3: BOARD CANDIDACY AND ELECTIONS ..................................... 33
Research review ......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Board Size ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Conditions for Candidacy ..................................................................................................................................................... 34
Ethics and Code of Conduct ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Elections Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 34
SCHOOL SYSTEM STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................. 35
School System Size .................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Funding Formulas for School Systems ................................................................................................................................. 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................. 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONT’D) .......................................................................................................................... 38
CITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Confidential DRAFT
2
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
democracy lessons in more profound ways than
they may study it in class.
The State Board of Education (SBOE) asked the
Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the Metro Atlanta
Chamber of Commerce, the Georgia Partnership
for Excellence in Education and AdvancED to
assemble a task force, “the Commission for School
Board Excellence,” to study national best practices
relating to school board governance for 90 days and
report recommendations. The Commission for
School Board Excellence held meetings from June
10 – September 8, 2008 in Atlanta, Macon and
Dalton.
There is strong support in the business community,
including the Commission members and Advisory
Committee members, that successful public schools
are the bedrock of our society. As important as
growing future citizens may be, there is also a direct
link between educational achievement and future
economic wealth, both for the individual and for
the communities where those citizens live and work.
Commission members as employers and taxpayers
see the future of our state resting on today’s
students. Global expectations of Georgia’s student
knowledge and skills are now exceeding federal and
state standards.
Last year, public school (K-12) education spent $14
billion in local, state and federal funds in Georgia.
While improvements are many and distributed,
there is a long way to go to bring Georgia’s levels of
student achievement to a national or international
standard.
Public schools are major institutions in our
democracy. They serve their communities and
beyond, and are a key link between democracy and
education. School board members are critical to the
principle of public accountability, and schools are
the ultimate in grass roots democracy.
“Without undervaluing any other human agency,
it may be safely affirmed that the Common School,
improved and energized, as it can easily be, may
become the most effective and benignant of all the
forces of civilization.”
– Horace Mann (1796-1859), widely known as
the father of public education in America1
Because of emotional topics involving children and
their futures, financing and taxes, new teaching
methods and new advocacy platforms, the school
system governance process is messy, often
cumbersome, and any single position or
constituency has to be balanced among all the other
competing positions in the community. “Through
classroom activities, students learn values,
behaviors, and expectations of life in their
community.”2 By watching their school system go
about the great process of governance, they see
1
“Introduction.” Edition Education Policy Primer. Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education, 2008-09.
2 The Center for Public Education, “Executive summary:
School boards and the power of the public.” 2007.
Confidential DRAFT
In Georgia, the school system governance model is
being tested from all sides: only the most motivated
and community-minded citizens should apply. In a
later chapter of this report, the complex nature of
the school system governance model and the
aspirational qualities of people that would run for
such a position are identified.
School board members hold special roles as trustees
of public funds – local, state and federal - while they
focus on one singular objective: having all students
in their district reach their individual levels of
achievement. Although elected by the public, school
board members are required to work together with
the entire board and have no authority as an
independent elected official: they are only
authorized to take official action as a member of the
whole board.
Board duties require specialized skills and education
in the performance of vision-setting, policymaking,
approving multi-million dollar budgets and hiring a
qualified superintendent. The motivation to serve
as a board member should be the improvement of
schools and academic achievement of all students,
and not representation of a special interest or
partisan perspective. Board service is not a job; it is
citizen service. Given the specialized nature and
unique role of board membership, this elected
office should be characterized and treated
differently from other elected offices where the
primary duty is to independently represent
constituent views. Board members, similar to
judges and district attorneys, should abide by a code
of conduct and conflict of interest policy modeled
for their unique roles and responsibilities.
3
The Commission for School Board Excellence
The Commission for School Board Excellence
makes the following recommendations for
improving school board governance and putting
Georgia on the path to excellence in student
achievement.
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 1:
BOARD GOVERNANCE ACCOUNTABILITY
The SBOE shall establish a state-wide public
school board governance review and
accountability process.
Currently, the legal expectations of school
boards are minimal in Georgia. Citizens have
the sole responsibility to establish and to
demand high expectations of their board.
Within the current environment of limited
transparency, low accessibility, and minimal
voter
understanding
of
core
board
responsibilities, the community is at a distinct
disadvantage in performing their oversight role
at the ballot box. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended that clear expectations and
responsibilities be legislated to hold local
school boards more accountable.
1a. Establish an oversight process accountable for collecting
standardized student achievement performance
information. The process shall also promote selfmonitoring and internal evaluation by school boards to
include school systems, as well as board performance.
Develop a mechanism to ensure outside reporting of
board member violation of ethics, conflict of interest or
board training non-compliance.
While detailed data on student performance is collected
today by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement
(GOSA) and posted on its website, the data should be
aggregated for more effective, comparative use by boards,
superintendents, and the community as well as
communicated widely through various public channels.
1b. Building upon the Georgia Department of Education
(GDOE) process for performance monitoring (Student
Improvement Plan process), provide the necessary early
school system assistance and intervention to address
underperforming academic systems, accreditation problems,
financial and abuse of power issues. Ensure the process
has a reasonable, but aggressive timetable for corrective
action that is closely monitored.
1c. The SBOE shall be authorized to establish a review
panel and investigation process to address and to resolve
persistent school system and/or board performance issues
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
aligning with the DOE triggers that are currently in
place to initiate such assistance. Whether by contracting
through outside service providers or by empowering an
independent panel to assist, the SBOE process would be
a focused, short-term measure to evaluate the severity of
the issue and possible solutions. The independent panel
shall be comprised of past school board members and
superintendents representing each congressional district.
Review panel members may be appointed by the
Governor or be nominated by SBOE members.
Receivership shall be a last-resort option and would be
the result of a consistently failing school system that has
received intensive remediation efforts. The SBOE shall
call upon the review panel to determine the question of
receivership.
1d. In case a school continues to fail, temporary oversight
and control by a receivership authority is appropriate
and necessary. Such oversight shall be recommended by
the review panel, approved by SBOE and limited to
implementation of a specific recovery plan. The SBOE
shall determine the question of receivership and appoint
the receivership team. If the SBOE has not appointed
the receivership team within 45 days, the Governor will
then make the receivership appointments.
The
receivership team shall provide stability until new board
members and/or a new superintendent can be installed
to begin the recovery process. The primary objectives of
the receivership team are to return the school board and
the school system to effective functioning and to return the
system to local control.
1e. Establish a state-wide code of ethics and conflict of
interest guidelines for public school system board
members who are the unique trustees of local public
education for the entire district’s electorate.
The State of Georgia has a current financial and
future societal interest in local education: it has an
obligation to educate all its children. Because local,
state and federal dollars are being spent in every
school system, and because local education is now
subject to state and federal standards, the
Commission believes an overall governance process
attuned to monitoring, assisting and intervening,
when necessary, is required.
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 2:
EDUCATION TASK FORCE
Convene a task force of education leaders and
organizations to address the following three
areas of school board focus:
4
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
board roles and responsibilities
state-wide school performance
standards
 comprehensive board member
education and proficiency
Task force participation could include
individuals from the Georgia School Boards
Association
(GSBA),
Georgia
School
Superintendents Association (GSSA), Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education
(GPEE), AdvancED (SACS), GDOE, GOSA
and other business and community leaders.
1. “Cause to be managed” is the activity of the
school board. “Manage” is the activity of the
superintendent and his/her staff.
This next step phase would reconcile existing terminology and
standards for roles and responsibilities, performance
standards, and board member education and proficiency.
Additional terms and definitions may be
determined by the task force. These defined terms
should be used to update Title 20 of the Georgia
Code.


2a. Improve and clarify the role definitions for school board
members and school superintendents and their staff.
2. “Governance team” refers to the school board
and the school superintendent as a team.
“Leadership team” refers to the superintendent
and his/her staff. Other terms should have
agreed-to definitions.
3. Other specific terms may include: “per pupil
expenditure,” “pupil-teacher ratio,” “drop-out
or graduation rate,” “classroom expenditure
percentage.”
Board membership should be rooted in the concept
of “citizen service” and, as such, board
compensation should be limited to coverage of the
expenses incurred by board members as they
conduct board business. Per diem payments and
reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses should be aligned with the established
allowances in the code for the SBOE. Payment of
benefits should be excluded.
A crucial board responsibility is the recruiting and
selection of a highly qualified school superintendent.
For this process to be effective, boards must ensure
they identify qualifications, solicit community
involvement and provide transparency throughout
the entire process. The superintendent is the only
position that the school board shall be directly
responsible for hiring. However, the task force will
address and clarify the role of the board in hiring
key system leaders.
ii. Boards shall be empowered to take governance
action only when a majority of the board meets in a
duly-called meeting acting as a single authority and
speaking with a single voice. The board can only
take action as a group, not as individuals.
vi. Other role ambiguity for board members,
superintendents and staff needs to be clarified.
Example: unless already elected, board chairs
should be appointed by board members and may
rotate.
i.
iii. Ensure state statutes reflect the nature of the board
as an oversight and policy-making body that sets
vision, approves the budget, and hires the
superintendent. The statutes should clarify the role
of the school superintendent as the chief executive
and manager of the school system. The board
exists for the students, not the electorate. It acts as
an elected trustee, not as an elected representative.
Statutes should include clarity on the need for
continuous improvement and priority of student
achievement.
iv. A school system lexicon must be developed that
clarifies existing language and resolves conflicting
language where appropriate. Define and include
reserved language in the statutes as follows:
Confidential DRAFT
v.
2b. State-wide school performance standards
i.
Define state-wide student and system performance
standards and tracking metrics for school system
performance, and establish a process of tracking,
reporting and publication of student and system
performance results through varied channels to the
public by building on and expanding beyond the
current web-based reporting tools of GDOE and
GOSA. Consider student safety and civil rights as
additional key metrics reporting.
ii. Require boards to develop and to maintain a
strategic plan and a process of ongoing, timely
review of student and financial performance results
and outcomes compared to plan, and timely
reporting of results to the community. Strategic
planning training for boards should be provided to
ensure the validity and value of the plans developed.
5
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Leverage current initiatives by GSBA and
GOSA regarding strategic planning and reporting.
Any strategic planning toolset developed to assist
boards should include core components: vision, highlevel goals, objectives tied to goals, community
engagement, internal and external communication,
and ongoing tracking and periodic adjustment.
iii. Require boards to have a plan for regular
community communications and stakeholder input
for the purpose of presenting and discussing student
and system planning, goals and performance.
2c. Comprehensive board member education and proficiency
development
i.
Provided the new definitions of roles and
responsibilities and new state-wide school system
performance standards are established as above, the
task force shall also develop a recommended
proficiency curriculum for board members to
include:
1. School board fundamentals. Consider classroom
and web-based training, mentoring and
coaching, and whole-board training in
fundamental processes of school systems, and in
school system metrics focused on student
achievement. Consider other local, state and
federal law and policy requirements including
financial topics.
2. Consider the training GSBA currently provides
on strategic planning; build this into the
curriculum.
3. The number of hours and sequence of training
for new and experienced board members.
4. A training certification and disclosure guideline
for board members who run for re-election.
Final Report
consideration of often conflicting priorities, and
personal and partisan forces. Research shows that
board members who are prepared to govern using
student achievement results as their guiding
principal will produce better outcomes.
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 3:
BOARD CANDIDACY AND ELECTIONS
Legislation shall be enacted to strengthen the
election process and school board candidacy
requirements.
3a. Establish into law the size of a Georgia public school
board as a minimum of five and maximum of seven
members, pursuant to best practices. Develop a process
for existing larger boards to move to this smaller size.
3b. Establish new election guidelines to provide for 4-year
staggered terms of office, running in non-partisan
elections held on a general election cycle, e.g., November
of even-numbered years. Encourage local citizens to
have greater participation in the school board election
process.
3c. Establish additional statutory qualifications for school
board candidacy to include requirements for selfdisclosure, adherence to the state-wide code of conduct
and conflict of interest guidelines and to submit to
background checks and drug screening by the GBI.
While a “grandfathering” of board members without the
following requirements is expected, enhanced
requirements for board candidacy include:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
5. A statement that all current board members
would be expected to comply with ongoing
education requirements.
v.
vi.
vii.
ii. Provide a school board orientation workshop
(similar to the GPEE and GSBA workshops
currently offered) coordinated by the SBOE, and
encourage board candidates to attend.
viii.
School board governance is a complex process
requiring careful and coincident consideration of
laws, community needs, state and federal education
standards, business processes, organizational issues,
and fiscal management.
Board roles and
responsibilities require thoughtful and patient
Confidential DRAFT
ix.
x.
xi.
U.S. Citizen and registered voter
HS diploma or GED
Sign statewide conflict of interest and code of
ethics affidavit
Cannot be a “relative” of another sitting
board member (already defined in Title 20 of
the Georgia Code)
Cannot be a district employee
Cannot be judged mentally incompetent
Must submit to and pass drug screening
(Note: this was held unconstitutional for
members of the Georgia General Assembly;
see Chandler v. Miller, 520 US 305,
1997.)
Must disclose compliance with required
training, ethics and conflict of interest policies.
21 or older (in current law)
Resident of the school system district for
at least 12 months (in current law)
No felony convictions (in current law)
6
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
xii.
Cannot be employed by a public or
private K-12 school or school system
(current law prohibits employment or
service on the board of a private
educational institution)
3d. Require board member disclosure during election cycle of
adherence to ethics and conflict of interest guidelines and
training compliance.
The Commission would have preferred to
recommend
more
stringent
standards,
commensurate with the importance of the school
board member role and the experiences they see
demonstrated on other community and non-profit
boards. However, since citizen involvement and
local knowledge by the electorate of the qualities of
board members is embedded in the fabric of the
school board governance process, these new
election terms and candidacy requirements are
considered a minimum.
Confidential DRAFT
7
The Commission for School Board Excellence
BACKGROUND
PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AMERICA
Public schools in America hold a special place in the
history and development of our country and
culture. Georgia public schools have been around
for over two centuries in various forms and now
educate 1.6 million students, or 92% of school-age
children. Under Georgia’s Constitution, public
school systems are subdivisions of government
established to fulfill the American vision of public
education. Today, public schools are still the
foundation of our society and are the largest single
spending items in local and state budgets.
School systems are the local, logical and legal
organization to implement the state’s goals for
public education. But schools and school systems
have been bombarded by external and internal
forces that have distracted less-able boards from
their mission: to teach and educate our children for
their future community roles as parents, employees,
and citizens.
Boards today are pulled in numerous directions due
to the variety of constituencies and demands placed
on the board from the Federal government,
GDOE, the local electorate, parents, and the
education community.
It is critical that a
governance model be selected that narrows the
board’s focus and provides clear and consistent
direction and priority to manage these demands.
Boards must utilize governance systems that clearly
delineate the roles and responsibilities of school
board members. Boards should principally be
concerned with “ends”, not the “means” of
achieving objectives. It is the superintendent and
school leadership that should focus on “means”.
With our school systems under pressure from every
quarter, and with educational performance in many
places in the world exceeding the performance of
our public school systems and students, it is not
surprising that there is increased focus on
improving the effectiveness of our state school
boards. Appropriate and consistent school board
governance is critical to improving the effectiveness
of our school boards.
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
THE BOARD GOVERNANCE MODEL
An effective governance model familiar to
corporate and public sector leaders is the Board
Governance model. The board model of oversight
for public education permits public scrutiny and lies
at the heart of school board governance. Citizen
“ownership” is fundamentally different from
traditional management.
School board governance is based upon the
trusteeship ideology that the board works as one
body representing the entire community. Imbedded
in the concept of board action on behalf of a larger
group of citizen owners is a shared focus on results,
a good faith and honest effort to fulfill the oversight
role. Governance of a school board acts for the
owners to ensure that the current executive officer
fulfills the mission of the organization and ensures
its future sustainability. This understanding of a
legal and logical entity held accountable is at the
core of the American business model. The entity is
run by executives, and those executives are
accountable to the shareholders through a board of
directors.
To quote John Carver, “Board governance
represents ownership one level down, not
management one level up.”60 School boards, as
with corporate boards, must ensure the school
system fulfills its mission while building confidence
in their decisions through good governance.
Boards, individually and collectively, must
demonstrate integrity and must instill confidence in
the leadership team.
Boards ensure good
stewardship of funds, demonstrate ethical behavior,
and plan for and support system-wide student
achievement of accepted standards. Along with
mission alignment, certain common behaviors are
expected for for-profit and non-profit boards:
professional courtesy, open and enlightening
discussion about future plans, and requirements for
current resources and operations.
Alliances of education scholars and business leaders
have suggested that the cacophony of demands on
school boards and schools be reconciled. They
want to eliminate all requirements unrelated to
student achievement, safety and civil rights and to
align spending, curriculum, testing and teacher
training around specific expectations for student
learning. School boards should imitate boards of
private businesses and recruit board members from
8
The Commission for School Board Excellence
the community and businesses who can transform
school boards.3
CORPORATE VERSUS
SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
In 200 pages of standards and board practice, The
Conference Board’s Corporate Governance
Handbook, 2007, provides insight into public
company best practices. While laying out a
minimum set, it shows the aspirational quality of
standards that provide the foundation for
continuous improvement of corporate boards.
Final Report
Table 1: Key Differences Between
Business & Social Sectors4
Business Sector
Social Sector
Agreed upon financial
Fewer agreed upon performance
performance metrics
metrics
Clear governance structure &
hierarchy
Many governance components &
inherent ambiguity
Harder to tap idealism &
creativity
Easy to tap idealism &
creativity
Competitive market pressures
force “facts”
Culture of “niceness” inhibits
candor
The fundamental requirements for board members
are easy to understand: do no harm, exercise care,
loyalty and diligence and use personal experience to
provide good faith and counsel and honesty of
purpose. In business terms, that translates to “know
the marketplace and help the organization achieve
its goals.”
Goal is economic profit with
ROI as key driver
Goal is meeting human & social
needs not priced at a profit
Profit mechanism makes
discipline easier
Desire to “do good” leads to
undisciplined decisions
Efficient access to capital that
feeds additional resources
No capital resources that
systematically feed “best
performers”
More difficult in the public services environment,
discipline and insight are required to achieve social
goals and outcomes that are not easily quantified
and achieved. For school systems, and thus the
school boards that govern, clear roles,
responsibilities and alignment are paramount.
Failure to achieve them can ruin individuals and
have a long-reaching effect in the community for
years, even generations.
Profit driven engine creates
independent, sustained growth
Funding is often time-limited
and project specific
Competition stimulates change
& progress
Passion for mission makes it
harder to change traditions
Reforms need to be comprehensive and need to
affect every level of the education system.
However, there are key differences between
business systems and public sector systems, which
are summarized by Jim Collins in his Good to Great
framework in Table 1.
Income Facts:3
In 2005, non-high school graduates earned
 $8,367 less than high school graduates
 $36,618 less than college graduates
Expected life-time earnings:
Non-high school graduate
= $1.0 M
High-School graduate
= $1.4 M
Bachelor’s degree
= $2.5 M
Graduate degree
= $2.9 M
3
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., &
Munoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big City School Boards: Problems and
Options. Center on reinventing public education.
Confidential DRAFT
PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
Approximately 95,000 school board members serve
on some 15,000 local public school boards in the
United States, most with a board size of five to
seven. The majority of school board members live
in small towns, followed by rural and then urban
areas. Even though 80% of school districts enroll
fewer than 3,000 students, one-sixth of public
school students live in the 50 largest school districts
(or less than 1% of all districts). Only 4% of school
districts enrolled more than 10,000 students but
these districts served nearly half of all public
students. In the past three decades, the number of
large districts has gradually risen while the number
of smaller districts has continued to decline.5
The local school board consisting of citizen
members is a national institution that reflects and
exemplifies the ideals of universal education for all
the nation’s children. Throughout their 200-year
4
Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, 2001.
5 Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins University. “Local School
Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in
Relation to Student’s Academic Achievement”, Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
(CRESPAR), U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
9
The Commission for School Board Excellence
history, school boards have been valued and
supported as a reflection of the values and ethics of
the community within which they operate. Some
understanding of the historical roots of local school
board governance can illuminate the modern school
board structure and functioning.6
Brief History of School Boards7
1777
Public schools in Georgia were first authorized in
the Georgia Constitution of 1777 which provided
that schools be established in each county at state
expense.
1910 – 1940
In Georgia, reform of local school boards leads to:
 Lay school boards selected through city-wide
elections.
 Centralized school board modeled on corporate
board and focused on policy.
 Expanded, professionalized role of the
superintendent to encompass more management
responsibilities rather than the previous
instructional role.
Post 1920s
Reform of local school boards over this period leads
to lay school boards selected through district/citywide elections, centralized school board modeled on
corporate board and focused on policy, and
expanded,
professionalized
role
of
the
superintendent as CEO. Last major reform of
school boards.
1970s
Urban school districts move away from city-wide to
sub-district elections
1980s
Multiple challenges are facing the school boards.
Increased challenges to the role of school boards in
urban areas. Updates made to the Georgia Code
that included elections of school board members.
2007
Recurring disappointment in student achievement.
School boards receiving closer scrutiny.
6
Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins University. “Local School
Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in
Relation to Student’s Academic Achievement”, Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
(CRESPAR), U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
7
The Education Policy Primer, 2008-2009 Edition. Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education and Georgia School
Boards Association. 2008.
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
This historical evolution resulted in a school board
governance system reflecting a fairly standard set of
characteristics.

Local control to meet the specific needs and
preferences of each community.

Separation of educational from general
governance.

Many school districts with small boards.

Lay oversight of policy-making with a
professional superintendent manager patterned
after corporate boards with a chief executive
officer.

Democratic representation of all citizens
through at-large elections.
Nowhere is the pull and tug of local interest felt
more than at the fulcrum point of the local school
board where local community interests and
resources meet the requirements and expectations
of state and federal mandates and programs. Public
school students will become the future employees
and taxpayers of those communities. At stake is the
very success of the public school student.
While the traditional challenges of securing and
allocating funds remain, school boards face
additional, difficult challenges as well. Some of
these newer challenges include:

State and federal standards and mandates;

Greater public apathy and a lack of confidence
in public schools and school boards;

More diverse student populations;

Controversial and pervasive social problems.5
Land notes that while these characteristics were not
completely uniform, the most significant departure
began in the latter half of the 20th century.
Multiple pressures and influences have resulted in
the reduction of local control by school boards as
federal and state governments have assumed a
greater role in governing education.
BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
IN EDUCATION
In Georgia, there are 185 public school districts
supporting 1.6 million students, with the six largest
districts supporting a third of the total enrollment
(547,000) and the six smallest districts supporting
under 500 students each (source: GDOE Financial
Data).
10
The Commission for School Board Excellence
For decades, the Georgia business community has
been working to improve education for the children
of Georgia. Along with local education groups,
businesses led by the Georgia Chamber of
Commerce and Metro Atlanta Chamber of
Commerce have supported and led initiatives to
identify better ways to fund, improve, and support
education and schools across the state. In recent
years, the Metro Atlanta Chamber successfully led
an effort to change the Atlanta Public Schools’
charter for improvements at the board and
superintendent level.
For 17 years, the Georgia Partnership for
Excellence in Education (GPEE) has pursued its
mission of informing and influencing Georgia
leaders through research and non-partisan advocacy
for the improvement of student achievement. The
Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the state’s oldest
and largest business advocacy organization, has
been committed to action that will result in
meaningful changes to our education system.
The Georgia School Boards Association’s (GSBA)
mission is to ensure excellence in the governance of
local school systems through a variety of
professional development programs, eSolutions
technology
services,
risk
management,
communication and advocacy services.8
As employers, business leaders know the value of
an educated workforce, and they see the
consequences of educational failure for the
individual and for the community. One key
outcome is Georgia’s ranking among the bottom
five states in the nation for public high school
graduation rates.
In “The Economics of
Education,” GPEE finds that “the social and
economic viability of a community strongly
correlates with the number of high school graduates
it produces.”9
For Georgia to improve its economic future for all
its citizens, improving public education and student
achievement is paramount.
“Now, more than ever, it is vital to reconsider the
fundamental value of public education to individuals
and to states and to remember its role as a harbinger
8
Georgia School Boards Association. “About Us.” Georgia
School Boards Association, 2004.
http://www.gsba.com/about/about_mission.html.
9
Introduction.” Edition Education Policy Primer. Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education, 2008-09.
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
of hope, a precursor to economic well-being, and a
cornerstone of democracy.” 1
Table 2: Compounded Impacts of High School
Non-Completion
Individual
Community
Higher rates of unemployment
and lower lifetime earnings
Reduced buying power,
reduced tax revenues, less
economic growth
Decreased health status,
higher mortality rates, more
criminal activity
Higher health care and
criminal justice system
costs
Higher rates of teen pregnancy
and single motherhood
Higher public services
costs
Less voting and
volunteering
Less community
involvement
Source: “The Economics of Education”, GPEE, 2007.
Business, education and government leaders know
that academic success is critical for the employees
of today and tomorrow. Over the past few decades,
many economists have outlined macro-level
business trends that will increase demands for a
well-educated workforce to remain competitive
globally. Such predictions have come to fruition as
the information technology and globalization trends
have reshaped business. Resulting demands for
quality and diversity of our workforce continue
unabated. Two of these trends are highlighted by
GPEE as having particular relevance for Georgia:

Globalization is reshaping our workforce and
placing a premium on education and skills.

Inadequate skill levels are narrowing our
citizens’ opportunities and threatening our
state’s long-term economic viability.
It is fair and appropriate for the business
community to provide some guidance on the topic
of school board governance.
Businesses, both
public and private entities, have to comply with
various forms of commerce-driven regulations and
reporting practices.
Compliance with these
requirements leads to respect from business peers in
the community.
Non-compliance leads to
censorship, censure and/or fines for misdeeds.
More importantly, the marketplace is a strong
builder of character and enterprise.
11
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
educational policy, 25 additional industry
leaders from government, education and
commerce comprised the Advisory Committee
members.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In April 2008, the Georgia SBOE Chair Wanda
Barrs asked the “partners” to charter a task force,
composed primarily of business people, to take 90
days to study state and national best practices in
school board governance. The request was made to
four leading organizations committed to student
achievement and having a board representation: the
Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the Metro Atlanta
Chamber of Commerce, the Georgia Partnership
for Excellence in Education and AdvancED, the
“partners.”
3. Commission Working Group
A working group made up of partner member
staff and pro bono consulting services from
Georgia-based North Highland was formed to
explore specific issues raised by the
Commission, analyze findings in those areas,
facilitate the discussion, and reach closure on
recommendations.
Three intermediate groups were formed for this
work.
The Commission and Advisory Committee had a
chance to review background material, engage with
nationally recognized experts, and discuss areas of
opportunity and appropriate directional changes.
1. Commission for School Board Excellence
In formulating a strategy to examine best
practices and develop recommendations, the
partners identified three co-chairs (John Rice,
Phil Jacobs, and Gary Price) and 22 business,
governmental and education leaders to form the
Commission for School Board Excellence.
During the earliest conversations among the
Commission members and co-chairs, they explored
a “value chain” model of school systems. This
approach produced the Georgia education
ecosystem as a visual representation of the dynamic,
interactive nature of Georgia’s system of education.
(See Figure 1)
2. Advisory Committee
To provide more in-depth and governance
subject matter expertise examination of
FIGURE 1:
Georgia Education Ecosystem
STATE
ECONOMY
SCHOOL
SCHOOL SYSTEM
MACRO
VIEW
TEACHER
CLASSROOM
MICRO
VIEW
CHILD
STUDENT
FAMILY
COMMUNITY
TAXPAYERS
5
Confidential DRAFT
8/17/2008
12
The Commission for School Board Excellence
The ecosystem is a helpful tool for analysis of causal
interactions, interdependencies, and complexities of
the state public education system. The Commission
recognized that complex systems are guided by a set
of underlying principles including:

Systems must be viewed as a whole because the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Final Report
local, state and federal regulations. The school
system operates within a dynamic environment of
competing demands from important stakeholder
groups including parents, government agencies,
unions, taxpayers, and external forces like the
economy, technology, and global standards.

Change in any part of the system may cause
change in every other part of the system.

A system that has comprehensive feedback
loops from all parts of the system.
An integrated life cycle approach to school board
governance was used to consider the complexity
and timing of key events in the “life” of a school
board member. This systematic approach allowed a
thorough yet strategic look at the factors impacting
school board excellence.
Georgia school systems are comprised of multiple
interdependent sub-systems such as school
administration, facilities, instruction and curriculum,
transportation, and financial and human resources.
The school system is governed by a complex set of
Seven major subject areas were developed,
consisting of 42 categories relevant to school board
excellence. These key factors became the operating
framework for subsequent research and debate. (See
Figure 2)
FIGURE: 2
Confidential DRAFT
13
The Commission for School Board Excellence
The people part of the life cycle approach
mirrored the Good to Great philosophy of Jim
Collins. “Get the right people on the bus, the
wrong ones off, and then get the people in the
right seat.”10
That simple reminder caused the Commission to
review the board candidacy qualifications, the
election process and the on-boarding processes of
new school board members.
But board
proficiency is too important for a single event, and
ongoing development, both individually and
collectively became an important emphasis. The
rich dialogue about roles, processes and metrics
resulted in a strong conviction that unless the
board and the superintendent work together as a
team, they will not be able to carry the load.
Final Report
The Advisory Committee participated in a variety
of facilitated sessions to narrow down a wide
breadth of opinion and research to tangible,
focused proposals. With each iteration of the
Advisory Committee, content was shared with the
Commission, who in turn enhanced the work
product through their discussions and from
testimony from outside experts. New questions,
ideas, and areas for review flowed from the
Commission to the Advisory Committee.
The following is a list of final recommendations
from the Commission. Also included in this
report is an appendix that contains a bibliography
and online index to those contents.
And here, to no surprise, the findings are rich in
aspirational needs, and challenging in the practical
day-to-day world of education in 2008 Georgia
school systems.
In high-performing districts, the board focuses on
the teaching and learning system to deliver student
achievement. In the lower-performing districts,
student achievement is an afterthought pushed
aside by too much emphasis on distracting and
secondary issues.
And at the height of
dysfunction, school systems like Clayton County
fail to fulfill the governance role and cease to be
effective units and are to be replaced by “reality
drama” events and grandstanding. Like a car
wreck, it may be fascinating to view but traumatic
for those actually involved.
The graphic in Figure 2 shows a life cycle view of
school board governance. Several variations were
circulated and discussed throughout the
Commission’s work. The one shown here is
consistent with the key categories and specific
items recommended by the Commission.
The first Commission meeting was held on June
10, with the remainder of June, July and August
used for a series of meetings scheduled for the
Commission and the Advisory Committee.
Commission members from throughout Georgia
met in Atlanta, Macon, and Dalton to hear from
leading experts as well as to review input from the
Advisory Committee in order to formulate
practical solutions.
Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, 2001.
10
Confidential DRAFT
14
The Commission for School Board Excellence
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 1:
BOARD GOVERNANCE
ACCOUNTABILITY
The SBOE shall establish a state-wide public
school board governance review and
accountability process.
Currently, the legal expectations of school
boards are minimal in Georgia. Citizens have
the sole responsibility to establish and to
demand high expectations of their board.
Within the current environment of limited
transparency, low accessibility, and minimal
voter understanding of core board
responsibilities, the community is at a distinct
disadvantage in performing their oversight
role at the ballot box. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended that clear expectations and
responsibilities be legislated to hold local
school boards more accountable.
1a. Establish an oversight process accountable for collecting
standardized student achievement performance
information. The process shall also promote selfmonitoring and internal evaluation by school boards to
include school systems, as well as board performance.
Develop a mechanism to ensure outside reporting of
board member violation of ethics, conflict of interest or
board training non-compliance.
While detailed data on student performance is collected
today by the Governor’s Office of Student
Achievement (GOSA) and posted on its website, the
data should be aggregated for more effective,
comparative use by boards, superintendents, and the
community as well as communicated widely through
various public channels.
1b. Building upon the Georgia Department of Education
(GDOE) process for performance monitoring (Student
Improvement Plan process), provide the necessary early
school system assistance and intervention to address
underperforming academic systems, accreditation
problems, financial and abuse of power issues. Ensure
the process has a reasonable, but aggressive timetable
for corrective action that is closely monitored.
1c. The SBOE shall be authorized to establish a review
panel and investigation process to address and to
resolve persistent school system and/or board
performance issues aligning with the DOE triggers
that are currently in place to initiate such assistance.
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
Whether by contracting through outside service
providers or by empowering an independent panel to
assist, the SBOE process would be a focused, shortterm measure to evaluate the severity of the issue and
possible solutions. The independent panel shall be
comprised of past school board members and
superintendents representing each congressional district.
Review panel members may be appointed by the
Governor or be nominated by SBOE members.
Receivership shall be a last-resort option and would be
the result of a consistently failing school system that
has received intensive remediation efforts. The SBOE
shall call upon the review panel to determine the
question of receivership.
1d. In case a school continues to fail, temporary oversight
and control by a receivership authority is appropriate
and necessary. Such oversight shall be recommended
by the review panel, approved by SBOE and limited
to implementation of a specific recovery plan. The
SBOE shall determine the question of receivership and
appoint the receivership team. If the SBOE has not
appointed the receivership team within 45 days, the
Governor will then make the receivership
appointments. The receivership team shall provide
stability until new board members and/or a new
superintendent can be installed to begin the recovery
process. The primary objectives of the receivership
team are to return the school board and the school
system to effective functioning and to return the system
to local control.
1e. Establish a state-wide code of ethics and conflict of
interest guidelines for public school system board
members who are the unique trustees of local public
education for the entire district’s electorate.
RESEARCH REVIEW
The “Build State-Wide Governance Structure and
Process” category of recommendations addresses
the organizational and infrastructure issues that
are fundamental to the effective functioning of
board governance at the local school board level
and addresses issues for under-performing or
failing school systems. The Commission believes
that the development of accountability for board
performance and leadership requires a highly
integrated approach with state-wide alignment.
Each school board establishes the goals and
objectives of the school system, within which the
superintendent and staff are permitted free choice
of means to accomplish these goals and
15
The Commission for School Board Excellence
objectives.
Hence, maximum creativity,
innovation and decentralization are allowed. The
school board may also identify unacceptable
means to accomplish goals and objectives. The
definition of unacceptable means tells the
superintendent how not to operate rather than
how to operate. The school board monitors
performance on ends, based on metrics linked to
student achievement, in a systematic and rigorous
way. Board meetings are spent largely in learning
about, debating and making decisions about goals
and objectives and receiving reports on
performance against goals and objectives rather
than dealing with otherwise delegable matters.11
Numerous education scholars and business leaders
have suggested that the cacophony of demands on
school boards and schools be reconciled. They
want to eliminate all requirements unrelated to
student achievement, safety and civil rights, and
align spending, curriculum, testing and teacher
training around specific expectations for student
learning.
School Boards are overextended with the myriad
of tasks that have been added to their
responsibilities, and their focus should be
narrowed. The school board’s stated mission, as
described in several state education codes, is to set
policy and guide the management of schools in a
district. An inventory of six state education codes
shows that legislatures have heaped more
responsibilities on local boards, requiring them to
perform a variety of tasks that do not necessarily
align with the stated mission. Board members
must wade through a sea of legislated
responsibilities that range from levying taxes and
hiring the superintendent to selecting materials for
sex education courses and ensuring that students
dress appropriately.12
School boards should imitate boards of private
businesses and recruit board members from the
community and businesses who can transform
school boards. The constituency to which school
board members answer should be broadened to
address the entire community.12
National School Boards Association, “Survey of State
Mandated Training for School Boards.” National School
Boards Association, 2004.
12 Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., &
Munoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big City School Boards: Problems
and Options. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
11
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
Although school boards in Georgia are elected
positions, when the board members act with
personal and political motives, they loose a grip on
the priority of mission and risk running into
conflicts that jeopardize students. They should
operate less as political leaders and more as
“servant leaders” or trustees that balance the
mission and purpose of public schools with
understanding community needs of today and in
the future. Their mission spans any current
political agenda. Teaching and learning should be
the focus for the next generation of citizens.
When reviewing some of the aspirational literature
of school boards, (see Recommendation section 3
on Roles and Responsibilities) the role model
described is not unlike that of a director found on
a non-profit board. Seeking mission fulfillment
through a process of student achievement is
governance ambiguity.13
What is different in elected school board positions
is the local impact their organization plays on the
local community. All systems in Georgia are
multi-million dollar enterprises. In some areas, it’s
a billion or more; and the schools and school
system may be the largest business and employer
in the community. Given the power to incur debt
and cause local property tax collection to fund
schools, there are many forces at work that have
to be reconciled. Without informed, committed
board members that understand their role in the
governance process, the possibility of misalignment
increases.
From time to time, school systems get in trouble
and have to be cared for. The state board is the
logical oversight body that should be empowered
to use the information available about school
system performance to take appropriate action.
Receivership Authority
The Commission recommends that a provision in
law be developed for the temporary creation of a
state-level receivership authority that would
intervene in continuously underperforming
systems. The authority would be a solution of last
resort. Its objective will be to get the system back
on a positive track through whatever means
13
Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education. “The
Economics of Education, Second Edition.” Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education, 2007.
16
The Commission for School Board Excellence
deemed most appropriate for the system. The
authority would be appointed by and report to the
SBOE who would oversee its actions. During this
temporary receivership period and depending on
the needs of the system, a new board, whole or in
part, would be elected and/or a new
superintendent would be appointed so that the
system can begin solving its own problems for the
long term.
As an interim step before receivership is
considered, those systems that are having trouble
would receive direct assistance, including targeted
funding, functional expertise, mentors, and
training, among others. A timetable and specific
action steps must be developed to prevent the
occurrence of a receivership being implemented.
Current anecdotal and experiential evidence points
to direct targeted assistance as a much more
successful solution to school system performance
issues than full scale intervention. However, this
evidence does not say intervention is not a
valuable alternative to implement when required.
The primary objective and the strong desire is to
have local boards be self governing and successful
for the long term. Therefore, any receivership
would be a temporary intervention with the end
result being return to local control.
Current practice of takeovers has not provided a
clear direction as to whether a takeover of a
system is a “best in class” solution. However, the
trend today regarding consistently low-performing
schools is to enable the state or city to intervene
or completely take over the system.
Final Report
board vote. Boards should be able to censure
members who violate conflict of interest or other
board policies on ethical behavior.15
The board sets the ethical tone for themselves as
well as for the system as a whole. As John Carver
states: “The board, instead, takes on the difficult
job of determining what results should be
obtained, for which classes of learners, at what
cost, as well as setting the boundaries of ethics
and prudence within which the system must
operate.”16
To avoid conflict of interest, or even the
appearance of one, it is wise for board members
to keep vendors at arm’s length. “Board members
should refer vendors to management for official
conversations, never make promises, never take
favors, avoid any appearance of a special
relationship, and most definitely make no attempt
to push contracts on the district.”17
The best in class practice in the corporate world,
as described by the BoardSource, is that
“Exceptional boards are independent-minded.
They
apply
rigorous
conflict-of-interest
procedures, and their board members put the
interests of the organization above all else when
making decisions. They do not allow their votes to
be unduly influenced by loyalty to the chief
executive or by seniority, position, or reputation
of fellow board members, staff, or donors.”18
Takeovers are permitted by statute in about half
the states, and they’re allowed by some board
charters. The question is: Do takeovers work?
Despite political criticism, posturing, and rhetoric
from public school opponents, research on the
financial or academic impact of takeovers remains
sparse.14
Ethical Behavior
Boards should adopt a process for censure and
ultimate dismissal or removal of board members
not behaving or performing appropriately. This
responsibility is internal to the board, and any
action, censure or otherwise, would be based on a
Black, Susan. “The Takeover Threat.” American School
Board Journal (January, 2007).
14
Confidential DRAFT
15
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
16
Carver, John. “Toward Coherent Governance.” The School
Administrator, March 2000.
17 McAdams, Donald R.
What School Boards Can Do,
Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
18 BoardSource.
“The Source: Twelve Principles of
Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.” BoardSource,
Washington, DC. 2005.
17
The Commission for School Board Excellence
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 2:
EDUCATION TASK FORCE
Convene a task force of education leaders and
organizations to address the following three
areas of school board focus:
Final Report
the need for continuous improvement and priority
of student achievement.
iv. A school system lexicon must be developed that
clarifies existing language and resolves conflicting
language where appropriate. Define and include
reserved language in the statutes as follows:
1. “Cause to be managed” is the activity of the
school board. “Manage” is the activity of the
superintendent and his/her staff.
board roles and responsibilities
state-wide school performance
standards
 comprehensive board member
education and proficiency
Task force participation could include
individuals from the Georgia School Boards
Association
(GSBA),
Georgia
School
Superintendents Association (GSSA), Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education
(GPEE), AdvancED (SACS), GDOE, GOSA
and other business and community leaders.


2. “Governance team” refers to the school board
and the school superintendent as a team.
“Leadership team” refers to the
superintendent and his/her staff. Other
terms should have agreed-to definitions.
3. Other specific terms may include: “per pupil
expenditure,” “pupil-teacher ratio,” “dropout or graduation rate,” “classroom
expenditure percentage.”
Additional terms and definitions may be
determined by the task force. These defined terms
should be used to update Title 20 of the Georgia
Code.
This next step phase would reconcile existing terminology
and standards for roles and responsibilities, performance
standards, and board member education and proficiency.
2a. Improve and clarify the role definitions for school board
members and school superintendents and their staff.
i.
Board membership should be rooted in the concept
of “citizen service” and, as such, board
compensation should be limited to coverage of the
expenses incurred by board members as they
conduct board business. Per diem payments and
reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses should be aligned with the established
allowances in the code for the SBOE. Payment
of benefits should be excluded.
ii. Boards shall be empowered to take governance
action only when a majority of the board meets in
a duly-called meeting acting as a single authority
and speaking with a single voice. The board can
only take action as a group, not as individuals.
iii. Ensure state statutes reflect the nature of the
board as an oversight and policy-making body
that sets vision, approves the budget, and hires the
superintendent. The statutes should clarify the
role of the school superintendent as the chief
executive and manager of the school system. The
board exists for the students, not the electorate.
It acts as an elected trustee, not as an elected
representative. Statutes should include clarity on
Confidential DRAFT
v.
A crucial board responsibility is the recruiting
and selection of a highly qualified school
superintendent. For this process to be effective,
boards must ensure they identify qualifications,
solicit community involvement and provide
transparency throughout the entire process. The
superintendent is the only position that the school
board shall be directly responsible for hiring.
However, the task force will address and clarify
the role of the board in hiring key system leaders.
vi. Other role ambiguity for board members,
superintendents and staff needs to be clarified.
Example: unless already elected, board chairs
should be appointed by board members and may
rotate.
RESEARCH REVIEW
The “Board and Superintendent Role Definition
with New Lexicon” category of recommendations
addresses the focus and duties of the board and of
the superintendent recognizing the high degree of
interdependence and strong partnership required
for effective governance. Also considered is the
vague and often confusing language that currently
exists in this area and the value of a more precise
statutory lexicon. The Commission believes that
18
The Commission for School Board Excellence
the role of the
board as a strategic,
policy-making body
must be specifically
delineated from the
administrative,
managerial role of
the superintendent
and staff.
New
statutory language
needs to reduce
vagueness
and
confusion in this
critical area.
…school
boards
and
administrators must “manage”
instruction. “It’s an idea that
sounds controversial especially
to those who see teaching as
“some sort of art form” – but
shouldn’t be, “You never
heard anyone say that
surgeons are robbed of their
creativity, yet there’s a talent
to surgery.”
(Hardy, 2008)
Roles and Responsibilities
Final Report
strategic financial planning, and holding the
superintendent accountable for managing the
expenditures. Boards should build public support,
secure sufficient resources, and act as a steward of
the system’s resources.22 Boards must also ensure
adequate insurance or equivalent resources to
protect their financial stability and administrative
operations.2357
In another example:
the superintendent is
responsible for managing the core business of
teaching and learning, from classroom instruction
to teacher qualifications. However, the school
board is accountable for the teaching and learning
outcomes from the district and compliance with
state-wide performance academic standards to
graduation rates.
Experts recommend a clear delineation be made
The board is legally empowered to take
between the role of the board, the superintendent
governance action only
and of the overarching role
when a majority of the
“I define governance as the trusteeship of power on
of
the
board/
board
and
the
behalf of the owners of power. Management is the
superintendent leadership
superintendent
meet
exercise of power under the oversight of governance.
team.19 Management oversight
Governance means making the rules; management is
together in a duly-called
is
a
major
board
playing the game… Governance is deciding what is
meeting.19 In all decisionresponsibility. What does
to be done; management is doing it. In a
making, boards must keep
oversight mean for school
democracy, governance needs to be shared…”
the vision of improving
boards? McAdams clarifies
(McAdams, Whose Job Is It to Lead Reform?,
student achievement as the
by saying, “Management
May 2004)
guiding principle.22
The
oversight is not influencing
board
/superintendent
management
decisions
leadership team will become more effective when
before they are made or reviewing management
board members and the superintendent participate
decisions after they are made. It is guaranteeing
together in leadership renewal.19
the integrity of major management systems and
The local school board is a critical public link to
processes and reviewing results.”20 There should
public schools. School board members serve their
be a clear definition of hand-off points between
communities in several important ways:24
board decisions and the superintendent execution
steps.21
 First and foremost school boards look out for
students. Education is not a line item on the
For example, the superintendent is accountable
school board’s agenda—it is the only item.25
for developing, implementing and monitoring the
budgeting process for the school system. The
 When making decisions about school
school board is accountable for authorization
programs, school boards incorporate their
review of the annual budget, alignment of the
budget to appropriate student achievement goals,
Georgia School Boards Association. “A Guide to Effective
Boardsmanship.” Georgia School Boards Association, 2006.
23 AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems. 2007.
24 The Center for Public Education. “The Role of School
Boards.”
The Center for Public Education (2007).
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPI
wE/b.1505871/
25 The Center for Public Education, “Executive summary:
School boards and the power of the public.” 2007.
22
Goodman, Richard H. and William G. Zimmerman.
“Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High School Achievement.” Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service and New England School
Development Council, 2000.
20 McAdams, Donald R. “Management Oversight But Not
Management.” The School Administrator (September, 2004).
21 Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
19
Confidential DRAFT
19
The Commission for School Board Excellence
community’s view of what students should
know and are able to do. Future citizenship
skills and economic prosperity depend on this.

School boards are accessible to the public and
accountable for the performance of their
schools.

School boards are the education watchdog for
their communities, ensuring that students get
the best education for the tax dollars spent.
Boards play an important legal and regulatory role,
ensuring compliance with applicable local, state,
and federal laws, standards and regulations.26
Boards must stay current in their understanding of
changes in legislation, rules and regulations. One
approach used in Texas requires the board to
receive updates after each legislative session on
any changes to the code and/or any relevant
developments to school governance.27 Boards
should maintain ready access to legal counsel for
advice and information on legal requirements and
obligations.28
Boards also establish
Five Characteristics:
and
communicate
1. Effective board focus on
policies
and
student achievement
procedures
that
2. Effective boards allocate
provide for the
resources to needs
effective operation
3. Effective boards watch
of the system.28
the return on investment
Once
established,
4. Effective boards use data
the board monitors
5. Effective boards engage
policy
the communities they
implementation and
serve
evaluates the results
(George Lucas Educational
of implementation
Foundation, 2005)
efforts.28
Boards
also ensure that curriculum is aligned to support
district policies and established priorities.30
Policy Development and the Board Meeting
The role of the board, as stated above, is to
develop policy. There is good policy making and
bad policy making. Don McAdams espouses his
26
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems. 2007.
27 National School Boards Association, “Survey of State
Mandated Training for School Boards.” National School
Boards Association, 2004.
28 Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse
Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000.
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
view of good policy making. Policy development
by the board should be guided by three principles:
Policies should focus on ends, not means; policies
should be only as specific as necessary to obtain
results; and policies should allow management as
much freedom as possible.29
While the board and superintendent roles are very
different, they still must work as an effective
leadership team. First and foremost, the board
and superintendent must become a unified
governance and leadership team, with unity of
purpose, a clear mission, and a sense of
responsibility for action to achieve a long-term
vision.30
Board members individually do not have any
power. It is the board as a group that has the
power for decision-making and creation of policy.
As John Carver states: “If a board seriously
intends to speak with only one voice, it must
declare that the staff can safely ignore advice and
instructions from individual trustees, that only the
explicit instructions of the board must be heeded.
Excellence in governance will not occur until
superintendents are certain that trustees as a group
will protect them from trustees as individuals.”31
McAdams(32,33,34) discusses at length suggestions
for making boards effective for handling
information requests and for engaging the
community.
One best practice cited by several school systems
in Georgia is to have any comment, question, or
request to a board member be forward to the
superintendent or his/her designee to follow-up
McAdams, Donald R. What School Boards Can Do,
Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
30 Goodman, Richard H. and William G. Zimmerman.
“Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High School Achievement.” Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service and New England School
Development Council, 2000.
31 Carver, John. “Remaking Governance.” American School
Board Journal. (March 2000).
32 McAdams, Donald R. “Administrative Support for Board
Members.” The School Administrator (January 2006).
33 McAdams, Donald R. “The Short, Productive Board
Meeting.” The School Administrator (September 2005)
34 McAdams, Donald R. “Responding to Board Member
Requests for Information.” The School Administrator (March
2008).
29
20
The Commission for School Board Excellence
and share findings with the whole board at a
future meeting. This allows for community input,
but consolidates responses, removing the risk of
distraction or inappropriate response from the
individual board member. While school board
members are elected, their role is limited to
authority of the group as a whole. Board
members should not consider themselves political
representatives of their respective districts and
should not operate in political patronage territory.
The board may exercise its management oversight
responsibilities through audits, workshops,
reports, and other methods to assure the integrity
and performance of the district’s management
systems. 35 The critical word in the quote from
McAdams is “oversight.” During the board’s
meetings, it oversees and monitors but does not
manage the superintendent and the school system
as a whole.
The Board Chair
The GSBA Guidelines36 refer to only two board
chair duties: enforcing meeting procedures that
have been adopted and communicating with
members of the public who are in attendance at
meetings. Specific job descriptions for board
chairs should be developed that outline specific
duties (beyond the board meetings) and that define
the necessary training and work experience.29 The
role and duties of the board chair should be
clarified and widely communicated to all
stakeholders.36
The board chair is a special role that requires
proven leadership experience to be effective.37
Requirements for board chairs should also include
past experience in the educational system.38
Don McAdams suggests preferred qualifications
for a board chair: 29

fair-minded

respected

deeply knowledgeable about the district

goal-oriented
McAdams, Donald R. “Management Oversight But Not
Management.” The School Administrator (September, 2004).
36 Georgia School Boards Association. “A Guide to Effective
Boardsmanship.” Georgia School Boards Association, 2006.
37 Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008
35
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report

clear understanding of the roles of the board
and the superintendent

ability to speak for the board and run a
business-like board meeting
The prevailing theme within much of research is
that board chair candidates should be experienced
leaders that have, if available, previous experience
leading a board or organized group.
Research strongly focuses on the need for
leadership experience. Boards utilize a variety of
rules regarding chair selection and tenure.
“Boards should be encouraged to forget about
seniority or automatic succession, not every board
member is suited for the board presidency.”38
Chair should have at least one or two years of
board experience which enables the chairperson to
be familiar with the current board, its culture and
processes.
The Gwinnett board rotates its chair every year
with no problems. However, the Gwinnett
superintendent said that not all board members
are cut out to be a board chair. The Gwinnett
superintendent preferred chair candidate skills
leading a group, handling problem board
members, and the ability to provide a strong
vision for the system.39
The Superintendent
A key task of the board is to hire, oversee, support
and evaluate the work of the superintendent, who
in turn recommends policy and oversees
personnel matters, budget, and financial matters,
with accountability to the board for
implementation.40
Experts made specific
suggestions about board authorization of the
superintendent’s role. Boards should recognize
the authority of the superintendent to implement
a district-wide organizational structure that
38
McAdams, Donald R. What School Boards Can Do,
Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
39
Gwinnett Board Member and Superintendent Interview.
July 24, 2008.
40 Goodman, Richard H. and William G. Zimmerman.
“Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High School Achievement.” Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service and New England School
Development Council, 2000.
21
The Commission for School Board Excellence
empowers staff to meet the needs of all students.51
Boards should also recognize and support the
authority of the superintendent to implement a
district accountability plan to evaluate community
and school progress toward accomplishing the vision,
and reports on the results to the public.41 It is widely
held that high turnover of in the superintendent
position is a strong indicator of problematic board
behavior or low board performance and a
predictor of low system performance. Boards
should recognize and preserve the executive,
administrative and leadership authority of the
administrative head of the system.42
The board maintains a close relationship of trust
with the superintendent and strives to facilitate his
or her success.
Boards view all Consider the power of linking
children achieving superintendent evaluation to district
performance. To establish this link,
at high levels as the school board must be able to
their
primary define and measure district
objective and act performance, in effect, to create a
accordingly.43
“data dashboard,” which rolls up
An
important key performance indicators that
comprehensively measure district
issue identified in performance, especially student
the research is the achievement.
operational
(McAdams, Link Your
overlap of the Evaluation
to
District
board’s role with Performance,
September
the role of the 2006.)
superintendent.
A primary cause
of board ineffectiveness is the micromanaging by
the board in relationship to the superintendent
role.44 Boards are drawn into a myriad of
operational and administrative issues taking them
away from their role as policy leaders.
Management of the school district is clearly the
responsibility of the superintendent in the role of
Final Report
chief administrative officer.45 When the board
oversteps its role, not only is the superintendent’s
effectiveness undermined, but the critical strategic
and policy work of the board is often left undone.
Some suggest that the roles are clear but that there
is no accountability for performance of the
appropriate role by the board.46 In addition to
clarifying the board roles and responsibilities,
faculty and staff roles also need to be clarified.46
Responsibilities of the board and the
superintendent roles are outlined by GSBA as
defined by Georgia law.47 A key caveat relative to
these duties is offered by AdvancED
Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems:
“A great deal of time is spent trying to
identify the line between the responsibilities of
the school board and those of the
superintendent. … while it is important for
everyone to understand what their
responsibilities are, it is of even greater
importance for the school board and their
superintendent to form a cohesive leadership
team.”48
The most important relationships for the board
must be the relationship that board members have
with one another and with the superintendent.17
Exceptional boards govern in constructive
partnership with the chief executive, recognizing
that the effectiveness of the board and chief
executive are interdependent. They build a
partnership through trust, candor, respect and
honest communications.49 The board and the
superintendent work together as a team:

to assess strengths and improvements needed
in the school district.

to consider compelling problems and
emerging issues.
41
Goodman, Richard H. and William G. Zimmerman.
“Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High School Achievement.” Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service and New England School
Development Council, 2000.
42
AdvancED. “Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems.” AdvancED, April 2007.
43 McAdams, Donald R. “20 Indicators of Effective School
Boards,” The Center for Reform of School Boards, 2006.
44 McAdams, Donald R.
What School Boards Can Do,
Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
Confidential DRAFT
Georgia School Boards Association, “Standards for Local
School Boards of Education: Check List.” Georgia School
Boards Association, 2008.
46 Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
47 Georgia School Boards Association.
“A Guide to
Effective Boardsmanship.”
Georgia School Boards
Association, 2006.
48 Georgia School Boards Association. “A Guide to Effective
Boardsmanship.” Georgia School Boards Association, 2006.
49 BoardSource.
“The Source: Twelve Principles of
Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.” BoardSource,
Washington, DC. 2005.
45
22
The Commission for School Board Excellence

to reflect their educational and leadership
philosophy and performance.

to study and explore trends, opportunities and
anticipated challenges.45
The three key governance roles that must be wellunderstood and followed for effective system
functioning are the role of the board, the role of
the superintendent and the joint role of the
board/superintendent leadership team.
A variety of experts explore these critical roles.
BoardSource offers twelve principles for nonprofit boards to use in guiding exceptional
performance.45
The board/superintendent leadership team
becomes the community’s leading advocate for
children.41 Boards approve budget allocations
based on student achievement priorities.50 Boards
ensure that the public understands how aligning
curriculum and instruction and implementing
standards
leads
to
improved
student
54
achievement.
The Lighthouse study characterizes the culture a
local board should create and sustain. Board
members should create a positive culture by
expressing a high level of confidence in staff.
Board members should express their belief that
changes could happen with existing people,
including students, staff and community.54 Board
members should describe specific ways board
actions and goals were communicated to staff,
such as a post-board meeting for teachers and
administrators.54 Boards must ensure training and
communication for staff members so that they are
able to identify clear district-wide goals and
expectations for improvements in student
achievement.54
In successful districts, staff
members could link their goals to school goals for
student learning and describe how those goals
were having an impact in their classroom and
other classrooms in the building.54
Final Report
appointed by the local board.51 Current guidelines
give boards the latitude to “determine the
characteristics and qualifications for the individual
it wants and needs as its superintendent” based
upon an analysis of “the system’s weaknesses,” a
formulation of “goals for improvement” and a
determination of “what skills are necessary to
accomplish these tasks.”51 Additionally, boards
may decide to “involve staff or community
members in any phase of the selection process.”52
Such guidelines do not clearly define the core
competencies and the related experience necessary
to be a successful school administrator and allows
for a wide range of variability in the recruitment
and hiring process. Boards should not be
pressured by political considerations to appoint
superintendents but instead should develop an
objective assessment of leadership capabilities
based upon past training and experience.53 In
addition to strong qualifications, superintendents
must maintain, communicate and model high
expectations of student achievement.54
The role of school superintendent is critical to the
effective administration and management of the
school district and
should be filled by Due to the leadership shortage
a strong, capable school districts are facing,
leader. They must succession planning is more
balance this role of critical than ever. It involves a
process
of
CEO of a multi- proactive
systematically
identifying,
million
dollar
enterprise with that developing, retaining, and
of an educational promoting people with high
leader that their potential to ensure leadership
staff
and continuity in key positions.
community respect "Growing your own" can save
to fulfill the district considerable time and money in
mission.
The the long run. American School
superintendent role Board Journal, 2008.
is considered the
Georgia School Boards Association. “A Guide to Effective
Boardsmanship.” Georgia School Boards Association, 2006.
52 McAdams, Donald R.
“Planning for Your Own
Succession.” The School Administrator. (January 2007).
53 Page, Deb.
“Preparing for a Perfect Storm: Meeting
Georgia’s Need for Quality School Leaders.” Georgia Public
Policy Foundation, December 15, 2006.
http://www.gppf.org/article.asp?RT=&p=pub/Education/
Edustorm061215.htm
54 Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse
Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000.
51
Superintendent Recruitment
A 1992 constitutional amendment was adopted
requiring that Georgia superintendents be
“The Key Work of School Boards,” National School Board
Association.
50
Confidential DRAFT
23
The Commission for School Board Excellence
key driver of district-wide initiatives to meet
student needs and to improve student
achievement.55 With the support of the board, the
superintendent should operate as the chief
executive officer with the full authority to
administer district affairs.56
In the coming years, there are forecasts that a
large number of education leaders will be leaving
the workforce, requiring a stronger focus on
recruitment efforts.53 Boards must improve the
effectiveness of recruitment and selection efforts
to hire superintendents with professional training
and experience in leadership and management.52
The approach to superintendent hiring should be
expanded to include all appropriate means for
recruitment, e.g., search services, nation-wide
access, consistency of access, etc.57
Succession Planning
Experts, including Don McAdams, Paul Hill and
Rick Hess, suggest that leadership changes, while
perhaps needed at times, can create significant
problems if not planned in advance.
Boards should have a superintendent succession
plan in place to ensure leadership continuity.58
Paul Hill and colleagues (1998) and Rick Hess
(1999) have documented the impact of departing
urban superintendents on promising reform
initiatives and the resulting policy churn that
disrupts progress.59
Although the succession of authority within the
system is best left to the superintendent, the board
must maintain the integrity of the initial three
elements.

Board’s relationship with those it is
accountable to, the public.

Board speaks with one voice, not individually.
Final Report

Board instructs and evaluates one person, the
superintendent.60
Succession planning is important because the
superintendent is honor-bound to act in the best
interest of the school district, and it is in the
district’s best interest to be spared the lost
momentum of a temporary office-holder or an
abrupt change of direction.61
For school systems’ boards, a degree of
exceptional boards energize themselves through
planned turnover, thoughtful recruitment, and
inclusiveness. Seeing the correlation between
mission, strategy, and board composition, they
understand the importance of fresh perspectives
and the risks of closed groups. They revitalize
themselves through diversity of experience and
through continuous recruitment.62
Compared to private boards, public boards tend
to have more frequent turnover and are smaller.
Careful attention to board turnover and size—as
one of the ongoing aspects of the work of the
board—distinguishes high-performing boards
from others.63
Vision for Continuous Improvement
Board members’ core beliefs about what can be
accomplished by the school system have a
considerable impact on their leadership
effectiveness. In higher achieving districts, board
members consistently expressed the belief that all
children can learn and gave specific examples of
how learning had improved as a result of district
initiatives. Factors like poverty and lack of
parental involvement were described as challenges
to be overcome and not as excuses.64
Boards must take an active role in leading
continuous improvement efforts for the school
Carver, John. “Remaking Governance.” American School
Board Journal (March 2000).
61 McAdams, Donald R.
“Planning for Your Own
Succession.” The School Administrator. (January 2007).
62 BoardSource.
“The Source: Twelve Principles of
Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.” BoardSource,
Washington, DC. 2005.
63 Tierney, William G. and Adrianna Kezar.
“Assessing
Public Board Performance.” Center for Higher Education
Policy Analysis, University of Southern California, 2004.
64 Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse
Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000.
60
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
56 Georgia School Boards Association, “Standards for Local
School Boards of Education: Check List.” Georgia School
Boards Association, 2008.
57 AdvancED. “Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems.” AdvancED, April 2007.
58 McAdams, Donald R.
“Planning for Your Own
Succession.” The School Administrator. (January 2007).
59 McAdams, Donald R.
What School Boards Can Do,
Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
55
Confidential DRAFT
24
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
district and for the board. The board’s role in
leading continuous improvement lies in four key
areas:

Articulating the vision and purpose that the
system is pursuing (Vision).

Maintaining a comprehensive tracking of
students’ performance, of system
effectiveness and of the community
demographics (Profile).

Employing goals and interventions to
improve student performance (Plan).

Documenting and using results for future
improvement efforts (Results).
To continually improve the system, boards must
use the three levers available to them: policy
leadership, superintendent selection, and “the
bully pulpit.”65 Boards publicly support and
communicate the value of
continuous
65
improvement to the community and engage
important stakeholders in the process.67
2b. State-wide school performance standards
ii. Define state-wide student and system performance
standards and tracking metrics for school system
performance, and establish a process of tracking,
reporting and publication of student and system
performance results through varied channels to the
public by building on and expanding beyond the
current web-based reporting tools of GDOE and
GOSA. Consider student safety and civil rights
as additional key metrics reporting.
ii. Require boards to develop and to maintain a
strategic plan and a process of ongoing, timely
review of student and financial performance
results and outcomes compared to plan, and
timely reporting of results to the community.
Strategic planning training for boards should be
provided to ensure the validity and value of the
plans developed. Leverage current initiatives by
GSBA and GOSA regarding strategic planning
and reporting.
Any strategic planning toolset developed to assist
boards should include core components: vision,
high- level goals, objectives tied to goals,
community engagement, internal and external
communication, and ongoing tracking and
periodic adjustment.
iii. Require boards to have a plan for regular
community communications and stakeholder
input for the purpose of presenting and discussing
student and system planning, goals and
performance.
RESEARCH REVIEW
The “State-wide System Performance Standards”
category
of
recommendations
addresses
monitoring and maintaining system standards for
academic and operational performance through
the assessment, reporting and communication of
state-wide standards. The Commission believes
that the leadership team (board and
superintendent) and the school system should be
held accountable for performance through
standardized evaluation, development and
maintenance of a strategic plan, and performance
data collection processes the result of which are
reported to the GDOE, SBOE, and the
community.
Standards that Set High Student Achievement
The core tenet underlying most, if not all,
research is that the primary focus of the school
board is to ensure education achievement for
every student. A Gwinnett school board member
stated that it was critical in the beginning of their
improvement effort that every member buy in to
the concept that all students can benefit from
public education and every student can learn. In
the Lighthouse Study, members of successful
Georgia boards expressed, “Board members had
high expectations for all students.”66
In order to increase and maintain high
expectations for student achievement, standards
must be developed and implemented consistently
across the district to enable students, teachers and
school leadership to measure their performance
against a uniform and appropriate academic
standard.
AdvancED standards require boards to
“[e]stablish and implement a comprehensive
assessment system, aligned with the system’s
expectations for student learning, that yields
65
Georgia School Boards Association. “A Guide to
Effective Boardsmanship.”
Georgia School Boards
Association, 2006.
Confidential DRAFT
Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse
Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000.
66
25
The Commission for School Board Excellence
information which is reliable, valid, and free of
bias and ensure that student assessment data are
used to make decisions for continuous
improvement of teaching and learning.”67 The
board demonstrates verifiable growth in student
performance that is supported by multiple sources
of evidence.
Other requirements from the National School
Boards Association that focus on and work to
ensure student achievement are as follows:
Boards should approve standards for student
learning. Boards should ensure that curriculum,
instruction and assessment are aligned with
student achievement standards set by the board
and consistent with the state. Boards should
participate in periodic work sessions to review
student standards and the district’s initiatives to
help all students achieve. Boards should provide
resources needed to increase the number of
students meeting standards. Boards should ensure
that instructional programs are evaluated for
effectiveness in helping students meet standards.68
Accountability
Effective accountability systems have numerous
but focused metrics, robust and reliable
information management systems, transparency,
personnel management policies and systems that
link job security and compensation to
performance, and continuous feedback to drive
continuous improvement.69
In order for
accountability to exist, there must be consistent
standards set as well as a measurement and
reporting system to provide visibility to
performance. McAdams states that it is essential
that district performance should be reported to
the board and to the public at least annually using
comprehensive performance metrics.69
The board and the superintendent must therefore
be held accountable for district performance. The
board is accountable to the public and the
superintendent is accountable to the board. The
requirement of accountability is essential to
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems. 2007.
68 “The Key Work of School Boards,” National School Board
Association.
69 McAdams, Donald R.
What School Boards Can Do,
Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
67
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
ensuring consistency of school system
performance and to maintaining a focus on
improvement. It is the superintendent’s role to
manage and run the system, and to be held
accountable by the board for the performance of
the school system.
“Consequently, board
expectations of the system (ends and limits on
means) are the only criteria on which a
superintendent should be assessed.”70
Board Self Performance Evaluation
Other experts, like Goodman and Zimmerman,71
believe that board self-evaluation is advantageous.
Five standards – vision, structure, accountability,
advocacy, and unity – should be used as criteria
for continuous development and self-evaluation of
a team’s leadership and governance performance.
Second, in addition to continuous education and
renewal, Goodman recommends that team
evaluation and development workshops be held in
a private setting four times each year – led by an
experienced facilitator whenever possible.71
Exceptional boards embrace the qualities of a
continuous learning organization, evaluating their
own performance and assessing the value they add
to the organization. They embed learning
opportunities into routine governance work and in
activities outside of the boardroom.72
The school board is then accountable to the
constituents (the public) that elected them. “The
board's primary relationship is with those to
whom it is accountable – the general public, the
shareholders of public education.”70
Areas of Measurement
The district’s performance report should be
comprehensive, weighted heavily to student
achievement but also include financial, facilities,
human resources, customer satisfaction and other
Carver, John. “Remaking Governance.” American School
Board Journal (March 2000).
71 Goodman, Richard H. and William G. Zimmerman.
“Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High School Achievement.” Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service and New England School
Development Council, 2000.
72 BoardSource.
“The Source: Twelve Principles of
Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.” BoardSource,
Washington, DC. 2005.
70
26
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
measures of district performance. School boards
should have an evaluation that can respond to a
superintendent who cuts ethical corners or abuses
subordinates.72
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality Schools
Vision &
Purpose
The board monitors progress toward the vision
periodically. Boards assure periodic assessment of
school climate throughout the district including:

Attendance data

Discipline data

Surveys of students, staff, and parents

Enrollment in higher-level classes

Staff turnover

Student demographics and enrollment
trends68
District performance should be reported to the
board and to the public at least annually using
comprehensive performance metrics.74
Exceptional boards are results-oriented. They
measure the organization’s progress towards
mission and evaluate the performance of major
programs and services. They gauge efficiency,
effectiveness and impact, while simultaneously
assessing the quality of service delivery, integrating
benchmarks against peers, and calculating return
on investment.73
Assessment Systems
The National School Boards Association
encourages boards to approve and periodically
review an assessment system for all students.
Without a comprehensive assessment system
based on state-wide standards, boards are unable
to determine student achievement within their
districts and compared against other districts in
the state.
AdvancED utilizes a comprehensive, integrated,
and proven assessment system that focuses on
various key areas that are critical to the
performance of a school or school system.
Stakeholder
Communications
and
Relationships
Governance
& Leadership
Documenting &
Commitment
Using
Results
to Continuous
Improvement
Resources &
Support
Systems
Teaching &
Learning
Commitment to
Continuous Improvement
This assessment system allows the leadership team
to understand their performance in core school
system standards. These standards also allow a
comparison with like systems within the state.
Reporting
The board must receive standard timely reports
focusing on the performance of the school system
on key student achievement measures as a whole.
“Exceptional boards link bold visions and
ambitious plans to financial support, expertise,
and networks of influence.”73
The reports are used by the board and the
superintendent to “conduct a systematic analysis
of instructional and organizational effectiveness,
including support systems, and uses the results to
improve student and system performance”74
AdvancED requires boards to “use comparison
and trend data from comparable school systems to
evaluate student performance and system
effectiveness.”74 The board and the leadership
team have visibility to the performance of their
school system and the tools with which to address
any weaknesses and to complement achievement.
Currently, Georgia’s GOSA maintains an
exhaustive data set of student and school
performance that is collected from every system in
the state. The data is based on CRCT, AYP,
ACT, SAT, AP, graduation, attendance, among a
number of other annual measures. The data is
summarized on the GDOE and GOSA websites
in primarily a graphical chart format. Most of the
data is school or district specific. Recently, GOSA
has summarized the data by school to be
73
BoardSource.
“The Source: Twelve Principles of
Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.” BoardSource,
Washington, DC. 2005.
Confidential DRAFT
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems. 2007.
74
27
The Commission for School Board Excellence
compared to the school’s district in aggregate, by
district to be compared to the state in aggregate,
and by state to be compared to the southeast and
the nation in aggregate. The websites, however,
do not provide a ranked listing of all districts by
measure or a comparison of like districts by
measure. By providing a comparison view or a
ranked listing view by measure (See Appendix:
‘Example Reports for District Comparison’, p.
34), the electorate of Georgia can see how their
own district or school is doing and possibly
demand more out their school boards and district
leadership if their schools are not doing well.
Community Engagement and Transparency
Most if not all research in the area of
board/stakeholder communication emphasizes
the importance of clear, consistent, two-way
communication processes.
The National School Boards Association provides
specific direction in the communication method
and content that should be undertaken by a high
performing board.
Board members are accountable to the public,
therefore, it is
“Successful (community) organizing
critical that
strategies contributed to increased
the
board
student attendance,
improved
work
to
standardized-test score performance,
communicate
and higher graduation rates and
with
and
college-going aspirations in several
educate the
sites.”
district public
(Kavitha Mediratta, 2008)
on its school
system and its performance. “Board members
must continually reach out to community groups
and individuals to build personal relationships and
educate, educate, and educate.”75
Gwinnett County School System has instituted
separate, unique “state of the state” meetings
within each board member’s district to provide
time to address district-specific issues and get
input. “Many board meetings are not meetings in
the usual sense at all, but take place in community
McAdams, Donald R. What School Boards Can Do,
Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
75
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
settings where certain segments of the public can
be heard.” 76
To address constituent complaints, issues or calls,
the board could fund a constituent service
representative or process that can take ownership
of constituent calls to board members and
forward the request to the appropriate person.
This practice provides consistency of service,
keeps the board members out of school
operations, and provides valuable issue tracking
information that can be collected and reviewed. 77
The Lighthouse Study by the Iowa School Boards
Association provides a leading perspective on how
successful boards in Georgia approached public
transparency. “Board members expressed pride in
their community and in their efforts to involve
parents. Board members could describe structures
that existed to support connections and
communications within the district. For example,
board members could describe teaching teams,
faculty committees and how they related to school
improvement initiatives. Board members could
name specific ways the district was involving
parents and community and all indicated a desire
for more involvement.”78
Other sources espouse the transparency concept:
Exceptional boards promote an ethos [culture] of
transparency
by
ensuring
that donors,
stakeholders, and interested members of the
public have access to appropriate and accurate
information regarding finances, operations, and
results. They also extend transparency internally,
ensuring that every board member has equal
access to relevant materials when making
decisions. 79
Strategic Plan
Strategic planning for a school board is a longterm, evolving process which establishes the
vision of the system, comprises key objectives and
significant initiatives over multiple years, involves
Carver, John. “Remaking Governance.” American School
Board Journal (March 2000).
77 Gwinnett Board member and Superintendent Interview.
July 24, 2008.
78 Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse
Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000.
79 BoardSource.
“The Source: Twelve Principles of
Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.” BoardSource,
Washington, DC. 2005.
76
28
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Final Report
the community and the superintendent, and tracks
progress.
faculty committees and how they related to school
improvement initiatives.”81
Exceptional boards shape the mission, articulate a
compelling vision, and ensure the congruence
between decisions and core values. They treat
questions of mission, vision, and core values not
as exercises to be done once, but as statements of
crucial importance to be drilled down and folded
into deliberations.79
AdvancED, like NSBA requires a strong process
to communicate valid school system information
to stakeholders. The board “provides a system of
communication which uses a variety of methods
to report student performance and system
effectiveness to all stakeholders; uses system-wide
strategies to listen to and communicate with
stakeholders; communicates the expectations for
student learning and goals for improvement to all
stakeholders; and solicits the knowledge and skills
of stakeholders to enhance the work of the
system.”80
AdvancED advises that the board should review
its vision and purpose systematically and revise as
appropriate.
The superintendent and board
established district goals based on student needs.
School goals were expected to be linked to the
district goals.78 The district goals
A major study performed by the
should also be based on the overall
Annenberg Institute for School
“The opportunity to improve the
goals of the State Board of
Reform at Brown University reveals
education system in Georgia is not
Education and GDOE. Utilizing
the importance of community
limited to what can be done by the
employees and leaders of that
standard measures, the linkage from
involvement in successful school
system. Rather, our opportunities
the State Board level down through
systems. All stakeholders approved
are as diverse and numerous as the
the district to each individual school
of and worked diligently to solicit
individuals and communities
is critical to aligning State
and organize the participation of the
across the state who are willing
requirements to each individual
local community in appropriate
and able to get involved.”
school. This standardization and
system initiatives. “Officials, school
GPEE
linkage also provides like-system
administrators, and teachers in every
comparison enabling systems to
site reported that community
benchmark against similar systems
organizing influenced policy and
and schools.
resource decisions to increase equity and build
capacity, particularly in historically low performing
AdvancED encourages boards to “establish a
schools.”82
vision for the system in collaboration with its
stakeholders. It “communicates the system’s
2c. Comprehensive board member education and
vision and purpose to build stakeholder
proficiency development
understanding and support and identifies systemi. Provided the new definitions of roles and
wide goals and purpose to build stakeholder
responsibilities and new state-wide school system
understanding and support.”80
performance standards are established as above,
the task force shall also develop a recommended
Stakeholder Communication and
proficiency curriculum for board members to
Engagement
include:
The Lighthouse Study provides characteristics of
1. School board fundamentals. Consider
high performing boards in Georgia such as “board
classroom and web-based training, mentoring
members could describe specific ways board
and coaching, and whole-board training in
actions and goals were communicated to staff,
fundamental processes of school systems, and
such as a post-board meeting for teachers and
in school system metrics focused on student
administrators. Board members could describe
structures that existed to support connections and
81 Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse
communications within the district.
Board
Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000.
members could also describe teaching teams,
82
AdvancED. “Accreditation Standards for Quality School
Systems.” AdvancED, April 2007.
80
Confidential DRAFT
Kavitha Mediratta, S. S. (2008). Organized Communities,
Stronger Schools; A Preview of Research Findings.
Providence: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at
Brown University.
29
The Commission for School Board Excellence
achievement. Consider other local, state and
federal law and policy requirements including
financial topics.
2. Consider the training GSBA currently
provides on strategic planning; build this into
the curriculum.
3. The number of hours and sequence of training
for new and experienced board members.
4. A training certification and disclosure
guideline for board members who run for reelection.
5. A statement that all current board members
would be expected to comply with ongoing
education requirements.
ii. Provide a school board orientation workshop
(similar to the GPEE and GSBA workshops
currently offered) coordinated by the SBOE, and
encourage board candidates to attend.
RESEARCH REVIEW
Curriculum
When considering curriculum for board training,
research findings exist for both formal instructorled training, in a range of subjects and facilitation
of whole board team-building and strategic
planning.
The topics for instruction should be tied directly
to the key responsibilities of the school board and
the board/superintendent leadership team and to
student needs.83
Boards need to understand alignment of system
components to student achievement to include: 84

Staffing and Personnel Evaluations

Facilities

Funding

Curriculum and Instruction

Assessment, and Technology84
Final Report
Texas conducts a board member training
assessment and identifies needed training. Texas
also requires the board president to publish those
members who do not complete the mandated
training prior to re-election.85
Due to the breadth of training topics necessary for
ongoing board development, many different
vendors may be required. Further, each vendor’s
curriculum should be qualified as appropriate
from a content accuracy/completeness standpoint.
This necessitates an extensive series of
relationships and contracts with training vendors.
Further, specific board needs may not be met by
existing offerings, and special purpose curricula
may be required to optimize board effectiveness.
The work involved in identifying, engaging,
maintaining, and monitoring board training may
require a level of resources and management that
is not currently available in Georgia.86 Self
disclosure may be adequate as a first step.
Georgia requires new board members must have
12 hours of training including six hours of training
in school finance in the first twelve months after
being elected. After that, they must have six hours
of training each year. Like Georgia currently,
many states require training, but there is little
sanction if the training mandate is not met. Some
states do not require training but only encourage
members to receive the training. Examples
include:87

Eight-hour orientation on school issues to be
provided by the state school boards
association. There are no penalties for failure
to complete the training. (Massachusetts)

Board members are required to have 12 clock
hours of training annually; however, there is
no penalty for failure to get the training.
(North Carolina)

Attend a seminar for new school board
members within the first year of serving on
the board. Beyond that, there are no
additional requirements. (North Dakota)
Survey: “Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members” National School Boards Association, April 2004.
86 Advisory Committee, July 31, 2008.
87 National School Boards Association. “State Requirements
for Local School Board Service.” National School Boards
Association, September 2007.
85
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G.
Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
84 Commission Meeting, July, 8, 2008.
83
Confidential DRAFT
30
The Commission for School Board Excellence

Once elected, board members are mandated
by law to attend a two-day orientation plus
one seven hour module in their first year of
service. Veteran board members are required
to attend one seven-hour module annually.
(Tennessee)

Each school board must require its members
to participate annually in high quality
professional development activities at the
state, local or national levels on governance,
including, but not limited to personnel,
curriculum, and current issues in education as
part of their service on the local board.
(Virginia)
States include a variety of subject areas in their
board training curriculum. Examples include:85

Each member of a city and parish school
board shall receive a minimum of six hours of
training and instruction in the school laws of
this state, in the laws governing the powers,
duties, and responsibilities of city and parish
school boards, and in educational trends,
research, and policy. (Louisiana)

Board Governance & Operations; School
Law; School Finance; Student Achievement;
Board Relations; Goal Setting (Missouri)

Delaware Performance Appraisal System
(Delaware)

The School Ethics Act; Superintendent
Evaluation (New Jersey)

School Leadership; Financial Management;
Innovations in School Management; The Role
of the Board; School Leadership; Human
Relations; Student Issues; Crisis Management
(Mississippi)

Minnesota Statute provides: "A member shall
receive training in school finance and
management developed in consultation with
the Minnesota School Boards Association and
consistent with section 127A.19."(Minnesota)
Governance Leadership Team Training
Higher-performing board members in the state of
Georgia “described evidence of regularly learning
together as a board. They talked about studying an
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
issue together before making a decision.”88
Researchers studying school boards and
governance are consistent in their opinion that it
is critical that the leadership team of the board
and the superintendent must be able to work
together effectively and be able to support each
other.
Goodman and Zimmerman place
leadership team training as a key strategy to ensure
effective governance and focus on student
achievement. They espouse a new approach to
preparing and training school boards and
superintendents that will support their coming
together as unified leadership teams.89
An example of the importance of whole board or
leadership team training is from the Gwinnett
County School Board. The Gwinnett board
places a high value in whole board and
superintendent retreats to develop teamwork,
familiarity, and alignment of individual priorities.
The National School Boards Association
encourages boards to participate in work sessions
together to better understand needed changes in
curriculum and instruction based on related data.90
Full board development is viewed as an ongoing
need of all standing boards.91
Pre-Qualifications
Pre-qualification training should be considered as
additional qualifications for election. Knowledge
and awareness of future board responsibilities are
desirable.
Members of the Advisory Committee cited
significant concern that many candidates running
for office as school board members are not aware
of the knowledge and experience the role
demands, the time investment, decision authority,
or ethical considerations, including conflict of
interest policies. For example, an individual may
believe they can influence staff hiring or vendor
selection decisions that are not, in fact, within the
decision-making purview of the board. Further,
Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse
Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000..
89 Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G.
Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
90 “Key Work of School Boards”, National School Boards
Association, 2000.
91 Advisory Committee, July 31, 2008.
88
31
The Commission for School Board Excellence
they may not be aware of constraints presented by
conflict of interest policies. The GSBA and
GPEE currently provide candidate training and
Advisory Committee members recognized this
training as valuable to candidates. Ensuring all
candidates are aware of the requirements of the
role prior to their qualification as a candidate is
recommended.91
Suggested options may include:

Training that must be taken by a newlyelected board member prior to assuming
his/her board seat.

Training experiences a candidate has
undertaken in the past that they present as
evidence of their preparedness for the role.

Training/Education required/mandated prior
to their qualification as a candidate for
election.
Final Report

Commission of Education may withhold
funds from the school system

Revocation of the ability to run for re-election

Seat can be declared vacant

School report card shows school board
members not meeting minimum requirements

Removal by state school ethics commission.92
The 2006 NSBA Survey on State Mandated
Training found that most states who responded
required an orientation or specific new board
member training for the first year on the board.
West Virginia and New Jersey require orientation
be completed prior to taking office.92
Along with mandating training curriculum and
training hour requirements, several states mandate
the source/type of training for their boards. Many
states have specific provisions for training cost
coverage/reimbursement.93
Board Training Accountability
Less than half of states mandating training also
have an enforcement provision built into the law.
Where they exist, sanctions include:

Removal from office (West Virginia – not yet
tested in court)

At call for election, board chair publishes
those who have/have not met training
requirement
92
National School Boards Association, “Survey of State
Mandated Training for School Boards.” National School
Boards Association, 2004.
93 Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G.
Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
Confidential DRAFT
32
The Commission for School Board Excellence
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY 3:
BOARD CANDIDACY AND
ELECTIONS
Legislation shall be enacted to strengthen the
election process and school board candidacy
requirements.
3a. Establish into law the size of a Georgia public school
board as a minimum of five and maximum of seven
members, pursuant to best practices. Develop a
process for existing larger boards to move to this
smaller size.
3b. Establish new election guidelines to provide for 4-year
staggered terms of office, running in non-partisan
elections held on a general election cycle, e.g.,
November of even-numbered years. Encourage local
citizens to have greater participation in the school
board election process.
3c. Establish additional statutory qualifications for school
board candidacy to include requirements for selfdisclosure, adherence to the state-wide code of conduct
and conflict of interest guidelines and to submit to
background checks and drug screening by the GBI.
While a “grandfathering” of board members without
the following requirements is expected, enhanced
requirements for board candidacy include:
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix.
xx.
xxi.
xxii.
xxiii.
xxiv.
U.S. Citizen and registered voter
HS diploma or GED
Sign statewide conflict of interest and code
of ethics affidavit
Cannot be a “relative” of another sitting
board member (already defined in Title 20
of the Georgia Code)
Cannot be a district employee
Cannot be judged mentally incompetent
Must submit to and pass drug screening
(Note: this was held unconstitutional for
members of the Georgia General Assembly;
see Chandler v. Miller, 520 US 305,
1997.)
Must disclose compliance with required
training, ethics and conflict of interest
policies.
21 or older (in current law)
Resident of the school system district for
at least 12 months (in current law)
No felony convictions (in current law)
Cannot be employed by a public or
private K-12 school or school system
Confidential DRAFT
Final Report
(current law prohibits employment or
service on the board of a private
educational institution)
3d. Require board member disclosure during election cycle
of adherence to ethics and conflict of interest guidelines and
training compliance.
RESEARCH REVIEW
The “Candidacy and Elections” category of
recommendations addresses the terms and
conditions of school board eligibility, the process
by which school board members are elected and
the desired characteristics for board candidates.
The Commission believes that these requirements
for candidacy should be strengthened and that
board size should be defined.
Board Size
The ideal number of board members is five, with
the maximum number being seven, as preferred
by the Advisory Committee and the Commission.
This size provides for enough diversity of thought
and perspective without creating increased
management problems. Higher number allows for
higher probability of turf battles and division. 94
The report “School Boards at the Dawn of the
21st Century” provides insight into how boards
across the country are structured. More than 80
percent of the respondents’ school boards have
between five and eight members. While oddnumbered boards are more common than evennumbered boards, respondents also report some
six- and eight-member boards. Another 14.3
percent of boards have nine members, while less
than 5 percent of boards have fewer than five
members or more than nine. (Survey sample of
2000 school districts across the country with 820
responding.)95
In Georgia, there is a converse relationship with
board size and district size - some of the smaller
school systems have some of the larger boards
and some of the larger school systems have some
of the smaller boards. There is no evidence to
“Gwinnett Board Member and Superintendent Interview
Notes.” Atlanta, GA, July 24, 2008.
95 Hess, Frederick M. “School Boards at the Dawn of the
21st Century, Conditions and Challenges of District
Governance.”
School of Education, Department of
Government, University of Virginia, 2002.
94
33
The Commission for School Board Excellence
support the argument that larger districts need
larger boards to succeed.
Anecdotal evidence leads to the conclusion that
large boards will eventually factionalize creating
difficult decision-making to outright dysfunction
as the following example illustrates. “When the
D.C. Board of Education goes before the control
board Wednesday, members will talk about the
school system's accomplishments. But if the two
disparate factions of the board can agree on some
of those successes, it will be a rare moment. The
rift in the 11-member school board has been a
dominant factor in the board's decisions.”96
Conditions for Candidacy
Experts recommend rigorous background checks
to ensure accurate self-disclosure, compliance with
necessary residency and citizenship status, and a
lack of criminal history for candidates. Experts
recommend candidates be required to disclose
their educational background, employment status,
potential conflict of interest, any criminal history,
and past board experience. Returning candidates
must demonstrate past compliance with previous
board training requirements and meeting
attendance policies. Candidates must be prepared
to sign documentation certifying that they have
read and understand the school board’s code of
ethics and conflict of interest policies and agreeing
to comply with them.97
Final Report

The school boards can have a significant
effect on student achievement and school
districts can become high-performing
organizations.99
Boards, individually and collectively, must be clear
about their core beliefs and commitments to
student achievement in order to take effective
action regarding policy.99
Ethics and Code of Conduct
Experts recommend the development of a
statutory code of code and conflict of interest
guidelines for school boards, which contain
among other things anti-nepotism policies that
define prohibited relationships to other board
members, school systems, employees of the
school system, vendors to the school system and
students within the school system.100 The first
step is establishing a code of conduct and conflict
of interest guidelines, sometimes called operating
principles. The establishment of operating
principles provides a cornerstone for building a
positive climate and a healthy structure for
participation by everyone in the district. After a
school board develops its operating principles, it
will be easier to encourage the involvement of
everyone in the district to develop a district-wide
code of conduct and conflict of interest policy.
More districts across the country today are finding
the key to a strong board is to identify potential
candidates early. They are utilizing numerous
sources such as their own contacts and the local
chamber of commerce in order to identify and
recommend strong, student-focused candidates
from local government among many others.
Since school board members are a mix of both
elected officials and non-profit board of directors,
a specific “conflicts” policy may have to be
drafted to address the nuances of the mixed roles
and authority. The Commission recommends
simple, state-wide ethics and conflict of interest
policy that all board members should adopt and
allow individual systems to be more expansive in
their restrictions if they choose to be.
Experts agree that candidates must be committed
to the following core beliefs:
Elections Process

In general, school board members in Georgia are
selected in one of two ways: at-large (city/district-
All children can perform at grade level and
graduate from high school; the elimination of
the achievement gap exists.98
96
Ferrechio, Susan. “Fight to Survive May Show Size of
School Board Split.” Washington Times, August 1996.
97 Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
98 Kezar, Adrianna; James T. Minor; and William G. Tierney.
“Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College
and University Boards.” Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis, University of Southern California, 2004.
Confidential DRAFT
McAdams, Donald R., What School Boards Can Do:
Reform Governance for Urban Schools, Teachers College
Press, NY, NY, 2006.
100 Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008
99
34
The Commission for School Board Excellence
wide) elections, or within sub-district elections.101
Because school boards are regarded as a
fundamental democratic institution, a frequent
argument for at-large and sub-district elections is
that they give the public a voice in public
education.
Critics counter that there are too few good
candidates willing to run and that voter turn-out is
typically very low (from 5% to 15% of voters),
undermining the argument that the public truly
values a voice in education policy-making.102
Land concludes that there is “only limited
research… on the selection of school board
members and the relation of selection procedures
to effective governance and, more narrowly,
students’ academic achievement.”
Of interest to the work of the Commission is one
clear distinction drawn from the research.
Namely, “[I]ndividuals elected at-large, compared
to those elected within sub-districts, may be more
able to work together as a body and to
concentrate on policy rather than administration,
and be less susceptible to special interest groups.”
The research indicates that sub-district elections
result in more contentious and fractured school
boards…but draw a more heterogeneous board.103
Final Report
a time when the average tenure of board
members is declining.

Term limits would provide for new blood on
school boards. But, boards lose the
institutional knowledge with the turnover of
positions.

“I really do not see any advantages for term
limits. Experience is important in
boardsmanship, and to artificially terminate
board service is overall detrimental. On
occasion, term limits will eliminate a poor
board member, but the disadvantages
outweigh the advantages.
In a 2006 survey from the National School Boards
Association, out of 34 states responding, two
imposed term limits, and 32 did not.104
Experts are not in consensus on recommendations
regarding term of office. Term recommendations
vary between two terms of two years each to an
unlimited number of terms. Considerations of the
Advisory Committee for these perspectives
include a desire for board stability (unlimited
terms) and a desire to limit the impact of
ineffective board members (term limits). Other
states’ comments regarding term limits include:104

Advantage of no term limits is that it allows
experienced members to keep serving during
Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins University. “Local School
Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in
Relation to Student’s Academic Achievement”, Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
(CRESPAR), U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
102 Georgia School Boards Association
103 Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins University. “Local School
Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in
Relation to Student’s Academic Achievement,” Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
(CRESPAR), U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
104 National School Boards Association.
“National State
Survey on School Board Member Term Limits.” National
School Boards Association, 2006.
101
Confidential DRAFT
35
The Commission for School Board Excellence
SCHOOL SYSTEM STRUCTURE
Governance is only relevant when considering the
nature of the operating entity being governed.
This final section on school board governance
includes two areas related to operating school
systems as the organizational entity fulfilling
teaching and learning delivery to students.
Because of size, scale, population demographics,
poverty rate or financial capacity of the
community, each school system will produce some
different solutions. One size does not fit all. That
is the foundation of the public school system in
Georgia.
An excellent governance process
constantly aligns itself with the local needs of the
community to deliver educated citizens to that
community. But the forces of state and federal
standards and global competition are constantly at
work to raise the bar for educational expectations.
A vital role of the school system leadership and
the board governance process is to balance and
align itself for student success.
Successful school district operation assumes good
governance is intentional and part of the trustee
obligation to the community being served. In
July, 2008, Governor Perdue chartered another
task force to act on the research work of Dr.
Charles Knapp, former President of the University
of Georgia, called “Tough Choices or Tough
Times”.105 Its charter is to determine whether
there should be pilot programs in school systems
where this innovative work can be tested. The
commission submits the following observations
on school system structures to that task force for
further review and consideration.
SCHOOL SYSTEM SIZE
School systems exist to teach and educate our
children. Public school systems are required by
our democratic system to provide quality public
education to all students in each state or school
system subdivision. While federal and state
education programs often mandate standards, it is
the local community and the community’s citizens
Knapp, Charles, “Tough Choices or Tough Times: The
Report of New Commission on The Skills of The American
Workforce.” National Center on Education and The
Economy, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San Francisco, CA.,
2007.
Final Report
through their school board that bear the burden
of accountability and fulfillment of those
standards.
Georgia has 185 independent school systems.
Most systems are chartered at the county level,
with some by city and a handful of state or charter
systems. With 185 unique systems for delivering
teaching and learning programs, there will be both
redundancy in functions, and the opportunity to
fail to meet the core requirements of teaching and
learning. Since each of these school systems is a
sub-division of Georgia government, the
probability of consolidation is unlikely and
constitutionally challenging.
Nevertheless, the Commission wanted to
understand the operating model of school
systems, and to gain insight into the effectiveness
and efficiency of size and scale. Interestingly,
there is little research into “small” school systems.
Most research and focus has been on large school
systems and their issues, with large systems
generally defined as over 100,000 students. To
date, Georgia only has three systems this large:
Gwinnett, Cobb, and DeKalb Counties.
On the small end of the scale, one industry expert
suggested that the minimum size of a school
system should be about 2,500 students, or
“enough to have one good high school in the
system.”106
Smaller sizes result in program
constraints, and limit the system’s ability to
support itself and to maintain reasonable costs.
Size appears to be a benefit in affluent districts,
but the benefit of size seems to decline as the
poverty level of the district increases.
Interestingly, the likelihood of reporting “a great
deal” of progress increases with the size of the
district. Of the 185 school systems, 60 Georgia
systems have less than the 2,500 size target and
there are five districts with student populations
less than 500. Metro Atlanta, however, is a very
different story. The six largest school systems in
Georgia are there, each having greater than 50,000
students. The smallest districts -- enrollments
between 300 and 2,500 -- are the least likely to
report high levels of progress in any reform
elements.
105
Confidential DRAFT
McAdams, Donald R. “Responding to Board Member
Requests for Information.” The School Administrator (March
2008).
106
35
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Small school system size also prevents population
sub-groups from reaching minimum thresholds
for reporting purposes. Exclusion of these special
groups from reporting tends to lower overall
“averages” thus affecting district-wide results. As
an example, a measure like AYP (Adequate Yearly
Progress) may be met for the school district as a
whole, except for a recognized group. But
without scale in the group the data is blurred in
reporting and may drop the whole district below
the benchmark.
Equally important for small systems is that
threshold funding for some programs may not be
attainable. Again, without reaching a threshold
headcount attained for some sub-groups, the
system misses revenue sources available to larger
districts.
FUNDING FORMULAS FOR SCHOOL
SYSTEMS
This Commission has reaffirmed the importance
of public schools in our state, and the role they
play in combining democracy and education. It
will not enter the debate on whether vouchers are
an appropriate means to educational solutions.
Final Report
Student
achievement
$ spend
If vouchers were to be given based on an
“average” spend per student, there are progressive
dis-economies to the school system and its
remaining students for each student receiving a
voucher. Not only would headcount formulas get
reduced by one unit for each student, but the lost
marginal program dollars hurt incrementally
harder on the remaining student population. It
becomes a “double dip” effect against the systems’
ability to support the remainder of the students.
More research is required to understand and
quantify the impact of this affect on funding
alternatives.
Instead, the Commission noticed a complex and
often contradictory approach to funding public
schools. Some funds are allocated through cost
formulas, some through headcount formulas, and
others through program or sub-group methods.
We noted that local, state and federal money is
received and required in all the state school
systems. Unfortunately, these moneys are also
only applicable for a short term, often a school
year, and subject to any number of funding
availability or formula changes.
No matter what the method, money is allocated
“on the margin” that is to say incrementally, to a
system to fulfill a specific approach. If one were
to analyze the effect, it would produce a marginal
contribution
graph
like
the
following.
Incrementally more money applied produces
program benefits greater than the previous dollars.
In economic terms, there are increasing marginal
benefits.
Confidential DRAFT
36
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Gwinnett Board member and Superintendent Interview Notes.” Atlanta, GA, July 24, 2008.
“Introduction.” Edition Education Policy Primer. Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education, 200809.
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008
AdvancED. “Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems.” AdvancED, April 2007.
Black, Susan. “The Takeover Threat.” American School Board Journal (January, 2007).
BoardSource. “The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.”
BoardSource, Washington, DC. 2005.
Carver, John. “Remaking Governance.” American School Board Journal (March 2000).
Carver, John. “Toward Coherent Governance.” The School Administrator, March 2000.
Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Commission Meeting, July, 8, 2008.
Ferrechio, Susan. “Fight to Survive May Show Size of School Board Split.” Washington Times, August
1996.
Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education. “The Economics of Education, Second Edition.” Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education, 2007.
Georgia School Boards Association, “Standards for Local School Boards of Education: Check List.” Georgia
School Boards Association, 2008.
Georgia School Boards Association. “A Guide to Effective Boardsmanship.” Georgia School Boards
Association, 2006.
Georgia School Boards Association. “About Us.” Georgia School Boards Association, 2004.
http://www.gsba.com/about/about_mission.html.
Goodman, Richard H. and William G. Zimmerman. “Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st
Century School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High School
Achievement.” Arlington, VA. Educational Research Service and New England School Development
Council, 2000.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Munoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big City School Boards:
Problems and Options. Center on reinventing public education.
Hess, Frederick M. “School Boards at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Conditions and Challenges of District
Governance.” School of Education, Department of Government, University of Virginia, 2002.
Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October
2000.
Kavitha Mediratta, S. S. (2008). Organized Communities, Stronger Schools; A Preview of Research Findings.
Providence: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
Kezar, Adrianna; James T. Minor; and William G. Tierney. “Selection and Appointment of Trustees to
Public College and University Boards.” Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern
California, 2004.
Confidential DRAFT
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONT’D)
Knapp, Charles. “Tough Choices or Tough Times. The Report of New Commission on The Skills of The
American Workforce.” National Center on Education and the Economy. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2007.
Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins University. “Local School Boards Under Review: Their Role and
Effectiveness in Relation to Student’s Academic Achievement”, Center for Research on the Education of
Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR), U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
McAdams, Donald R. “20 Indicators of Effective School Boards”, The Center for Reform of School Boards,
2006.
McAdams, Donald R. “Administrative Support for Board Members.” The School Administrator (January 2006).
McAdams, Donald R. “Management Oversight But Not Management.” The School Administrator (September,
2004).
McAdams, Donald R. “Planning for Your Own Succession.” The School Administrator. (January 2007).
McAdams, Donald R. “Responding to Board Member Requests for Information.” The School Administrator
(March 2008).
McAdams, Donald R. What School Boards Can Do, Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New
York: Teachers College Press, 2006.
McAdams, Donald R. “The Short, Productive Board Meeting.” The School Administrator (September 2005)
Mediratta, Kavitha; Seema Shah; Sara McAlister; Norm Fruchter; Christina Mokhtar; and Dana Lockwood.
“Organized Communities, Stronger Schools.” Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University,
March 2008.
National School Boards Association, “Survey of State Mandated Training for School Boards.” National
School Boards Association, 2004.
National School Boards Association. “National State Survey on School Board Member Term Limits.”
National School Boards Association, 2006.
National School Boards Association. “State Requirements for Local School Board Service.” National School
Boards Association, September 2007.
Page, Deb. “Preparing for a Perfect Storm: Meeting Georgia’s Need for Quality School Leaders.” Georgia
Public Policy Foundation, December 15, 2006.
http://www.gppf.org/article.asp?RT=&p=pub/Education/Edustorm061215.htm
The Center for Public Education. “The Role of School Boards.” The Center for Public Education (2007).
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1505871/
The Education Policy Primer, 2008-2009 Edition. Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education and
Georgia School Boards Association. 2008.
“The Key Work of School Boards”, National School Board Association.
Tierney, William G. and Adrianna Kezar. “Assessing Public Board Performance.” Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California, 2004.
Confidential DRAFT
38
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
CITATIONS
George Lucas Educational Foundation, (. (2005). Five characteristics of an effective school board. The Center
for Public Education; practical information and analysis about public education .
Hardy, L. (2008). Taking Risks for Reform. American School, The Source for School Leaders .
Kavitha Mediratta, S. S. (2008). Organized Communities, Stronger Schools; A Preview of Research Findings. Providence:
Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
McAdams, D. R. (September 2006). Link Your Evaluation to District Performance. The School Administrator .
McAdams, D. R. (May 2004). Whose Job Is It to Lead Reform? The School Administrator .
The Center for Public Education. (2006). The Role of School Boards. The Center for Public Education; practical
information and analysis about public education .
Confidential DRAFT
39
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
APPENDIX
Table of Contents
COMMISSION MEMBERS ............................................................................................................................ 41
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ......................................................................................................... 42
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS .................................................................................................................... 43
TIMELINE ...................................................................................................................................................... 44
REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 45
CITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 46
FACT REFERENCE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 47
EBOARD REFERENCE INDEX ................................................................................................................... 57
REFERENCE ABSTRACTS ........................................................................................................................... 66
MASTER LIST OF RESEARCH ITEMS ........................................................................................................ 73
EXAMPLE REPORTS FOR DISTRICT COMPARISON.............................................................................. 99
Confidential DRAFT
40
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Phil Jacobs, co-chair
Retired President
AT&T Southeast Business
Communications Services,
AT&T Southeast
Gary Price, co-chair
Managing Partner
PricewaterhouseCoopers
SVP, Director Financial Services HR
Synovus
Art Hopkins
President
Macquarium Intelligent Communications
Milton Little
President
United Way of Metro Atlanta
John Rice, co-chair
Vice Chairman of GE
President & CEO,
GE Infrastructure
Helene Lollis
President
Pathbuilders, Inc.
Albert J. Abrams
Vice President, External Affairs
Macon State College
Bill McCargo
VP Human Resources
Scientific Atlanta
Vance D. Bell
CEO
Shaw Industries Group, Inc.
Erica Qualls
General Manager
Atlanta Marriott Marquis
Brooks Coleman
Representative, District 97
Georgia House of Representatives
Diane Sandifer
Harris County School Board
Richard Dorfman
President & CEO
Federal Home Loan Bank
Stephanie Tillman
Vice President &
Associate General Counsel
Flowers Foods, Inc.
Buster Evans
Superintendent
Forsyth County Schools
Dan Weber
Senator, District 40
Georgia Senate
Jeff Firestone
Vice President, Legal Department
UPS Foundation
Philip Wilheit, Sr.
President & CEO
Wilheit Packaging
Ed Heys
Atlanta Deputy Managing Partner
Deloitte
Cathy Hill
Region Manager - Metro South Region
Georgia Power
Albert Hodge
Eleventh Congressional District
Georgia State Board of Education
Audrey Hollingsworth
Confidential DRAFT
41
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Confidential DRAFT
42
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
Renay Blumenthal
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
Helene Lollis
President
Pathbuilders
Brad Bryant
Board Member
Georgia State Board of Education
Jennifer Oliver
Vice President of Communications
AdvancED
Steve Dolinger
President
Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education
Mark Elgart
Chief Executive Officer
AdvancED
Erin Hames
Education Policy Advisor
Office of the Governor
Joy Hawkins
Vice President of Regional Education
Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
Buck Hilliard
Executive Director of State Board of Education
Phil Jacobs
President of AT&T Southeast Business
Communications (retired)
AT&T
Confidential DRAFT
Communication Group
Esther Campi
Senior Vice President, Communications
Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
Ryan Mahoney
Director of Government Affairs
Georgia Chamber of Commerce
Bill Maddox
Director of Communications
Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education
Chanta Waller
Communications Coordinator
Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
Pro bono Consulting provided by North Highland
43
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
TIMELINE
Confidential DRAFT
44
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Gwinnett Board member and Superintendent Interview Notes.” Atlanta, GA, July 24, 2008.
“Introduction.” Edition Education Policy Primer. Georgia Partnership for Education Excellence, 2008-09.
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008
AdvancED. “Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems.” AdvancED, April 2007.
Black, Susan. “The Takeover Threat.” American School Board Journal (January, 2007).
BoardSource. “The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards.” Boardsource,
Washington, DC. 2005.
Carver, John. “Remaking Governance.” American School Board Journal (March 2000).
Carver, John. “Toward Coherent Governance.” The School Administrator, March 2000.
Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Commission Meeting, July, 8, 2008.
Ferrechio, Susan. “Fight to Survive May Show Size of School Board Split.” Washington Times, August 1996.
Georgia Partnership for Education Excellence. “The Economics of Education, Second Edition.” Georgia Partnership
for Education Excellence, 2007.
Georgia School Board Association, “Standards for Local School Boards of Education: Check List.” Georgia School
Board Association, 2008.
Georgia School Boards Association. “A Guide to Effective Boardsmanship.” Georgia School Boards Association,
2006.
Georgia School Boards Association. “About Us.” Georgia School Boards Association, 2004.
http://www.gsba.com/about/about_mission.html.
Goodman, Richard H. and William G. Zimmerman. “Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High School Achievement.” Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service and New England School Development Council, 2000.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Munoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big City School Boards: Problems
and Options. Center on reinventing public education.
Hess, Frederick M. “School Boards at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Conditions and Challenges of District
Governance.” School of Education, Department of Government, University of Virginia, 2002.
Iowa Association of School Boards. “The Lighthouse Inquiry.” Iowa Association of School Boards, October 2000.
Kavitha Mediratta, S. S. (2008). Organized Communities, Stronger Schools; A Preview of Research Findings.
Providence: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
Kezar, Adrianna; James T. Minor; and William G. Tierney. “Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College
and University Boards.” Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California, 2004.
Knapp, Charles. “Tough Choices or Tough Times. The Report of New Commission on The Skills of The American
Workforce.” National Center on Education and the Economy. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.
Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins University. “Local School Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in
Relation to Student’s Academic Achievement,” Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
(CRESPAR), U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
McAdams, Donald R. “20 Indicators of Effective School Boards,” The Center for Reform of School Boards, 2006.
McAdams, Donald R. “Administrative Support for Board Members.” The School Administrator (January 2006).
Confidential DRAFT
45
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
McAdams, Donald R. “Management Oversight But Not Management.” The School Administrator (September, 2004).
McAdams, Donald R. “Planning for Your Own Succession.” The School Administrator. (January 2007).
McAdams, Donald R. “Responding to Board Member Requests for Information.” The School Administrator (March
2008).
McAdams, Donald R. What School Boards Can Do, Reform Governance for Urban School Boards. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2006.
McAdams, Donald R. “The Short, Productive Board Meeting.” The School Administrator (September 2005).
Mediratta, Kavitha; Seema Shah; Sara McAlister; Norm Fruchter; Christina Mokhtar; and Dana Lockwood. “Organized
Communities, Stronger Schools.” Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University, March 2008.
National School Boards Association, “Survey of State Mandated Training for School Boards.” National School Boards
Association, 2004.
National School Boards Association. “National State Survey on School Board Member Term Limits.” National School
Boards Association, 2006.
National School Boards Association. “State Requirements for Local School Board Service.” National School Boards
Association, September 2007.
Page, Deb. “Preparing for a Perfect Storm: Meeting Georgia’s Need for Quality School Leaders.” Georgia Public Policy
Foundation, December 15, 2006. http://www.gppf.org/article.asp?RT=&p=pub/Education/Edustorm061215.htm
The Center for Public Education. “The Role of School Boards.” The Center for Public Education (2007).
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1505871/
The Education Policy Primer, 2008-2009 Edition. Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education and Georgia School
Boards Association. 2008.
“The Key Work of School Boards,” National School Board Association.
Tierney, William G. and Adrianna Kezar. “Assessing Public Board Performance.” Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis, University of Southern California, 2004.
CITATIONS
George Lucas Educational Foundation, (2005). Five Characteristics of an Effective School Board. The Center for Public
Education; practical information and analysis about public education .
Hardy, L. (2008). Taking Risks for Reform. American School, The Source for School Leaders .
Kavitha Mediratta, S. S. (2008). Organized Communities, Stronger Schools; A Preview of Research Findings. Providence:
Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
McAdams, D. R. (September 2006). Link Your Evaluation to District Performance. The School Administrator .
McAdams, D. R. (May 2004). Whose Job Is It to Lead Reform? The School Administrator .
The Center for Public Education. (2006). The Role of School Boards. The Center for Public Education; practical information
and analysis about public education.
Confidential DRAFT
46
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
FACT REFERENCE RESEARCH
Arcement, B. (2007). The Catalyst. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: As school board members, your performance sets the tone and, ultimately,
the public's perception of your district.
Black, S. (2008). A Guide to Excellence in the Boardroom. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Board members should never accept excuses for poor performance and
disparities in achievement. Members should become "informed activists" by studying tests
and assessments, sorting and classifying student data, updating district goals, and
supporting reforms to improve teaching and learning. Excellence in the boardroom is the
first step to excellent achievement in your schools.
Black, S. (2008). The Keys to Board Excellence. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Board members should never accept excuses for poor performance and
disparities in achievement. Members should become "informed activists" by studying tests
and assessments, sorting and classifying student data, updating district goals, and
supporting reforms to improve teaching and learning. Excellence in the boardroom is the
first step to excellent achievement in your schools.
Black, S. (2008). The Takeover Threat. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: The threat of mayoral and state takeovers is real. Today, takeovers are
permitted by statute in about half the states, and they’re allowed by some city charters. The
question is: Do takeovers work? Despite political criticism, posturing, and rhetoric from
public school opponents, research on the financial or academic impact of takeovers
remains sparse.
Board, S. (2006). Shared Values, Shared Success. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Your board must work as a team. A first step is establishing a code of
conduct and operational guidelines, sometimes called operating principles. This foundation
piece is a cornerstone for building a positive climate and a healthy learning community for
everyone in the district. Once the school board develops its principles, it’s easier to
encourage the involvement of everyone in the district to develop districtwide principles.
Bond, S. (2006). Shared Values, Shared Success. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders .
ABSTRACT: Your board must work as a team. A first step is establishing a code of
conduct and operational guidelines, sometimes called operating principles. This foundation
piece is a cornerstone for building a positive climate and a healthy learning community for
everyone in the district. Once the school board develops its principles, it’s easier to
encourage the involvement of everyone in the district to develop districtwide principles.
Bovich, R. (2006). Lessons from a Scandal. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Public schools constitute one of America’s largest industries, with nearly
15,000 districts handling more than 47 million students and annual budgets that total in
the hundreds of billions of dollars. School board members must display the highest level
of honor and integrity when using this money to educate students served within their
communities. As the district's watchdogs, they have one of the most important jobs in the
community.
Canada, B. O. (2007). Gathering Intelligence. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: New board members and administrators must have the right information
and know how to use it.
Carr, N. (2006). From Transparency to Trust. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
Confidential DRAFT
47
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
ABSTRACT: If only 2 percent of Americans rank CEOs as very trustworthy, can school
leaders expect much more? Restoring trust demands a radical new approach to conducting
the public’s business. In a tell-all society, telling it like it is may be the only way to build
credibility with key groups. That’s why transparency—making sure processes are visible,
accessible, open to participation, and accountable—is gaining momentum in school
communications.
Carr, N. (2005). Process Meets Progress. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: When it comes to complexity, a large urban school system is every bit as
complicated as a Fortune 500 company. Both must manage large bureaucracies, set goals
and prioritize, and respond to a constantly changing business or educational environment.
But unless each of these institutions is strong and focused at the top, those who are in the
trenches cannot do their job.
Carr, N. (2007). The Art of Spokesmanship. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: In today’s media-saturated world, school districts need to speak in one clear
voice, and the person doing the speaking could be you. If school leaders want to reclaim
their rightful roles as the face and voice of public education, they have to spend more time
honing their ability to communicate wisely and well.
Carr, N. (2007). Winning School Finance Elections. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: The old tried-and-true strategies aren't working like they once did, but you
can sway skittish voters with sound strategy and creative engagement.
Carr, N. (2006). Working Together. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: School boards still fail to invest adequately in school communications. Some
fear alienating taxpayers and teachers. Others feel constrained by dwindling funds. A few
don't think communicating with employees, parents, and the public is all that important.
Given today's pressure-cooker demands on public schools, spending more on
communications pays important dividends.
Castallo, R., & Natale, J. (2005). A Climate of Understanding. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Great support for teachers. A real attempt at community outreach. And a
school board that lacked vision and purpose and went in different directions at different
times. That was the situation in the 4,700-student Warwick Valley (N.Y.) Schools less than
three years ago, when the district decided to rethink its philosophy of governance. How
one district's board and superintendent put aside their differences and learned to work
together as a team.
Colgan, C. (2005). The New Look of School Safety. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: The school safety field has evolved rapidly over the past decade. Theories
deemed cutting edge five years ago have been replaced by new programs and approaches
designed to combat fighting, bullying, and behavioral issues that arise in schools every day.
For administrators and board members, keeping up with these rapid changes in the field of
school safety remains a constant challenge—one that is complicated by budget. But some
news shows that these school safety efforts are working.
Cook, G. (2006). Comings and Goings. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Superintendent transitions, even under the best circumstances, bring
uncertainty to organizations that require stability to thrive. Handled successfully,
superintendent transitions can improve achievement. Handled poorly, they can put your
district into a spin cycle that disrupts morale, creates tension, and causes problems in
schools for years to come.
Cook, G. (2006). Squeeze Play. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
Confidential DRAFT
48
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
ABSTRACT: From politicians to parents to advocacy groups, school boards are being
pressured on all sides. Over the past two-plus decades, the tradition of local control has
been shaken to its core, beset by state and federal mandates, battles over consolidation and
choice, and the growth of well-funded national organizations that put schools at the center
of the political and culture wars. Parents, chafed by loss of control, are taking out their
frustrations on board members.
Cronin, J. M., Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman Jr., W. G. (2004). Finding the Best. American School Board Journal. The
Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Improving student achievement is the desire of parents and teachers, and it
is the foundation on which the No Child Left Behind Act is based. But what is the magic
that results in some districts having a strong board-superintendent leadership team that
focuses on doing just that? How to attract and retain outstanding school board members.
Eadie, D. (2007). A Precious But Fragile Bond. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: What is at the very top of the list of factors that influence the educational
and administrative performance of every school district? The answer is simple. It’s the
most precious but always-fragile professional marriage between the school board and its
chief executive officer, the superintendent. When this precious bond is allowed to become
badly frayed, your school system is in for real trouble. The cost of a ruptured boardsuperintendent partnership can be awesome.
Eadie, D. (2008). Becoming a Champion for Change. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Every school board and superintendent have a clear choice in determining
your "governing design"—the board's role, structure and processes. You can inherit the
board of the past, taking the path of least resistance and minimum pain—or you can take
the initiative in developing your board's governing capacity.
Eadie, D. (2003). High-Impact Governing. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: No school board can go it alone in accomplishing its complex and
demanding governing work. The indispensable foundation for high-impact governing is a
working partnership between the board and the superintendent that is close, positive,
productive, and solid. One key to keeping the relationship healthy is for your school board
to play an active role in overseeing the performance of the superintendent as your district’s
chief executive officer (CEO).
Eadie, D. (2007). Hiring a Board Savvy Superintendent. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: When deciding who to pick for the top job, board members should look for
several telling characteristics among the candidates.
Eadie, D. (2008). Implementing Board Committees. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: If organized and run properly, committees are a proven tool for high-impact
governing. Getting these powerful "governing engines" up and running takes two major
steps -- a set of detailed guidelines to govern the operations and a staff support structure
and process.
Eadie, D. (2007). Life in the Governance Sphere. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: For new board members and administrators, getting a firm grasp of the 'business' is key to your longterm effectiveness.
Eadie, D. (2007). Taking One for the Team. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: To develop good relations among board members, you must pay more than
lip service to the notion of working together
Eadie, D. (2008). The Board-Superintendent Rx. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.

ABSTRACT: School boards around the country have taken very practical steps to ensure that the very
precious, high-stakes--but oh, so fragile--working relationship with the superintendent remains close, positive,
Confidential DRAFT
49
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
productive, and enduring. Easily the most important step is implementing a well-designed and executed process
for evaluating superintendent performance.
Edmonds School District No. 15. (1993). School Board Policy Index: 1800 - Evaluation of School Board Operational
Procedures. Lynnwood: Edmonds School District.
Fitzpatrick, J. (2005). According to Plan. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: “Nail down what the board expects from you in the first year—and get it in
writing.” That was the advice I was given when I became superintendent. But what the
board said it wanted had little to do with the strategic plan that had been in place for six
years. The solution was to transform the plan into a practical document that reflected both
short-term goals and our vision for the future. Here’s the story of how we did it.
Folly, L. C. (2007). Marking High School Reform Work. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Any plan to reshape high schools needs time, resources, and purpose to be
successful.
Glass, T. E. (2005). Management Matters. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: What is the superintendent's primary role? Ask school board members, and
most will say it is leadership. Few will cite management as the primary responsibility. We
want our superintendents to be visionary leaders, but chances for reform are slim if they're
not good managers, too.
Glass, T. E. (2005). The Big Paycheck. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: The Executive Educator's Guide to superintendent salaries and
compensation. Imagine this scenario: Your board is looking to hire a dynamic,
accomplished superintendent to lead your district. But in trying to balance the demands of
the marketplace with the expectations of your staff and community, you know it will be
tough to meet the superintendent’s salary and compensation demands. Does this sound
familiar? The answer is probably yes.
Goens, G. A. (2008). The Promise of Living. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders , 1-4.
ABSTRACT: By George Goens. All education comes from relationships.
Goens, G. (2003). Winging It. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Ask school boards what they want in a superintendent, and they’ll inevitably
say they’re looking for someone who is good at planning. Our firm helps many school
boards in their search for a school leader, and we often hear board members say, “We
want a superintendent who can implement our strategic plans and get results.” We seldom
hear anyone say, “We want a person who can improvise.” And that’s too bad. Like jazz
musicians, the best school leaders can improvise with skill.
Guthrie, J. W. (2002). Who Holds the Purse Strings. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: School finance was once the clear and protected domain of board members
and superintendents. Schools received money from state and federal governments. With
few limitations, and most of those on federal funds, the school board then decided how
the money should be spent. State authority, however, is now eclipsing local authority in
school finance matters. If the trend toward state centralized financial power continues,
school boards could see themselves edged out of their roles as citizen overseers of their
schools.
Hardy, L. (2008). The Risk Paradox. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: When ASBJ asked education consultant Deborah Meier to name some failed
and successful school reforms of the past three decades, she e-mailed back this short reply:
"In fact, the successes have also been the failures." Let's take a look at what has worked,
what hasn't, and why.
Hardy, L. (2007). The Value of Collaboration. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
Confidential DRAFT
50
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
ABSTRACT: To avoid takeovers, school districts must learn to collaborate with city
leaders
Harmon, H. L., & Dickens, B. H. (2004). Reaching Out in Rural Districts. American School Board Journal. The Source for
School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: When it comes to parent and community involvement in schools, there's no
such thing as too much. Reams of research and anecdotal evidence show that the most
effective school districts have a strong partnership amongh the schools, the community,
and the home. In small communities, partnerships with parents and the public are keys to
school success.
Haycock, K., & Chenoweth, K. (2005). Choosing to Make a Difference. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: No decision you make as a school board member is more important than
the decision you make about the effects of poverty and social problems on your students.
There are some things, of course, about which you don’t have much choice—including the
fact that, in many districts, a significant number of children arrive at your doors behind. If
we just give these students education of exactly the same quality as other students, chances
are they will leave behind as well.
Hess, F. M. (2003). The Voice of the People. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Even as the nation struggles to advance democracy abroad, there is growing
sentiment that school improvement is hampered by an excess of democracy at home.
Appalled by our inability to significantly improve urban schools, prominent professors and
policy makers have suggested that—at least in urban districts—we replace locally elected
school boards with boards appointed by state officials or the mayor.
Holmes, C. S. (2007). Putting Students First. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Putting students first spurred three school boards to create the programs
taking top honors in this year's Magna Awards. Though radically different in size and
geography, the three grand-prize-winning school districts share a vision for public
education that succeeds because of community cooperation.
Howell, W. G. (2005). School Boards Surrounded. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Almost every week another judge, legislator, or bureaucrat dreams up
another rule or regulation that intends to fix some perceived educational problem. And, in
the process, each further constricts the freedom of local education institutions that
historically have assumed primary responsibility for governing public schools. Would-be
reformers are coming from nearly every direction, and they are coming all the time.
Johnson, J. H., & Armistead, L. (2007). Win-Win Partnerships. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Across the nation, school board members and administrators are seeing how
their districts benefit when corporations, universities, and local businesses come together
in partnerships. Partnerships range from providing mentors for students, to offering
leadership training for principals and other administrators, to recognition programs for
teachers, students, and others. These partnerships can be critical for districts that are time
strapped and cash squeezed.
Judson, E., Schwartz, P., Allen, K., & Miel, T. (2008). Rescuing Distressed Schools. American School Board Journal. The
Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: NCLB has affected state departments of education as much as any other
type of institution. Looming in the legislation was the knowledge that any school that
repeatedly failed to meet academic standards could be subject to state intervention. This
was a new direction for the Arizona Department of Education. We were just as nervous
about the concept of state intervention as the schools.
Kinsella, M., & Richards, P. (2004). Supporting School Leaders. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
Confidential DRAFT
51
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
ABSTRACT: We hear a great deal these days about the high rate of teacher turnover. Less
well publicized is the anticipated shortage of school administrators. Recruiting, hiring,
and—most important—retaining the best leaders seem to be constant tasks for school
boards. Providing mentoring for new administrators can make the difference. Mentor
programs for novice administrators help school leaders do a better job—and stay in their
positions longer.
Land, D. (2002). Local School Boards Under Review; Their Role and Effectiveness in Relation to Students' Academic Achievement.
Johns Hopkins University: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).
ABSTRACT: This report provides a review of literature published in the past two decades
on the role and effectiveness of school boards. Though school boards are but one
component of school district leadership—the superintendent and other district
administrators and staff constituting the other main components—school boards are the
focus of this review because they have a distinct role and have been understudied. The
report is organized into five major sections. First, a brief history of school boards is
presented, and then their current state is described. The charge that school boards are
outmoded and should be eliminated cannot be addressed adequately without an
understanding of how they have evolved and currently function. Next, school boards and
educational governance reforms are examined in order to describe the larger context in
which school boards operate and to explore how school boards have been, and might be,
reformed in the future. In a separate section, characteristics of effective school boards that
have been identified by school board experts are described. Because qualitative and
quantitative research on school boards is limited, the final section is devoted to discussion
of research limitations and future directions.
Larson, D., & Rader, R. (2006). Working Together. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: It goes without saying that a good working relationship between the school
board and the superintendent is key to a school district’s success. But does your district or
state have policies that outline how to achieve that, and have you taken the steps to make
those policies work? Connecticut’s board-superintendent governance statement provides a
road map for success.
Maloney, R. (2006). Who's in Charge. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Washington Post columnist William Raspberry recently aimed his pen at an
urban school board that hired a new superintendent as the first step in district reform.
Decrying the seemingly never-ending cycle of such searches, he compared superintendent
turnover with replacing bus drivers on a vehicle whose brakes are shot, gauges are rusty,
and steering is loose. Raspberry’s preferred solution: Fix the bus. What’s wrong with the
bus? And—whose driving it?
Manley, R. J. (2005). A Tune-up Toolkit for Boards. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Are your board meetings the best theatrical performance in town? Or maybe
your board has it all together. Chances are, your board falls somewhere between these two
extremes, and you probably have a fairly good idea of where that is. Assessing where you
stand is good, but do you have a detailed plan for improvement?
Mass Insight Education and Research Institute, I. (April-May, 2008). Urban districts continue to target underperforming
schools. Urban Advocate, A membership benefit of NSBA National Affiliates , 5.
McAdams, D. R. (2002). Strengthening Urban Boards. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: School districts are the buckle in the American system of public education.
They hold together communities and schools and translate state policy into effective
action. They provide schools with resources, personnel, standards, operating policies,
support services, and management systems. Clearly, however, not all school districts—or
school boards—are as effective as they should be.
Confidential DRAFT
52
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Mendrick, R., Reed, D., & Wischnowski, M. (2007). Unspoken Rules. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Make your board's implicit rules explicit through a customs manual.
Nugent, P. (2008). Moving on Up. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Due to the leadership shortage school districts are facing, succession
planning is more critical than ever. It involves a proactive process of systematically
identifying, developing, retaining, and promoting people with high potential to ensure
leadership continuity in key positions. "Growing your own" can save considerable time
and money in the long run.
Peretz, J. (2007). All the Right Moves. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Five Wisconsin school districts develop a planning system that saves money
and streamlines business practices.
Petrides, L., & Nodine, T. (2006). Crunching the Numbers. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Districts are collecting more data than ever, but are they using it to improve
performance? With so much public attention devoted to accountability in education, many
districts are gathering more data than ever before—from student test scores to
departmental performance indicators. However, capturing data is only the first step. By
asking timely questions, you school board can build a culture of inquiry that uses school
data to improve instruction and other functions.
Pierce, M. (2003). Canada's Crossroads. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: School boards in the United States have come under increased scrutiny over
the past decade, but the pace of change is nothing compared to what has taken place in
Canada, where the number of school boards has been radically reduced over the past
seven years. This has left Canada’s school governance with many challenges and left the
future of our country’s school boards at a crossroads.
Popham, W. J. (2002). Right Task, Wrong Tool. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Most Americans, and that includes school board members, believe the best
way to evaluate a school is to see how well its students perform on a standardized
achievement test. Despite the pervasiveness of this belief, however, it is quite wrong.
Quinn, T. (2005). Plan to Succeed. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: A poll conducted by the Principals Center at the Harvard Graduate School
of Education in 2001 sought to determine the most common approaches districts use to
address the school leader shortage. “Nothing” led the list with 30 percent. When your
superintendent leaves, will your board face a leadership vacuum or will you have a
succession plan in place?
Sack-Min, J. (2007). Building the Perfect School. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: As school design moves into the 21st century, architects and planners look
at trends that are taking hold.
Saltzman, M. (2005). Communications from the Inside Out. American School Board Journal. The Source for School
Leaders.
ABSTRACT: It happens more often than you think. Your district spends time and money
on publications and speaking engagements to persuade voters to pass a bond issue, only to
learn that an elementary school custodian has sabotaged your best efforts by telling his
neighbors how the district wastes money. In school public relations, employees often are
the forgotten audience.
Schmoker, M. (2007). A Chance for Change. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: The great irony of our time is that the brutal reality of poor instruction is
seldom addressed or even mentioned at school board meetings. It isn’t written about in
Confidential DRAFT
53
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
the education section of newspapers or honestly discussed at faculty or central office
meetings. It works silently to cripple every well-meant improvement initiative. There is a
fairly simple way out. We can turn the tide immediately by instituting the most effective,
widely recognized structure for guaranteeing effective teaching and coherent curriculum:
professional learning communities.
Spanneut, G. (2008). Growing Their Own. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Once they realized that the best way to find and keep qualified building-level
administrators was to grow them themselves, the Wayne-Finger Lakes BOCES created
their Leadership Institute with four goals in mind: identify entry-level school leaders from
educators within their schools and region; give candidates a chance to learn about
educational leadership; offer them incentives to pursue graduate programs for
administration certification; and provide them with paid internships.
Stover, D. (2002). Looking for Leaders. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: It’s getting harder and harder to find a top-quality urban school
superintendent. Urban districts find that the pool of qualified superintendents is shrinking.
Perhaps the strongest evidence that the shortage is making itself felt is seen in the market
price of superintendents. It hardly takes an expert in the law of supply and demand to
recognize the implications of rising superintendent pay.
Stover, D. (July-August, 2007). Putting a Stop to Policy Churn. Urban Advocate, A membership benefit of NSBA National
Affiliates , 1, 6-7.
Stover, D. (2001-2002). Superintendent Tenure. Alexandria: National School Boards Association’s Council of Urban Boards
of Education.
Stover, D. (2007). Take It to the Limit. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: As large-city mayors continue efforts to gain control of schools, the track
record for takeovers remains mixed.
Tambucci, S. (2006). The Promise of Arts Education. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: More frequently than most of us can imagine, arts educators are functioning
as change agents in the school improvement process. But for that to happen takes vision,
creativity, and administrative support. The arts make classroom learning relevant, engage
active learning, and provide a way for students to discover and learn to embrace the value
and duties of citizenship. Far from being a 'frill,' arts education provides opportunities for
renewal and reform.
The Education Policy and Leadership Center. (2004). Strengthening the Work of School Boards in Pennsylvania, K-12 Governance
Project. EPLC Reports and Publications.
Thiel, W. B. (2008). Building for the Future. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Futurists would have us believe there will be no school buildings within the
next 50 years. Facilities planners are talking about wireless schools and schools without
books, paper, or even walls. That might not be the case, but there's no question that
student learning methods are shaping design trends.
Trainor, C. K. (2006). Sharp-Eyed Oversight. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: How can school leaders prevent fraud or carelessness in the finance office?
The attitude at the top is critical. The school board must have policies and procedures in
place that send a clear message to all employees that honesty and integrity are essential.
Just as important, guidelines need to be in place for addressing noncompliance.
Usdan, M. D. (2005). A Story of School Governance. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: When Alan Bersin steps down as superintendent of the San Diego City
Schools this June—a year before his contract is due to expire—it will mark the end of a
creative but tumultuous experiment in urban education. How governance issues played out
between Bersin and the five-member elected school board has important implications for
other school districts, especially urban ones.
Confidential DRAFT
54
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Vail, K. (2002). Urban Success Stories. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Cynics have said that urban schools are beyond redemption, too crushed by
the poverty and social ills of their students and communities to change. But people who
work in and attend city schools know these cynics are wrong. Here are seven urban
districts that, through different means and different philosophies, have proven that urban
school reform can be accomplished. And they all started with a plan.
Vaugh, V. (2007). The Search for Character. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: What are you looking for in a superintendent? Your ultimate action can
sometimes uncover your motives.
Wadsworth, D., Nathan, J., Hess, F. M., Dragseth, K. A., Sokoloff, H., Reeves, D. B., et al. (2003). Conversations Along
the Road. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: There was a time when the public schools were a vital part of the fabric of
community life—when to be a teacher was a noble calling, when to serve on the school
board was a badge of civic pride, when citizens believed in the power of public education
to uplift and improve society. In some lucky communities, this is all still true. But in many
others, the pace and pressure and complexity of modern life have chipped away at much
of what was best about public education.
Walsh, R. (2008). Developing Board Leadership. American School Board Journal. National School Boards Journal.
ABSTRACT: Elk Mound Area School District, Elk Mound, Wis.
Ward, M. (2007). Practitioners and Practice. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: Comedian Paul Reiser has a routine in which he explores Americans’
inordinate faith in "them" and what "they" say. There is an ill-founded assumption in
public schools that some people somewhere else—"they"—are sorting out the big issues
while the administrators and practitioners tend to the daily business of running schools.
Yet, the absence of strategic thinking is hindering the breakthrough solutions and
innovations that are necessary for public schools to remain viable.
Wilson, B. A. (2004). School board-superintendent relations: Impact of new board member orientation on effective
school governance. Purdue University.
ABSTRACT: This study examined the impact that school board-member orientation had
on effective school governance. Smoley's (1999) Model for School Board Effectiveness
provided the theoretical foundation for the research. School-board orientation programs
consisted of five categories: no participation at any level, locally-developed programs,
Indiana School Boards Association (ISBA)-developed programs, a combination of local
and ISBA-developed programs, and other training. The board assessment portion of the
survey was organized into six areas of board operations: making decisions, group
functioning, exercising authority, community connections, board improvement, and acting
strategically. This study also examined the perceptions of board effectiveness reported by
school superintendents and school board presidents. Research data were collected with a
survey instrument designed to measure school board effectiveness as it pertained to the
board-member orientation program utilized by each participant's school corporation. The
sample population was every public school superintendent and school board president in
the state of Indiana. A total of 586 surveys were distributed for the study. Superintendents
returned a total of 169 surveys while board presidents returned a total of 114 surveys. The
data were analyzed using a two-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure
followed by Tukey's post hoc procedure. School corporations that offered a combination
of local and ISBA orientation methods had more effective school boards when compared
to school corporations that did not offer any type of board member orientation. When
offered separately, school-board member participation in local or ISBA orientation
programs did not have an impact on board effectiveness. Participation of school board
members in an orientation program that combined both local and ISBA training methods
Confidential DRAFT
55
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
produced more effective school boards in all six areas of board operations. Analyses
conducted on the perceptions of effectiveness discovered that school board presidents
believed that their boards of education were more effective when a combination of local
and ISBA orientation programs was utilized to train new board members. A positive trend
in the perceptions of board effectiveness between superintendents and school board
presidents was discovered in the operational areas of community connections, board
improvement, and acting strategically when additional training efforts were offered to new
board members.
Zorn, R. L. (2008). Educating New Board Members. American School Board Journal. The Source for School Leaders.
ABSTRACT: With the average board member serving either one or two terms, periodic
turnover is inevitable, as is the need for training those joining your board. But who should
conduct the training? And how do you ensure new board members are getting the training
they need?
Confidential DRAFT
56
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
EBOARD REFERENCE INDEX
The link to the Commission website: https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Index.aspx?S=61187
This document is an index of reports, articles and presentations available to the Commission for School Board
Excellence and the public at large. The Document Repository is located on the Documents tab of the Commission
website. The Documents tab is organized by folders. Links to specific documents can be accessed on the Documents
tab as well as within folders on the Documents tab.
Visitors to the website do not need to log-in. The Commission website is hosted by the Georgia School Boards
Association and can, also, be accessed from GSBA website, www.gsba.com .
ID
Location/Folder
Item
Description
McAdams, Donald R. “20 Indicators
of Effective School Boards,” The
Center for Reform of School Boards.
2006.
Carver, John. “Remaking
Governance.” American School Board
Journal. (March 2000).
20 Indicators compiled by the Center for Reform of
School Systems that identify high performing school
boards.
A.1
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
A.10
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
A.11
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Hess, Frederick M. “School Boards at
the Dawn of the 21st Century,
Conditions and Challenges of District
Governance.” School of Education,
Department of Government,
University of Virginia, 2002.
Conditions and challenges of local school boards,
statistics and trends on local school boards across the
nation. University of Virginia study prepared for
National School Board Assoc.
A.12
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
National School Boards Association,
“Survey of State Mandated Training
for School Boards.” National School
Boards Association. 2004.
Spreadsheet providing a survey by state of mandated
training for local school boards.
A.13
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
National School Boards Association.
“Survey on Mandated State
Requirements for School Board
Service.” National School Boards
Association, September 2007.
Spreadsheet providing a survey of mandated
requirements for local school board service by state.
A.14
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Carver, John. “Toward Coherent
The creator of the Policy Governance model
Governance.” The School Administrator. describes new role in which the superintendent
(March 2000)
operates like a genuine CEO.
A.15
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
BoardSource. “The Source: Twelve The twelve principles provide board members with a
Principles of Governance That Power vision of what is possible and a way to add lasting
Exceptional Boards.” BoardSource. value to the organization they lead.
Washington, DC. 2005.
A.16
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
McAdams, Donald R. Various Articles
on a variety of school board and
superintendent subjects. The School
Administrator, (various publications)
Confidential DRAFT
The creator of Policy Governance challenges school
boards to change.
Various one pagers published in The School
Administrator that summarize recommended
practices specific to the school board and the
superintendent.
57
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
A.17
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
This policy paper answers the call for information on
Tierney, William G., Adrianna
public board performance by describing a national
Kezar. “Assessing Public Board
study of public university governing boards.
Performance”, Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis, University
of Southern California, 20??.
A.18
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Vilani, Joe. “Core Board Planning
Very good, comprehensive summary of the Key
Considerations, Questions, Roles and Work materials from NASB and Joe Vilani.
Agenda Items.” National School
Board Association, 2008.
A.19
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Tierney, William G., Adrianna
Kezar, and James T. Minor.
“Selection and Appointment of
Trustees to Public College and
University Boards.” Center for
Higher Education Policy Analysis,
University of Southern California.
2004.
A.2
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Ward, Dr. Carter and Arthur Griffin Provides example and the 5 characteristics of
Jr. “Five Characteristics of Effective effective school boards.
School Board.” The Center for Public
Education, 2005.
A.20
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Collins, Jim. Good to Great and the
Social Sectors. A Monography to
Accompany Good to Great. New
York: HarperCollins, November 30,
2005.
Summarizes the criteria to be used in the selection of
members for public boards of trustees. These
findings have been based on 132 interviews with
leaders in higher education. Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis.
Table outlining the differences between private and
public sectors within the Good to Great framework.
A.21 - A. School Board
Hard/ Governance –
Copy Reports/Articles
Only
Tonello, Matteo and Carolyn Kay
Handbook by The Conference Board detailing the
Brancato. Corporate Governance
roles, responsibilities, policies, procedures, processes
Handbook 2007, Legal Standards and and structure of a corporate board.
Board Practices. The Conference
Board, 2007.
A.22
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins
A comprehensive study into the local school board’s
University. “Local School Boards
role and effectiveness in relation to students’
Under Review: Their Role and
academic achievement.
Effectiveness in Relation to Student’s
Academic Achievement,” Center for
Research on the Education of
Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR),
U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
A.23
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Hill, Paul T., Kelly Warner-King,
Christine Campbell, Meaghan
McElroy, Isabel Munoz-Colon. “Big
City Boards, Problems, Options for
Better Boards.” Center on
Reinventing Public Education,
December 2002.
Confidential DRAFT
A University of Washington and Gates Foundation
report focusing on problems of big city boards and
the various incremental and radical changes that are
required to solve the problems.
58
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
A.24
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Council of Urban School Boards of
Examples of urban board of education excellence
Education. “Urban School Board
compiled by the Council of Urban School Boards of
Excellence” Council of Urban School Education of the NASB.
Boards of Education, 2007.
A.25
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Cook, Glenn. “Squeeze Play.”
Examples of the multiple impacts and influencers on
American School Board Journal, 2006. local school boards today.
A.26
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Felton, Reginald. “Local School
Boards: reflections of American
Democracy.” The Center for Public
Education, 2006.
A.27
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Office of Educational Research and Review of the use of policy in the focus and
Improvement. “Using School Board improvement of student achievement.
Policy to Improve Student
Achievement.” Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education, ERIC
Digest 163, December 2002.
A.28
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Elgart, Mark. “Board Governance
Legislation: Areas to Consider,
Comments by Mark Elgart.”
AdvancED, 2008.
Areas of board governance legislation to consider
presented by Mark Elgart of AdvancED.
A.29
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Todras, Ellen. “The Changing Role of
School Boards.” Office of
Educational Research and
Improvement, May 1993.
Summary of issues and recommendations proposed
in the early 1990s. Many of these recommendations
such as board as a policy making body only, holding
board accountable for school performance, and focus
on student achievement. Other far reaching, drastic
reforms are proposed as well.
A.3
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
National School Boards Association.
“National State Survey on School
Board Member Term Limits.”
National School Boards Association,
2006.
Survey of the State School Boards Associations on
Term Limits for Local Board Members, 2006.
A.4
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Goodman, Richard H. and William G.
Zimmerman. “Thinking Differently:
Recommendations for 21st Century
School Board/Superintendent
Leadership, Governance and
Teamwork for High School
Achievement.” Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service and
New England School Development
Council. 2000.
Excellent study that promotes recommendations
regarding school board governance,
board/superintendent relationship, leadership and
their impact on education excellence.
Confidential DRAFT
Theoretical discussion on local school boards and
democracy.
59
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
A.5
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Dawson, Linda J. “Coherent
Specific examples of schools systems that have
Governance: A board-superintendent boards that raised the bar in student achievement.
relationship based on defined goals
AdvancED
can raise achievement.” American
Association of School Administrators,
2004.
A.6
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Oliver, Jennifer. “Listing of Best
School board data points and best practices that have
Practices from Research.” AdvancED, been pulled from nationally known experts and
2008.
respected research from across the country.
A.7
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Iowa Association of School Boards.
“IASB’s Lighthouse Study: School
Boards and Student Achievement.”
Iowa Association of School Boards,
Iowa School Board Compass, V, 2: (Fall
2000).
Summary report highlighting the findings of the
Lighthouse Study by the Iowa School Board
Foundation. It focused on the linkages between local
school boards and high student achievement. It
found that school boards have a profound impact on
the opportunity of systems to foster student
achievement.
A.8
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Iowa Association of School Boards.
“Lighthouse Study on School Board
and the Link to Student
Achievement.” Iowa Association of
School Boards, 2000.
Full technical report of which The Lighthouse
Summary Report is based.
A.9
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Compiled by AdvancED. School
Board Governance Reform Articles
and Research. AdvancED, 2008.
Bullet point data and research regarding school
boards and reform efforts.
B.1
B. Public Education - Levin, Henry, Clive Belfield, Peter
Reports
Muennig, Cecilia Rouse. “The Costs
and Benefits of an Excellent
Education for All of America’s
Children” Columbia University,
January 2007.
B.10
B. Public Education - Stover, Del. “Putting a Stop to Policy Examples of how school boards are addressing
Reports
Churn,” Urban Advocate, (July-August problematic policies, policy development and policy
2007) p. 1, 6, 7.
consistency and the resulting improvement in
performance.
B.11
B. Public Education - Hull, Jim. “Measuring Student
Appropriately measuring student academic progress.
Reports
Growth: A Guide for Informed
Decision Making.” The Center for
Public Education, November 9, 2007.
B.12
B. Public Education - Alliance for Excellent Education.
Reports
“Hidden Benefits: The Impact of
High School Graduation on
Household Wealth.” Alliance for
Excellent Education, February 2007.
B.13
A. School Board
Governance –
Reports/Articles
Confidential DRAFT
Highly technical report on the actual costs and
benefits of a quality education in America. Columbia
University.
Analysis of high school graduation on household
wealth.
Barth, Patte. “A Guide to Standards- What is standards-based reform, its history and a
Based Reform.” The Center for
review of how it is done.
Public Education, March 23, 2006.
60
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
B.14
B. Public Education - Hess, Frederick M. and Andrew J.
Reports
Rotherham. “NCLB and the
Competitiveness Agenda: Happy
Collaboration or a Collision Course?”
American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, January 8,
2007.
A discussion on NCLB and concerns regarding the
slighting of high achieving students and AdvancED
instruction and how this issue might impact the US
high level science/math competitiveness.
B.15
B. Public Education - National Center on Education and the
Reports
Economy. “Tough Choices or Tough
Times Executive Summary.” National
Center on Education and the
Economy, 2007.
Summary of a book developed by the New
Commission on the Skills of the American
Workforce. It identifies the challenges the US is up
against in the face of international economic
competition.
B.3
B. Public Education - Roza, Marguerite, School Finance
Reports
Redesign Project. “Research Brief:
Funding Allocation Reform.” Center
for Reinventing Public Education,
May 2008.
Summary report on problems with public school
system funding and possible reforms from University
of Washington and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.
B.4
B. Public Education - “Reading First Impact Study.”
Reports
National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
US DOE, April 2008.
This report presents preliminary findings from the
Reading First Impact Study, a congressionally
mandated evaluation of the federal government’s $1.0
billion-per-year initiative to help all children read at
or above grade level by the end of third grade. The
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110)
established Reading First (Title I, Part B, Subpart 1)
and mandated its evaluation.
B.5
B. Public Education - Fuller, Howard. “An Impossible Job: Findings from research into public school leadership,
Reports
A View from the Urban
University of Washington and the Gates Foundation.
Superintendent’s Chair.” Center for
Reinventing Public Education, July
2003.
B.6
B. Public Education - McKinsey & Company. “How the
Excellent study of best of breed school systems and
Reports
World’s Best School Systems Come
successful turn-around approaches across the globe.
out on Top.” McKinsey & Company,
September 2007.
B.7
B. Public Education - Hill Paul T. The School Finance
Reports
Redesign Project: A Synthesis of
Work to Date.” Center for
Reinventing Public Education, January
15, 2008.
The project objective is to help elected officials better
understand how the finance system now works and
to identify their options in allocating resources to
support K-12 education. This interim report explains
the questions posed, the research strategies
employed, and the ways in which results will be
presented. It also previews some early findings.
B.8
B. Public Education - “Turning Around Chronically LowReports
Performing Schools.” The National
Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, US DOE, May
2008.
The goal of this practice guide is to formulate specific
and coherent evidence-based recommendations for
use by educators aiming to quickly and dramatically
improve student achievement in low-performing
schools.
Confidential DRAFT
61
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
B.9
B. Public Education - “Urban districts continue to Target
Reports
Under Performing Schools,” Urban
Advocate, (April-May 2008) pg. 5.
Example of how school board is targeting under
performing schools in the urban setting.
C.1
C. AdvancED –
SACS-CASI
Standards Docs
AdvancED. “SAR Overall
Assessment Rubric.” AdvancED,
2007.
AdvancED's school assessment framework.
C.2
C. AdvancED –
SACS-CASI
Standards Docs
AdvancED. “AdvancED
Accreditation Standards for Quality
School Systems.” AdvancED, 2007.
School District accreditation standards manual.
D.1
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards:
Boards Association – Accountability.” National School
Key Work
Boards Association, 2007.
Key action areas that focus and guide school boards
in their efforts to improve student achievement.
D.10
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards:
Boards Association – Standards.” National School Boards
Key Work
Association, 2007.
Key action areas that focus and guide school boards
in their efforts to improve student achievement.
D.11
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards:
Boards Association – Vision.” National School Boards
Key Work
Association, 2007.
Key action areas that focus and guide school boards
in their efforts to improve student achievement.
D.2
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards:
Key action areas that focus and guide school boards
Boards Association – Alignment.” National School Boards in their efforts to improve student achievement.
Key Work
Association, 2007.
D.3
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards:
Key action areas that focus and guide school boards
Boards Association – Assessment.” National School Boards in their efforts to improve student achievement.
Key Work
Association, 2007.
D.4
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards:
Boards Association – Climate.” National School Boards
Key Work
Association, 2007.
D.5
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards:
Key action areas that focus and guide school boards
Boards Association – Collaborate.” National School Boards in their efforts to improve student achievement.
Key Work
Association, 2007.
D.6
D. National School
National School Boards Association.
Boards Association – Key Work Guide Book. National
Key Work
School Boards Association, 2007.
Detailed roles and responsibilities of high performing
boards.
D.7
D. National School
Key Work Presentation. National
Boards Association – School Boards Association, 2007.
Key Work
PowerPoint presentation the summarizes the
concepts detailed in the Guide Book.
D.8
D. National School
Planning Team Considerations, Board
Boards Association – Questions, Roles, and Agenda Items.
Key Work
National School Boards Association,
2007.
Document summarizing considerations; board
questions, roles and responsibilities; as well as agenda
items of high performing boards. Compiled by
NSBA from research on local school boards and
actual high performing boards across the country.
D.9
D. National School
“Key Work of School Boards: Roles
Boards Association – and Responsibilities.” National
Key Work
School Boards Association, 2007.
Overview of roles and responsibilities of the board
and superintendent.
Confidential DRAFT
Key action areas that focus and guide school boards
in their efforts to improve student achievement.
62
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
E.1
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Georgia School Boards Association.
Characteristics of Georgia Public
School Boards. Georgia School
Boards Association, 2007.
Charts and data describing Georgia's local school
boards.
E.2
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Georgia School Boards Association.
“New Board Self-Assessment
Checklist.” Georgia School Boards
Association, 2007.
Table for school board/leadership self-assessment
check list, 2007, GSBA.
E.3
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Georgia School Boards Association.
“GSBA Standards Overview- School
Boards.” Georgia School Boards
Association, 2008.
GSBA overview of standards for school boards.
E.4
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Georgia School Boards Association.
“School Board Standards Checklist.”
Georgia School Boards Association,
2007.
School board check list for GSBA standards, 2008.
E.5
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Georgia School Boards Association.
“Strategic Plan Model.” Georgia
School Boards Association, 2007.
Graphic depicting the strategic planning model from
GSBA.
E.6
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Education Commission of the States. Table that details local school board governance
“Survey: Local Boards of Education.” structures for each state that responded to the survey.
Education Commission of the States,
2008.
E.7
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
National School Boards Association. Table detailing how local school boards are elected
“National Survey: Local School Board within each state that responded to the survey.
Elections.” National School Boards
Association, 2008.
E.8
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Manual that specifies the activities, roles and
responsibilities of an effective school board.
HARDCOPY ONLY.
E.9
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Georgia School Boards Association.
A Guide to Effective Boardsmanship.
Georgia School Boards Association,
October 2006.
Interview Notes: Gwinnett School
Board member and Superintendent,
2008.
F.1
F. Commission
Meeting 1 –
CRITICAL READS
Various School Board Governance
Articles. AdvancED, 2008.
Good articles relevant to Mark Elgart’s presentation.
F.2
F. Commission
Meeting 1 –
CRITICAL READS
AdvancED. “Board Governance
AdvancED memo describing the legislative landscape
Legislative Memo.” AdvancED, 2008. regarding Georgia’s local school boards.
F.3
F. Commission
Meeting 1 –
CRITICAL READS
Dawson, Linda J. “Coherent
Good real world examples of the relationships
Governance: A board-superintendent between school boards and their superintendents.
relationship based on defined goals
can raise achievement.” American
Association of School Administrators,
2004.
Confidential DRAFT
Notes from a conference call that focused on the
items that make the Gwinnett school board
successful and how they got to where they are today.
63
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
F.4
F. Commission
Meeting 1 –
CRITICAL READS
Presenter Deck. Commission Meeting Includes the presentations of the Commission
1, June 10, 2008.
Meeting 1 speakers.
F.5
F. Commission
Meeting 1 –
CRITICAL READS
“Governance Presentation to the
The presentation of Mark Elgart of AdvancED.
Atlanta Chamber.” AdvancED, 2008.
F.6
F. Commission
Meeting 1 –
CRITICAL READS
Chartwell Education Group. “Pontiac Example of education renewal in Pontiac, Michigan
School Board Leads Charge in District driven by School Board based on education
Renewal.” Chartwell Education
consulting group study.
Group, 2004.
G.1
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
Hickman, bobby L. “Dropout rate
Affects Economic Development.”
Business to Business, April 1, 2008.
Business to Business article on the link between local
school success and local economic development.
G.2
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
IEE Partnership Contract Models
presentation. Georgia Education
Finance Task Force.
Presentation that reviews the model on which the
IEE program is development.
G.3
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
Page, Deb. “Preparing for a Perfect Georgia Public Policy Foundation article: Meeting
Storm: Meeting the Need for Quality the need for local school system leaders.
School Leaders.” Georgia Public
Policy Foundation, December 15,
2006.
G.4
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
IEE Legislation-Summary of
legislation Presentation Briefing.
Georgia Education Finance Task
Force.
G.5
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Review of top ten education issues in 2008 for
Education. “Top Ten Issues to
Georgia with a forward by Steve Dolinger.
Watch in 2008.” Georgia Partnership
for Excellence in Education, January
2008.
G.6
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
Georgia Chamber of Commerce and Review of the economics of education in the state of
Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Georgia. Provides a review of the costs of poor
Education. “Economics of
education and what can be done about it.
Education.” Georgia Chamber of
Commerce and Georgia Partnership
for Excellence in Education, August
2007.
G.7
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Review of how to develop Community support for
Education. “The How to’s of
local schools.
Community Planning.” Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in
Education, 2008.
G.8
G. Georgia Articles,
Presentations,
Reports
Spreadsheet detailing costs and
revenues for each school system in
Georgia. Georgia Department of
Education, 2007.
Confidential DRAFT
Legislation-Summary of legislation regarding new
school system flexibility use of funds, associated
accountability.
Spreadsheet detailing the costs and revenues for each
school system in the state of Georgia from the
Georgia DOE.
64
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
Location/Folder
Item
School Board References
Description
H.1
H. Commission for State Resolution for the Commission Resolution from the State Board of Education.
School Board
for School Board Excellence.
Excellence – Official
Documents
H.2
H. Commission for Members – Commission for School
School Board
Board Excellence
Excellence – Official
Documents
The members of the Commission.
Hard
Copy
E. Georgia School
Boards Association
Summary of compensation of boards and chairs for
each district in Georgia.
Georgia School Boards Association.
“Board Member and Board Chair
Compensation.” Georgia School
Boards Association, 2008.
Hard/ B. Public Education - The New Commission on the Skills of The report of the NEW Commission on the skills of
Copy Reports
the American Workforce. “Tough
the American workforce and recommendations to
Only
Choices or Tough Times.” National solve the alarming problems. HARDCOPY
Center on Education and The
Economy, San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2007.
Hard/ A. School Board
Copy Governance –
Only Reports/Articles
McAdams, Donald R. What School
Boards Can Do, Reform Governance
for Urban School Boards. New York.
Teachers College Press. 2006.
Hard/ A. School Board
Copy Governance –
Only Reports/Articles
Collins, Jim. Good to Great. Why
The Good to Great Framework by Jim Collins.
Some Companies Make the Leap and
Others Don't. New York: Harper
Business, 2001.
Web/S B. Public Education - http://www.edtrust.org
ite
Reports
Confidential DRAFT
Book, written by Donald R. McAdams. Provides a
comprehensive look at what school boards should be
doing, how they should be doing it, and when they
should be doing it. HARDCOPY
Trust for Education – Site providing comprehensive
information regarding state’s reform efforts in
bridging the achievement gap, equality, and the
effective use of student achievement data.
65
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
REFERENCE ABSTRACTS
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
AdvancED, 2007, AdvancED Standards Assessment Rubric
#1
Highlights:
Rating scale for NCAC seven accreditation standards with detailed definitions for four performance levels (Not Evident,
Emerging, Operational and Highly Functional.
Rating scale that tracks with the AdvancED accreditation standards. Assessment rating scale and descriptors (Not
Evident, Emerging, Operational and Highly Functional) across key standards – Vision and Purpose; Governance and
Leadership; Teaching and Learning; Documenting and Using Results; Resource and Support Systems; Stakeholder
Communications and Relationships; Commitment to Continuous improvement.
Practical, comprehensive set of criteria with actionable rating definitions to help implement assessment ratings.
AdvancED, 2007, AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems: For Districts Seeking
NCA CASI or SACS CASI Accreditation
#2
Highlights:
1. Improvements in student achievement require an integrated, systems approach that is operationalized in the NCAC
accreditation model that evaluates, verify and improve institutional quality.
2. The definitions of the seven standards are comprehensive statements of research based practices and conditions
necessary to achieve quality student performance and organization effectiveness.
3. The indicators associated with each standard are operational “best” practices and processes.
4. The impact statements describe observable/verifiable characteristics, processes and actions that can be used to
evaluate system performance.
More focused on the key elements of school administration rather than the role and quality of the board oversight. Indepth presentation of the key standards – Vision and Purpose; Governance and Leadership; Teaching and Learning;
Documenting and Using Results; Resource and Support Systems; Stakeholder Communications and Relationships;
Commitment to Continuous improvement.
The Appendix includes three in-depth, integrative tables defining necessary core tasks and quality indicators to meet
accreditation standards. Tables 1 and 2 outline the alignment of the quality indicators for the accreditation standards with
the effective practices that comprise the core tasks and the organizational conditions. Each indicator is cross-referenced
to the applicable standard.
Table 1 example:
Core Task #1:Ensure Desired Results:
Maintaining Performance – Use data to inform decision- making about teaching and learning.
Quality School System Indicator:
Develops and continuously maintains a profile of the system, its students, and the community.
Table 2 example:
Organizational Conditions: Effective Leadership – Recognizes and preserves the executive, administrative, and
leadership authority of the administrative head of the system.
Table 3 looks at alignment of the school and district standards that support and reinforce each other. The table takes
each standard separately.
Table 2 is relevant for district boards that need a better understanding of the Organizational Conditions and Indicators.
Particularly helpful in Table 3 is the compare and contrast of “Standard 2: Governance and Leadership.” The operational
focus of the schools versus the broader based strategic focus for district boards is clearly defined.
Confidential DRAFT
66
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
Georgia State Board of Education, April 2008, Resolution
#3
Highlights:
Case studies of three school boards (Austin, Texas; Horry, South Carolina; and Trenton, New Jersey) that recognized the
need to shift their focus from day-to-day operations to long-term improvements in student achievement by redefining and
implementing roles for board members and superintendents.
Georgia State Department of Education Resolution chartering the task force of primarily business leaders to “study
national school board governance best practices for 90 days and make recommendations for improvement.
Commission for School Board Excellence
#4
Members Roster with affiliation and title.
Board Governance Legislative Information
#5
Re: Authority and Composition of local School Boards Under GA Law
Randy Quinn, Nov. 1, 2004, “Coherent Governance: a Board-Superintendent Relationship Based on
Defined Goals Can Raise Achievement”
#6
Highlights:
Case studies of three school boards (Austin, Texas; Horry, South Carolina; and Trenton, New Jersey) that recognized the
need to shift their focus from day-to-day operations to long-term improvements in student achievement by redefining and
implementing roles for board members and superintendents.
The three school districts profiled here represent a growing number of others that are effectively creating new roles and a
new relationship for school boards and their superintendents, roles that for once are crystal clear in terms of the board's
governance responsibility and the superintendent's responsibility for students' academic success and operational
accountability. These school boards have recognized the need to change their focus from daily operations to long-term
student achievement gains and have sought outside help to make that change happen. All have built success with
strong, proactive relations with the communities they serve. Case studies of three school boards – Austin, Texas; Horry,
S.C.; and Trenton, NJ – and their approach to transformational change of the governance model, issues, and results.
Richard H. Goodman and William G. Zimmerman, Jr., 2000, “Thinking Differently: Recommendations for
21st Century School Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance, and Teamwork for High Student
Achievement”
#7
Highlights:
Challenges the current thinking about board and superintendent leadership by focusing on strengthening teamwork and
collaboration in seven strategic areas:
1. redefining student achievement;
2. unified leadership at the district level;
3. enactment of new state laws;
4. mobilizing the community and staff to focus on student achievement;
5. a new approach to training school boards;
6. raising public consciousness about student achievement;
7. establishment of a National School Board/Superintendent Leadership Center to advocate for and to implement these
strategies.
Additional recommendations are offered in related areas.
Confidential DRAFT
67
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
Identified seven key strategies to strengthen school board/superintendent leadership and teamwork. They are:
1. A redefinition of student achievement to include a broad array of educational goals
2. A strong, unified leadership and governance body at the school district level, with the overriding goal of providing
quality education for all children
3. New state laws on school district governance to support the unified school board and superintendent leadership team
4. Mobilizing communities and staff to focus on high student achievement
5. A new approach to preparing and training school boards and superintendents that will support their coming together as
unified leadership teams
6. Public consciousness-raising for high student achievement
7. The establishment of a National Center for Board/Superintendent Leadership, which will be responsible for advocating
and implementing these strategies and for carrying out research to support continuous improvement in the leadership of
local school systems.
#3. Revisiting Laws that Impede Effective School Governance
Too many state laws require or allow boards to engage in the operational detail of a school system … State law should
make clear that a key task of the board of education is to hire, oversee, support, and evaluate the work of the
superintendent, who in turn recommends policy and oversees personnel matters, budget, and financial matters, with
accountability to the board for implementation.
The Illinois legislature has long recognized the need for boards and superintendents to meet privately to evaluate and
improve their teamwork for children. Illinois law includes an exception to its open meeting law, enabling a public body to
hold a closed session for "self-evaluation, practices and procedures or professional ethics, when meeting with a
representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member.”
Additional detailed “thinking differently” recommendations are offered in other key areas:
1. Thinking Differently about Standards for Leadership Teams
2. Thinking Differently about Public Engagement
3. Thinking Differently about Board/Superintendent Leadership Team Development
4. Thinking Differently about Roles of School Boards and Superintendents
5. Thinking Differently about State Legislative Reform
6. Thinking Differently about Teaching and Learning
7. Thinking Differently about Technology
8. Thinking Differently about Superintendent Recruitment and Education
The Oakland Press, July 2007, “Pontiac School Board Must Do Better, Study Finds”
#8
Highlights:
1.
Key findings of a study of the Pontiac School Boards are:
a.
Board members do not view students as the key constituent and there is a disconnect from student
achievement as a key outcome and
b.
The role of board member is operationalized as a “micro-manager” of the school system.
A nearly five-month study by the international consulting firm founded by former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige
found that Pontiac's board will face a number of its own hurdles before it can go about reversing numerous and varied
problems with day-to-day operations in the district. Among these hurdles are perceptions that some board members do
not see students as their primary constituents, that some bow to public pressure rather than allow district goals to guide
their decisions, that some attempt to micromanage operations and that all have failed to build community support and
partnerships that aid in the realization of district goals. Posits that school failures are rooted in the board’s 1) disconnect
from the student as the key constituent and 2) the performance of their role as micromanagement of daily operations.
Confidential DRAFT
68
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
Frederick M. Hess, School of Education & Depart. Of Government, University of Virginia, “School Boards at #9
the Dawn of the 21st Century: Conditions and Challenges of District Governance”
Highlights:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Survey results of 2,000 school districts examining the nature and challenges of school boards.
Compared and contrasted large district boards (25+k students) with small district boards.
Similarities: Both size districts place a high priority on student achievement, board members contribute considerable
time and two-thirds receive no pay.
Differences: Large district are political bodies with attentive interest groups, with more politically oriented candidates
and contested elections. Small districts are more apolitical with contests that are often uncontested and largely selffunded.
Key findings in the areas of school boards and policy issues; board service and preparation; profile of school boards;
and board elections.
Results of an extensive study to explore the nature and challenges of school boards. Survey of board members in 2,000
school districts with a response rate of 41%. Major conclusion = large-districts (25+k students) are relatively political
bodies, with more costly campaigns, more attentive interest groups, more politically oriented candidates and more hotly
contested elections. Small-district boards tend to be relatively apolitical bodies that attract little attention and feature
inexpensive, often uncontested campaigns.
Similarities = board members put a high priority on student achievement, contribute considerable time to school
leadership and two-thirds receive no pay for their work.
Key Findings:
School Boards and Policy Issues:
1. Questions of funding and student achievement are leading topics of concern.
2. School violence ranks low as a member concern.
3. Majority of systems now use locker searches and dress codes.
4. 50%+ of districts provide alternative school or allow for home schooling
5. Alternative certification programs for teachers are rare and generally small. 70& have not discussed the idea.
6. Less than 15% of districts have a merit pay system.
Board Service and Preparation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Board members spend 25 hours per month on board business. Many large district members spend 20 hours per
week.
Majority have been trained in roles & responsibilities. Desired training: planning & budget, community partnership
and engagement.
Two-thirds report no pay. 20% of large district boards get $20k per year.
Three most critical factors in evaluating supt. Performance: board-superintendent relationship, morale of school
system employees, and safety of district students.
Two-thirds of superintendents are hired from outside the district … may have leadership development implications
within the schools.
Profile of School Boards
1. Boards are somewhat less racially diverse than the nation as a whole. Large, urban districts are more racially
heterogeneous.
2. Boards are 63% male and 38% female with small districts more heavily male than large.
3. Board members have higher incomes and are better educated than average citizen. Few have background in
education.
4. Most boards comprised of 5 to 8 members. Less than 29% have 9 or more members.
5. Two-thirds serve a 4-year term. Less than 10% are longer.
Confidential DRAFT
69
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
Board Election
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
93% of boards are entirely elected.
Except in large, urban districts, most elections are relatively apolitical with little money spent.
Vast majority of elections cost less than $1k which is self-funded.
Much greater turn-out if held at same time as general elections.
Political views labeled as moderate or conservative in large and small districts.
Mean length of service is 6.7 years.
Key understanding needed for addressing the size differences in school systems. Important Note: The concerns that
predominate in large, urban districts – including school violence and teach shortages – are less prevalent in smaller
districts but are portrayed nevertheless as national crisis. This phenomenon poses a challenge for policy makers, as it
appears that the public image of school boards and school systems is informed largely by the conditions that prevail in
the scant 2 percent of districts that enroll 25+k students. Fully grasping the nature of governance in those districts, and
how those lessons may or may not apply tot the other 98 percent of school districts, is central to any effort to reform
school systems.
AdvancED, Board Governance Legislative Information
#10
Authority and Composition of Local School Boards Under GA Law
Eligibility requirements: over the age of 21, reside for one year in the school district and of the specific election district of
representation. If/when moves from district, will cease to be a member and vacancy. Four year term. Some restrictions
are placed on members from conducting business with the school district – O.C.G.A.20-2-5-5 was just amended to allow
for members to sell supplies or equipment when there are fewer than three suppliers within the district.
Linda J. Dawson, Nov. 2004, ”Coherent governance: a board-superintendent relationship based on defined #11
goals can raise achievement”
Highlights:
1.
Positive results have been achieved in all three school districts from:
a. Radically reinventing the purpose, focus and role of the school board member.
b. Redefining the board role as a strategic collaboration with the superintendent.
c. Developing results and performance-based metrics to evaluate system progress.
Short review of the governance work reported more in-depth in the Randy Quinn article. Three school districts are
profiled who recognized the need for change, took different approaches to governance and obtained positive results.
1. Austin, Texas: The board developed new ways to link with the community and the superintendent and staff
developed quantitative and qualitative metrics to evaluate progress.
2. Horry County, South Carolina: Redefined the roles of the board and of the superintendent, established written
policies and targets for student achievement, and tracks progress quarterly.
3. Trenton, New Jersey: Board members backed away from operational tasks, developed policies to drive a
results-based evaluation, are driving a performance-based system to the classroom and the are focused on
alignment and clear accountability.
Bobby Hickman, April 2008, “Dropout Rate Affects Economic Development”
#12
Highlights:
1. Describes the dramatic impact that educational outcomes have on a broad range of individual and societal economic
trends.
2. Introduces a program that is available through GPEE to help communities in the development of a customized
strategic education plan.
Confidential DRAFT
70
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
Cites studies and data showing the dramatic impact of educational outcomes upon economic growth and development
e.g. increased high school graduation impacts lifetime earnings, criminal activity, health status, and teen pregnancy.
Introduces the GPEE program to help communities develop a strategic education plan.
Georgia Public Policy Foundation, 5/14/2008, Deb Page, “Preparing for a Perfect Storm: Meeting Georgia’s #13
Need for Quality School Leaders”
Highlights:
Describes the upcoming shortage of school leadership that will result from baby-boomer retirements. Also, looks at the
large number of teachers who are certified but who have not served in leadership roles. Suggests that leadership
training opportunities have not been available and that certification is used as a means to increase salary.
Despite the coming wave of baby-boomer principals leaving the Georgia school leadership ranks, teachers who are
certified leaders do not want and/or are not given the opportunity to obtain “hands-on” experience. Certification has been
used in Georgia to obtain a salary increase without the expectation or process for stepping into a leadership role.
Wallace Foundation 2004 report, “How Leadership Influences Student Learning”
#14
Highlights:
Results of research review indicate that school leadership is one of the most critical criteria for school improvement,
second only to classroom instruction.
Research review – authors asserted that leadership is second only to instruction in the classroom in its impact on student
achievement: and effect of leadership is usually greatest in schools most in need of improvement.
John Carver, “Remaking Governance”
#15
Highlights:
1. Recommends a total rethinking and redesign of school governance in order to move away from current flawed
models.
2. Presents seven characteristics of a new theory-based model.
Proposes a total redesign of school governance. – current training reinforces past errors and teaches boards to do the
wrong things. Credible theory is the crucial missing element. Seven characteristics of Policy Governance:
1. Primacy of the owner as representative role.
The board’s primary relationship is with those to whom it is accountable. The general public, the “shareholders” of public
education. The central task of a board is to assimilate the diverse values of those who own the system, to add any
special knowledge (often obtained from experts, including staff), then to make decisions on behalf of the owners.
2. One voice from plural trustees.
Trustees have authority only as a full board – not as individuals.
3. The superintendent as a real chief executive officer.
The superintendent is the only person the board instructs and the only person the board evaluates.
4. Authoritative prescription of “ends.”
The board’s greatest and most difficult responsibility is to clarify and re-clarify why the system exists.
5. Bounded freedom for “means.”
Trustees define broad “means” – the board does not tell the system how to operate but how not to.
6. Board decisions crafted by descending size. Boards must manage the sequence of different sizes of decisions.
7. System-focused superintendent evaluation. The only reason to have a chief executive officer is to ensure system
performance. Board expectations of the system are the only criteria on which a superintendent should be assessed.
John Carver March 2000, “Toward Coherent Governance”
#16
Revisit of Policy Governance. Referenced “Reinventing Your Board: A Step-by-Step Guide to Implement Policy
Governance” by John Carver and Miriam Mayhew Carver. Jossey-Bass, 1997, San Fran and his website:
www.carvergovernance.com
Confidential DRAFT
71
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
GSBA 2000, GSBA, “Board/Leadership Team Self-Assessment Checklist “
#17
Highlights:
The checklist reviews 8 major areas of board governance.
1. Vision/Philosophy/Goals
2. Systematic Improvement
3. Organizational Structure
4. Board Operations: Policy Development
5. Board Operations: Board Meetings
6. Board Operations: Personnel
7. Board Operations: Financial Management
8. Board/Staff/Community Relations
GSBA, “Strategic Planning Cycle”
#18
Highlights:
Presents a continuous improvement model comprised of sequential elements linked to a core plan to monitor progress.
1. Who are we?
2. Where are we now?
3. Where do we want to go?
4. How will we know when we have arrived?
5. How do we plan to get there?
Iowa School Board Compass, 2000, “IASB’s Lighthouse Study: School Boards and Student Achievement”
#19
Highlights:
1.
2.
The culture and belief system of a school system has an impact on school performance.
Two belief systems were described:
a. “Elevating” beliefs view the student as emerging and flexible with the school role being to “release” their
potential.
b. “Accepting” beliefs accept the limitations of the student and the school system.
High achieving districts were associated with an “elevating” belief system and low achieving districts were associated
with “accepting” belief systems.
Referenced the Georgia Council for School Improvement that provided district data to identify high and low achieving
districts. Contacts with the GSBA and the Council gained agreement to study six school districts.
There are key differences in the nature of belief systems – elevating vs. accepting – and their impact on school
performance. High achieving districts had a culture that expressed and modeled a view of students as “emerging and
flexible” and the role of the school was to release each student’s potential. Low achieving districts, the culture was
acceptance of limitations in students and the school system. Interesting to note that 75-80% of the board members and
professional staff grew up in the district, an adjacent county or a similar county.
This finding highlights the need to set and maintain high achievement expectations for students and systems that are
communicated, reinforced and role-modeled continuously.
Other Findings:
1. IASB will work with a few pilot sites to provide intensive training and support based on research findings.
2. Clearly define how the board’s role differs from that of education professionals.
3. Broaden board training to help board members understand their role in school renewal and student achievement.
April 2004, National School Boards Association, “Survey of State School Boards Associations”
#20
Survey of all 50 states covering board training requirements, content and funding.
Confidential DRAFT
72
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Commission for School Board Excellence:: Research Review
July-August, 2008
September 2007, “State Requirements for Local School Board Service”
#21
Survey of all 50 states on Board service requirements for age and education.
Education Commission of the States 2008, “School Notes: Local School Boards”
#22
Describes the number and type of school boards by state and whether appointed or elected.
February 2008, “Survey on Local School Board Elections”
#23
Describes whether school board are appointed or elected by state and provides additional detail.
MASTER LIST OF RESEARCH ITEMS
Confidential DRAFT
73
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
0
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
1.
Conditions of Candidacy
1
a.
Candidates must disclose, at a minimum, the following: 107
i. Educational background
ii. Employment
iii. Potential conflict of interest
iv. Relevant experience on boards in the past
2
b.
Must submit to background check to verify their compliance with the following criterion: 107
i. Accuracy of disclosure
ii. No past felony convictions
3
c.
Candidates must be prepared to sign documentation asserting their compliance with any
existing policy regarding code of ethics or conflict of interest. 107
4
d.
Returning candidates must demonstrate past compliance with previous board training
requirements, meeting attendance policies, etc.108
5
e.
Criteria for board membership should be reviewed and strengthened. Some of the desirable
qualities for board members include:
i. Commitment to public education – able to demonstrate a history of commitment to
education and a positive record in educational improvement
ii. Record of public or community service
iii. Knowledge of complex organizations and academic institutions
iv. Demonstrated collaborative leadership
v. Commitment to open-minded, non-partisan decision-making
vi. Record of integrity and civic virtue109
6
f.
All school districts should be subject to anti-nepotism laws/rules/regulations for board
members.107
7
g.
Candidate, in order to be eligible, must demonstrate a to-be-defined level of “acceptable”
experience in organization leadership or boardsmanship or submit to a series of training
activities specific to local school board governance.107
8
h.
Rigorous background check for nominees.108
9
i.
Literacy/education requirement.107
10
j.
Every candidate vetted for ethical/legal issues. 109
11
k.
Potential candidates should not depend on board compensation as a means of income. 109
12
l.
Candidates have successful interpersonal leadership skills.109
13
m. Potential candidates should be able to work as an informed board member. 109
14
n.
Every candidate with “engaged board” value, clear understanding of boundaries (boundary
management). 109
15
o.
No personal or financial ties to system or employees. 109
16
p.
Candidates have or have had children in the school system they seek to represent.109
17
q.
Candidates represent and empower major community groups (non-disenfranchised).109
18
r.
Candidacy requirements mandated by various states include the following: 110
 Most states require candidate to be at least 18 years of age. Some require 21.
107
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
108
Meeting, July, 8, 2008
109
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College and University Boards
110
National School Board Association, Survey, 9/2007
Confidential DRAFT
74
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS


19
2.
Most require the candidate to be a registered voter or a registered voter in the school
district where he or she is a candidate.
 Only three states specify educational attainment requirement of either a college
degree or high school diploma/GED
 Most states require county/district residency, or a period of residency before
running for office (12 months)
 May not have any felony convictions.
 Must be a citizen of the US.
 A sex offender who has been convicted of an offense which requires registration
under the Predatory Offenders Registration Act is ineligible to become a candidate
for school board.
 Cannot be the relative of a sitting board member.
 May not be a district employee. If a relative of an employee of the district, may not
participate on any action that would affect the employee's status.
 May not be employed by or serving on the board of any private education
body/institution.
 Resident of the county for 12 months prior to election.
 Must commit to a participation is specific training/or number of hours of training.
 Collect a specified number of petition signatures
 Not judged mentally incompetent.
Question: What recommendation would the Advisory Committee recommend regarding
candidacy requirements?
Election Process
20
a.
Elections should be non-partisan.107
21
b.
Terms should be staggered.108
22
c.
Elections should occur in November of even election years. 107
23
d.
All elections should be non-partisan.107
24
e.
All members should be elected on a district-wide basis.107
25
f.
School board members should be term-limited. No member should serve more than 2 terms. 107
26
3.
Motivation
27
a.
Boards and board members must be clear about their core beliefs and commitments in order to
take effective action.111
28
b.
Board members must be effective change agents with the following core beliefs: all children
can perform at grade level and graduate from high school that the school effect is significant
and that school districts can become high-performing organizations.109
29
c.
Board members must commit themselves to student achievement and the elimination of the
achievement gap.107
30
Training
31
4.
Curriculum
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
2
Meeting, July, 8, 2008
3
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College and University Boards
111
McAdams, Donald R., What School Boards Can Do: Reform Governance for Urban Schools, Teachers College Press, NY,
NY, 2006.
Confidential DRAFT
75
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
32
a.
The topics for instruction should be tied directly to the key responsibilities of the school board
and the board/superintendent team, and to the needs of the children and the educational
process.112
33
b.
Boards and superintendents should schedule board workshops to review all board processes. 111
34
c.
Boards should take part in training on principles of continuous improvement including use of
data and customer focus.110
35
d.
Boards should participate in training to increase understanding of assessment – concepts,
national and state assessment, and relationship of assessment to standards. 113
36
e.
Boards participate in training to better understand how alignment of the following resources is
related to student success in meeting standards: staffing and personnel evaluations, facilities,
funding, curriculum and instruction, assessment, and technology.108
37
f.
Boards take part in training on principles of continuous improvement including use of data and
customer focus.108
38
g.
Training in evidence-based practices – science-based model.108
39
h.
School board/superintendent governance teams should receive training in roles, laws,
standards.107
40
i.
Participates in training to better understand how alignment of the following resources are
related to student success in meeting standards:
i. Staffing and personnel evaluations
ii. Facilities
iii. Funding
iv. Curriculum and instruction
v. Assessment
vi. Technology113
41
j.
Training should be required and include the entire board/superintendent team (retreat
setting).107
42
k.
Training must be better defined:
 Individual training, new member training
 Whole board training
 Curriculum – builds upon a regimen that ensures maximum opportunity for board
success
 Consequences in place for failure to achieve
 Transparent to community
 Who decides?107
43
l.
Use Carl Vinson Institute Training, UGA, for entire boards.109
44
m. Freedom of information (press) training, board communication with press. 109
1
2
3
4
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
Commission Meeting, July, 8, 2008
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College and University Boards
National School Board Association, Survey, 9/2007
5
McAdams, Donald R., What School Boards Can Do: Reform Governance for Urban Schools, Teachers College Press, NY, NY,
2006.
112
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
113
Key Work of School Boards , NSBA.
Confidential DRAFT
76
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
45
n.
Identify board training opportunities
 Organizations that offer training
 Course offerings from basic to AdvancED109
46
o.
Freedom of information (press) training, board communication with press. 109
47
p.
Identify board training opportunities
 Organizations that offer training
 Course offerings from basic to AdvancED109
48
q.
Continuous Training Budget
 Personal agenda, board accountability
 Training Content:
 Ethics
 Limitations
 Board – superintendent relations
 Legal aspects
 Media – communications
 Full Board and superintendent in training
 Teamwork – confidentiality
(Shown in both “Training Curriculum” and “Training Process” categories) 107
49
r.
Of the states that mandate training for school boards, all but one mandate training topics. 114
50
s.
State-Mandated training topics include:112
 Roles and Responsibilities, Policies and Procedures
 School Finance and Budget
 State Performance Appraisal Systems, Student Achievement
 Superintendent Evaluation, Supt/Board Relations
 School Law, Ethics
 School Leadership
 School Management, Innovations in School Management
 Human Relations
 Crisis Management
 Board Governance and Operations
 Advocacy for Children
 Vision for Excellence
 New Board Member Orientation
 Annual Team Building, as a group, with superintendent
51
t.
Texas conducts a board member assessment and identifies required training based on the
assessment.112
52
5.
Individual vs. Full Board as a Team
53
a.
Board training is for the board and superintendent as the governance team. 107
54
b.
Use Carl Vinson Institute Training, UGA, for entire boards.109
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
3
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College and University Boards
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
114 National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004
Confidential DRAFT
77
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
55
c.
Board members described evidence of regularly learning together as a board. They talked about
studying an issue together before making a decision.115
56
d.
Full board training is mandated in Texas (Annual team building with superintendent).112
57
6.
58
59
Pre-Qualifications
a.
7.
West Virginia requires orientation be completed prior to taking office. 112
On-Boarding
60
a.
Boards need to clarify roles, responsibilities and relationships at the outset of their board
tenure, explicitly drawing the line between legitimate constituent service and
micromanagement...116
61
b.
Boards must have a theory of action, a set of beliefs about what board actions will lead to the
fulfillment of the board’s commitments. 117
62
c.
Texas conducts a board member assessment and identifies required training based on the
assessment.112
63
d.
Boards provide orientation for board candidates and for new board members on expectations
for student achievement.113
64
e.
Examples of mandated training requirements for board members of various states are shown
below.118
 Texas Administrative Code gives precise requirements as to training requirements
for new and veteran board members.
 Minn. Statute provides: "A member shall receive training in school finance and
management developed in consultation with the Minnesota School Boards
Association and consistent with section 127A.19. The School Boards Association
must make available to each newly elected school board member training in school
finance and management consistent with section 127A.19 within 180 days of that
member taking office. The program shall be developed in consultation with the
department and appropriate representatives of higher education."
 Twelve hours basic education for newly appointed or elected board members; six
hours of continuing education for veteran board members.
 Attend a seminar for new school board members within the first year of serving on
the board.
 Six hours of mandated training for newly elected school board members in the first
year of serving on the board.
 Once elected, board members are mandated by law to attend a two-day orientation
plus one seven hour module in their first year of service.
65
f.
Of the states that mandate training for school boards, over half mandate training for both new
and veteran board members.112
115
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004
8
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004
116
McAdams, 2003.
117
McAdams, 2006.
118
National School Boards Association, Survey of State Mandated Training, 4/2004.
Confidential DRAFT
78
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
66
g.
West Virginia requires orientation be completed prior to taking office. 112
67
h.
Training requirements (hours) are typically double for first-year members as compared to
veterans. In GA - Twelve hours for new board members (must complete in first 12 months of
office); six hours for veteran school board members (per year). 114,112
68
8.
On-going
69
a.
Board training must be ongoing and focused on the needs of the board and district. 116
70
b.
Implements policies and procedures that provide for the orientation and training of the
governing board.119
71
c.
Boards participate in work sessions to better understand needed changes in curriculum and
instruction based on related data.113
72
d.
Examples of mandated ongoing board member training are shown below: 118
 Each member of a city and parish school board shall receive a minimum of six
hours of training and instruction in the school laws of this state, in the laws
governing the powers, duties, and responsibilities of city and parish school boards,
and in educational trends, research, and policy. Such instruction may be received
from an institution of higher education in this state, from instruction sponsored by
the State Department of Education, or by an in-service training program conducted
by a city or parish school board central office or the Louisiana School Boards
Association.
 College education or continuing education requirements that a school board
member must meet to remain on the board once appointed or elected
 Board members are required to have 12 clock hours of training annually
 Veteran board members are required to attend one seven-hour module annually.
 Each school board must require its members to participate annually in high quality
professional development activities at the state, local or national levels on
governance, including, but not limited to personnel, curriculum, and current issues
in education as part of their service on the local board.
 Minn. Statute provides: "A member shall receive training in school finance and
management developed in consultation with the Minnesota School Boards
Association and consistent with section 127A.19. The School Boards Association
must make available to each newly elected school board member training in school
finance and management consistent with section 127A.19 within 180 days of that
member taking office. The program shall be developed in consultation with the
department and appropriate representatives of higher education."
 Twelve hours basic education for newly appointed or elected board members; six
hours of continuing education for veteran board members.
73
e.
Of the states that mandate training for school boards, over half mandate training for both new
and veteran board members.112
74
f.
Be more prescriptive with new board member training (6 hours insufficient). 108
75
g.
Training requirements (hours) are typically double for first-year members as compared to
veterans. In GA - Twelve hours for new board members (must complete in first 12 months of
2
Commission Meeting, July, 8, 2008
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
7
Key Work of School Boards , NSBA.
12
National School Boards Association, Survey of State Mandated Training, 4/2004.
119
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
Confidential DRAFT
79
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
office); six hours for veteran school board members (per year). 112
76
9.
Training Process
77
a.
Training should be mandatory with penalties for failure to attend.108
78
b.
Engage highly and specifically qualified trainers for board training. 108
79
c.
Training with boards, Georgia School Board Associations and senior staff.108
80
d.
Continuous training
 Broad curriculum covering all aspects of system operations and education/roles
 Ethics training/ethics
 Identify personal agendas108
81
e.
Be more prescriptive with new board member training (6 hours insufficient). 108
82
f.
Less than half of states mandating training also have an enforcement provision built into the
law. Where they exist, sanctions include:112
 removal from office
 At call for election, board chair announces/publishes those who have/have not met
training requirement
 Commission of Education may withhold funds from the school system
 Seat can be declared vacant
 School report card shows school board members not meeting minimum
requirements
 Removal by state school ethics commission
83
g.
Continuous Training Budget
Personal Agenda, Board Accountability
Training Content:
 Ethics
 Limitations
 Board – Supt Rel
 Legal Aspects
 Media – communications
 Full Bd. And Supt In Training
 Teamwork – confidentiality
(Shown in both “Training Curriculum” and “Training Process” categories) 107
84
h.
Adopt performance criteria (for example: pass/fail) with board member training rather than
basic training compliance.108
85
i.
Use Carl Vinson Institute Training, UGA, for entire boards. 109
86
j.
Texas conducts a board member assessment and identifies required training based on the
assessment.112
87
k.
Many states have specific provisions for training cost coverage/reimbursement. 112
88
89
90
Roles & Responsibilities
10. Superintendent Hiring
a.
Boards should not be pressured by political considerations to appoint superintendents but
instead develop objective assessments of leadership capability. 120
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
2
Commission Meeting, July, 8, 2008
3
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College and University Boards.
Confidential DRAFT
80
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
91
b.
Superintendents must have high expectations for all students to be effective leaders. 115
92
c.
Superintendents should drive district initiatives that are focused on student learning needs and
improving achievement.107
93
d.
Superintendents should implement district processes that focus on improving student
achievement.107
94
e.
The board should use the superintendent as its chief executive officer with the full authority to
administer district affairs.121
95
11. Board Chair
96
a.
There should be a requirement for the board chairman to have past experience of demonstrated
successful leadership.107
97
b.
There should be an established job description for board chairman that includes experience
working in the education system.119
98
c.
All means should be utilized to hire competent superintendents e.g. search services, national
access, consistency of access.119
99
d.
The role of the board chair should be clarified and communicated to all stakeholders. 119
10
12. Board-Superintendent Relations
100
a.
Clearly separate what is governance and owned by the board, vs management and
administration which is owned by superintendent.112
101
b.
Management oversight is a major board responsibility. Management oversight is not
influencing management decisions before they are made or reviewing management decisions
after they are made. It is guaranteeing the integrity of major management systems and
processes and reviewing results.122
102
c.
It should be made clear that a key task of the board is to hire, oversee, support and evaluate the
work of the superintendent, who in turn recommends policy and oversees personnel matters,
budget, and financial matters, with accountability to the board for implementation.112
103
d.
Exceptional boards govern in constructive partnership with the chief executive, recognizing
that the effectiveness of the board and chief executive are interdependent. They build this
partnership through trust, candor, respect, and honest communication. 123
104
e.
School board/superintendent leadership teams must take on the task of providing opportunities
for building understanding of diversity. 113
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
Page, Deb, “Preparing for a Perfect Storm: Meeting Georgia’s Need for Quality School Leaders”, Georgia Public Policy
Foundation, December 15, 2006.
120
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
11
McAdams, 2006.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
121
Georgia School Boards Association, Check List, 2008.
122
McAdams, Donald R., “Management Oversight But Not Management”, The School Administrator, September, 2004.
123
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
Confidential DRAFT
81
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
105
f.
There should be a clearly delineated policy role of the school board, the overarching leadership
role of the board/superintendent team, and the executive/managerial role of the
superintendent.112
106
g.
There should be a clear delineation of the roles of the board, the board/superintendent team,
and the superintendent.112
107
h.
Boards recognize and support the authority of the superintendent to implement a district
accountability plan to evaluate community and school progress toward accomplishing the
vision, and reports on the results to the public. 112
108
i.
The most important relationships for the board must be the relationship that board members
have with one another and with the superintendent.117
109
j.
Boards recognize the authority of the superintendent to implement a district wide
organizational structure that empowers staff to meet the needs of all students.124
110
k.
The board and the superintendent work as a team to assess strengths and improvements needed
in the school district.121
111
l.
The board and the superintendent work as a team to consider compelling problems and
emerging issues.121
112
m. The board and the superintendent work as a team to reflect their educational and leadership
philosophy and performance.121
113
n.
The board and the superintendent work as a team to study and explore trends, opportunities and
anticipated challenges.121
114
o.
There must be a clear understanding that the role of the BOE is administration and not policymaking.107
115
p.
In addition to clarifying the board roles and responsibilities, faculty and staff roles also need to
be clarified.107
116
q.
Role definitions are in place, but are not being followed so there should be consequences the
must flow from aberrant behavior.107
117
r.
There needs to be a clear definition of hand off points between board decisions and the
superintendent execution steps.107
118
s.
Boards recognize and preserve the executive, administrative, and leadership authority of the
administrative head of the system.119
119
t.
Boards should build public support, secure sufficient resources, and act as a steward of the
system’s resources.119
120
u.
Boards maintain adequate insurance or equivalent resources to protect its financial stability and
administrative operations.119
121
1
13. Laws/Rules/Clarity/Efficiency
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
11
McAdams, 2006.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
15
Georgia School Boards Association, Check List, 2008
.124 Georgia School Board Association.
Confidential DRAFT
82
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
122
a.
Boards ensure that curriculum is aligned to support district policies and established
priorities.113
123
b.
The board/superintendent team will become more effective when board members and the
superintendent participate together in leadership renewal.112
124
c.
The board is empowered to take governance action only when a majority of the board and the
superintendent meet together in a duly-called meeting.112
125
d.
Boards must monitor policies for implementation and evaluate the results of implementation
efforts.117
126
e.
Boards must keep the vision at the forefront of all decision-making.124
127
f.
After each session of the Texas Legislature, including each regular session and called sessions
related to education, each school board member shall receive an update from an ESC or any
registered provider to the basic orientation to the Texas Education Code. The update session
shall be of sufficient length to familiarize board members with major changes in the code and
other relevant legal developments related to school governance.125
128
g.
Boards ensure compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws, standards, and
regulations.119
129
h.
Boards establish and communicate policies and procedures that provide for the effective
operation of the system.119
130
i.
Boards should maintain access to legal counsel to advise or obtain information about legal
requirements and obligations.119
131
14. Continuous Improvement
132
a.
Boards should use all three levers for change available to them – policy leadership,
superintendent selection, and the “bully pulpit.”117
133
b.
Boards should assure staff development on assessment measures. 124
134
c.
Boards should follow a regular process to review student achievement data to ensure
continuous improvement.124
135
d.
Boards provide funding for continuous improvement. 124
136
e.
Boards adopt board policies that support continuous improvement.124
137
f.
Boards support publicly and communicate the value of continuous improvement to the
community.124
138
g.
Board members seemed to feel an internal desire to improve. They talked about the importance
of improving education for the sake of students. 115
139
h.
Board members consistently expressed their belief that all children could learn and gave
specific examples of ways that learning had improved as a result of initiatives in the district.
Poverty, lack of parental involvement and other factors were described as challenges to be
overcome, not as excuses.115
140
i.
Board members expressed their focus on finding ways to reach all children. “We can’t just let
them fall through the cracks.”115
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
11
McAdams, 2006.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
18
Georgia School Board Association.
125
National School Boards Association, Survey of State Mandated Training, 4/2004.
Confidential DRAFT
83
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
141
j.
Boards engage in a continuous process of improvement that articulates the vision and purpose
the system is pursuing (Vision), maintains a rich and current description of students, their
performance, system effectiveness, and the community (Profile); employs goals and
interventions to improve student performance (Plan); and documents and uses the results to
inform future improvement efforts (Results). 119
142
k.
Boards engage stakeholders in the processes of continuous improvement. 119
143
l.
Boards ensure that each school’s plan for continuous improvement includes a focus on
increasing learning for all students and closing gaps between current and expected student
performance levels.119
144
m. Boards provide research-based professional development for system and school personnel to
help them achieve improvement goals.119
145
n.
Boards evaluate and document the effectiveness and impact of its continuous process of
improvement.119
146
o.
Boards allocate and protect time for planning and engaging in continuous improvement efforts
system-wide.126
s14
7
p.
Boards provide direction and assistance to its schools and operational units to support their
continuous improvement efforts.126
148
15. Board/System/School Leadership
149
a.
An effective leadership team focuses on student, teacher, and community needs and
achievements; policy development; long-range planning and progress toward goals; and an
effective allocation of resources.112
150
b.
A board/superintendent leadership team must develop a plan for creating (and regularly
updating) a vision that “fits” its community and is consonant with high standards for
children.112
151
c.
The board speaks with a single voice and acts as a single authority; there are no individual
board member voices or commands.107
152
d.
The board/superintendent team, using a participatory process, involves the community and staff
in creating and continually developing a shared vision for all children. 112
153
e.
The board/superintendent team provides policy, goals, a management plan, and financial
resources to support the vision.112
154
f.
The board/superintendent team adopts an accountability plan to evaluate community and
school progress toward accomplishing the vision, and reports on the results to the public. 112
155
g.
The board/superintendent team becomes the community’s leading advocate for children.112
156
h.
Good governance requires the board to balance its role as an oversight body with its role as a
force supporting the organization. The difference between responsible and exceptional boards
lies in thoughtfulness and intentionality, action and engagement, knowledge and
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
11
McAdams, 2006.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
18
Georgia School Board Association.
126
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
Confidential DRAFT
84
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
communication. The following twelve principles offer chief executives a description of an
empowered board that is a strategic asset to be leveraged. They provide board members with a
vision of what is possible and a way to add lasting value to the organization they lead. 123
157
i.
The board and superintendent work as a unified team to lead the district toward the vision. 112
158
j.
Boards approve budget allocations based on student achievement priorities. 113
159
k.
Boards ensure that the public understands how aligning curriculum and instruction and
implementing standards leads to improved student achievement. 113
160
l.
Boards approve and periodically review a district plan to build collaborative relationships with
key stakeholders at all levels based on gaining support for student achievement as the district’s
top priority.113
161
m. Board members and superintendents must understand the complexity of one another’s work to
have an effective partnership.117
162
n.
Boards support the superintendent’s recommendation when dismissal is warranted. 124
163
o.
Board members should describe specific ways board actions and goals were communicated to
staff, such as a post-board meeting for teachers and administrators.115
164
p.
Board members express a high level of confidence in staff. They make frequent positive
comments about staff and could give specific examples of how staff members showed
commitment, how staff members were improving, and how staff members were working to
help students learn.115
165
q.
Board members expressed their belief that changes could happen with existing people,
including students, staff and community. 115
166
r.
Successful districts have boards that have supportive, respectful relationships with staff
members. Staff members should know who the board members are and what they believe. Staff
members in these districts said they felt the board respected and listened to them. 115
167
s.
Boards must ensure training and communication for staff members so that they are able to
identify clear district-wide goals and expectations for improvements in student achievement. 115
168
t.
In successful districts, staff members could link their goals to board/district goals for student
learning and describe how those goals were having an impact in their classroom and other
classrooms in the building.115
169
u.
Boards should foster a culture that supports the belief that all children can learn at higher levels
in these ways:
i. Employing and supporting a superintendent who shares that philosophy
ii. Developing and revising policies to reflect this philosophy.124
170
v.
Boards should advocate district positions on educational issues with legislators and other state
and local political leaders and keeps abreast of other state and national issues. 124
171
172
16. DOE Role & Responsibilities
a.
What recommendation(s) does the Advisory Committee propose in the area of the DOE role
and responsibilities?
173 Board Structures & Processes
174
17. Board Structure
175
a.
Board size should be between five and seven in number. 127
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
18
Georgia School Board Association.
Confidential DRAFT
85
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
176
b.
Terms should be between four and six years in length.127
177
c.
There should be no limitations on number of terms served. 127
178
d.
No board member should serve more than two consecutive terms. 127
179
e.
All board members should be elected as “at large” members even if they serve by district. 127
180
f.
Rather than using standing board committees to structure the work of the board, give all board
members access to all information at the same time, use workshops for deep learning and
management oversight, enlist a committee of the whole for board-meeting agenda reviews, and
hold crisp, focused board meetings for the transaction of the public’s business. 128
181
g.
Leverage existing research and best practices to define policies/roles/responsibilities. 107
182
h.
Differentiate board process from student achievement because too often, new board members
want to fix education problem.107
183
i.
Develop a clear process for policy making.107
184
j.
Use SACS strategic planning process for consistency. 107
185
k.
Ensure superintendent has each school developing and monitoring its own school improvement
plan.107
186
l.
Baldridge and continuous improvement processes need to be built into each school systems
philosophy and processes.107
187
m. Desired accountability model:
i. Board is accountable to public for outcomes and effective use of resources to obtain
outcomes
ii. Superintendent accountable to Board
iii. Staff and Principals accountable to Superintendent
iv. Teachers accountable to Principals107
188
n.
Board Processes (from Goodman)
i. Review and approve budget
ii. Discuss and craft policy
iii. Engage and work with community to understand long term needs
iv. Work with superintendent to provide effective system governance
v. Be advocates in community for funding, and good stewards of that funding 112
189
o.
Experts in nonprofit board governance are not of one mind as to the ideal maximum size of
nonprofit boards. They note that size may depend upon such factors as the age of the
organization, the nature and geographic scope of its mission and activities, and its funding
needs. Some experts note that a larger board may be necessary to ensure the range of
perspectives and expertise required for some organizations or to share in fundraising
responsibilities. Others argue that effective governance is best achieved by a smaller board,
which then demands more active participation from each board member. In the end, each
charitable organization must determine the most appropriate size for its board and the
appropriate number and responsibilities of board committees to ensure that the board is able to
fulfill its fiduciary and other governance duties responsibly and effectively. 129
127
McAdams, Commission Meeting, July 10, 2008
128
McAdams, Donald R., “The Pros and Cons of Standing Board Committees”, The School Administrator, May, 2008
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
10
McAdams, 2003.
Confidential DRAFT
86
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
190
18. Selection of Chairman
191
a.
Districts need board presidents who are: fair-minded, respected, deeply knowledgeable about
the district, goal-oriented, have a clear understanding of the roles of the board and the
superintendent, have the ability to speak for the board and run a business-like board meeting.116
192
b.
Boards should adopt policies to regulate their work, including practices that encourage the
election of experienced, effective leaders as board officers. 117
193
c.
Boards should restrict service as board president to board members with at least one or two
years of service.117
194
d.
Board presidents should be allowed to serve two terms. 117
195
e.
Boards should not use seniority or automatic succession to select board presidents. 117
196
19. Compensation & Benefits
197
a.
Board compensation should be limited to coverage of the expenses incurred by board members
as they conduct board business.130
198
b.
Board members should not receive compensation or benefits for board duties.130
199
c.
Guidance if not regulations, to define community representative compared to “employee” –
comp and benefits.130
200
d.
Consider increasing the compensation/benefits package that would make it more appealing and
attractive to a higher caliber candidate.130
201
e.
Board members should receive no compensation or benefits. 130
202
20. Strategic Planning
203
a.
Boards must approve a strategic planning process to include stakeholders in creating the vision
for student achievement.130
204
b.
Policy leadership must be the primary work of the board and policy content must be the
primary output of the board’s work.117
205
c.
Boards must adopt the vision and goals that support the vision. 113
206
d.
Exceptional boards shape and uphold the mission, articulate a compelling vision, and ensure
the congruence between decisions and core values. They treat questions of mission, vision, and
core values not as exercises to be done once, but as statements of crucial importance to be
drilled down and folded into deliberations.123
207
e.
Exceptional boards allocate time to what matters most and continuously engage in strategic
thinking to hone the organization’s direction. They not only align agendas and goals with
strategic priorities, but also use them for assessing the chief executive, driving meeting
agendas, and shaping board recruitment.123
208
f.
Board must adopt policies needed to achieve the vision.113
209
g.
Boards must allocate resources based on the vision.113
11
McAdams, 2006.
Report to Congress and the Nonprofit Sector on Governance, Transparency, and Accountability, Panel on the Nonprofit
Sector, 2005
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
129 Final
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
11
McAdams, 2006.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
130
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
Confidential DRAFT
87
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
210
h.
Boards assure school facilities that support student achievement goals.113
211
i.
Boards provide funding and resources for collaborative efforts. 113
212
j.
Responsibilities/responses and timing procedures/policies/etc. are a reported inclusion of the
strategic planning process and implementation/accountability. 130
213
k.
Board members mentioned goal-setting exercises in which the board and superintendent
learned together and solved problems together.115
214
l.
Broad community participation esp. parent and student voice should be included in strategic
planning.130
215
m. Strategic planning with benchmarks and accountability system.130
216
n.
Allocation of fund resources – match strategic plan process.130
217
o.
Require that a strategic plan is done every three years by the same company thru out state.130
218
p.
Board members mentioned goal-setting exercises in which the board and superintendent
learned together and solved problems together.115
219
q.
Board members described staff development activities in the district and could describe the link
between teacher training and board or district goals for students. 115
220
r.
Board members could mention specific initiatives that were underway and could explain the
initiative and identify specific ways that the board contributed to the initiative. Board members
described a clear direction and focus on specific goals related to improving reading.115
221
s.
Board members were knowledgeable about the learning conditions in the schools, alternatives
for improving education and the needs of students. 115
222
t.
Board members could describe the work of staff around the goals in clear, specific terms.
Board members could describe what was happening in classrooms and with instruction. 115
223
u.
The superintendent and board established district goals based on student needs. School goals
were expected to be linked to the district goals.115
224
v.
Superintendents discussed how district actions reflected community needs and input. 115
225
w. Staff members identified clear district-wide goals and expectations for improvements in student
achievement.115
226
x.
Staff members could link building goals to board/district goals for student learning and
describe how those goals were having an impact in their classroom and other classrooms in the
building.115
227
y.
Establishes a vision for the system in collaboration with its stakeholders.119
228
z.
Communicates the system’s vision and purpose to build stakeholder understanding and
support.119
229
aa. Identifies system-wide goals and purpose to build stakeholder understanding and support. 119
230
bb. Develops and continuously maintains a profile of the system, its students, and the
community.119
231
cc. Ensures that the system’s vision and purpose guide the teaching and learning process and the
strategic direction of schools, departments and services.119
232
dd. Reviews its vision and purpose systematically and revises them when appropriate.119
233
234
21. Public Transparency
a.
Exceptional boards promote an ethos of transparency by ensuring that donors, stakeholders,
and interested members of the public have access to appropriate and accurate information
regarding finances, operations, and results. They also extend transparency internally, ensuring
that every board member has equal access to relevant materials when making decisions.Error!
Confidential DRAFT
88
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
Bookmark not defined.123
235
b.
Boards must have effective meetings because what the public sees at these meetings is what
they think of the board.131
236
c.
Board members could describe structures that existed to support connections and
communications within the district. For example, board members could describe teaching
teams, faculty committees and how they related to school improvement initiatives. 115
237
d.
Board members identified how they sought ways to connect with and listen to the community.
Board members expressed pride in their community and in their efforts to involve parents. 115
238
e.
Board members could name specific ways the district was involving parents and community
and all indicated a desire for more involvement.115
239
f.
Superintendents described various means for sharing information frequently and broadly. They
were intentional about involving people in decision making. 115
240
22. Best Practices (Education & Corporate)
241
a.
INTENTIONAL BOARD PRACTICES - Exceptional boards purposefully structure
themselves to fulfill essential governance duties and to support organizational priorities.
Making governance intentional, not incidental, exceptional boards invest in structures and
practices that can be thoughtfully adapted to changing circumstances. 123
242
b.
Board meetings are a joint responsibility of the board and the superintendent. 132
243
c.
CULTURE OF INQUIRY - Exceptional boards institutionalize a culture of inquiry, mutual
respect, and constructive debate that leads to sound and shared decision making. They seek
more information, question assumptions, and challenge conclusions so that they may advocate
for solutions based on analysis.123
244
d.
Under normal circumstances, board meetings should be held monthly for about three hours. 133
245
e.
Regular board meetings should include reports from the superintendent to educate the board,
the workforce and the community about important issues. At least one report should deal with
student achievement.133
246
f.
Boards should consider o more than four priority items or discussion and approval at a board
meeting. Remaining items should be grouped together for approval with one vote. 133
247
g.
Public comment on agenda items, while welcome, should require speakers to sign up in
advance and time per speaker should be limited. Board members should never engage in
discussions with citizens or try to solve problems.133
248
h.
Policy development by the board should be guided by three principles:
i. Policies should focus on ends, not means,
ii. Policies should be only as specific as necessary to obtain results,
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
131
McAdams, 2006.
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
11
McAdams, 2006.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
132
McAdams, Donald R. “The Short, Productive Board Meeting”, The School Administrator, September, 2005.
133
McAdams, 2005.
Confidential DRAFT
89
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
iii. Policies should allow management as much freedom as possible.117
249
i.
Boards conduct all board meetings with student achievement as a clear focus. 113
250
j.
Boards model respect, professional behavior and a commitment to continuous learning:
i. With fellow board members,
ii. With superintendent and staff,
iii. With parents and students, and
iv. With the community.113
251
k.
Boards foster collaborative relationships as a board philosophy:
i. Strategic planning
ii. Community vision
iii. Instructional improvement.113
252
l.
Boards model collaboration and trust.113
253
m. Boards assure a climate of open communications at board meetings and throughout the
district.113
254
n. Board members talked about receiving information from many sources, including the
superintendent, curriculum director, principals, teachers, along with sources outside the district,
such as information about exemplary programs and practices. Information was received by all
board members and shared at the board table. 115
255
o. Provides internal and external stakeholders meaningful roles in the decision-making process that
promote a culture of participation, responsibility, and ownership. 119
256
23. Ethics & Conflict of Interest
257
a. Full compliance (or review) with campaign disclosure laws and conflict of interest. 107
258
b. Create central repository where “disclosures” of potential conflicts o interest are publicly kept.
(i.e., school board members with the only “scissor” company in small rural county sells to
school system).107
259
c. Boards should be able to censure members who violate conflict of interest or other board
policies.107
260
d. Consistent ethical standards and measures for all school boards – state-wide but not “cookie
cutter.”107
261
e. Review relationship between elected state supt. And elected school board members.107
262
f. Determine how to create full circle process e.g. if the board does not meet objectives, how to
connect performance back to the election process? 107
263
g. Adoption of board policies/roles/responsibilities vs. superintendent roles/responsibilities – e.g.
not involved in contracts less that a certain dollar amount. 107
264
h. The board should review and clarify their reason for existence.107
265
i. Exceptional boards are independent-minded. They apply rigorous conflict-of-interest
procedures, and their board members put the interests of the organization above all else when
making decisions. They do not allow their votes to be unduly influenced by loyalty to the chief
executive or by seniority, position, or reputation of fellow board members, staff, or donors. 107
266
j. Exceptional boards promote strong ethical values and disciplined compliance by establishing
appropriate mechanisms for active oversight. They use these mechanisms, such as independent
audits, to ensure accountability and sufficient controls; to deepen their understanding of the
organization; and to reduce the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. 123
267
268
24. Staging Transition
a. REVITALIZATION - Exceptional boards energize themselves through planned turnover,
thoughtful recruitment, and inclusiveness. They see the correlation between mission, strategy,
Confidential DRAFT
90
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
and board composition, and they understand the importance of fresh perspectives and the risks of
closed groups. They revitalize themselves through diversity of experience and through
continuous recruitment.123
b. Terms should be staggered.108
269
270
25. Clarity/Simplicity/Efficiency
271
a. Boards should adopt a policy on managing information requests that places responsibility for
checking unreasonable requests on the board and that shows respect for the superintendent’s
executive privilege.134
272
b.
Boards need administrative support for efficient functioning that typically comes from the
superintendent’s support staff (small to medium-sized districts) or from a professional board
services office (large urban districts). 135
273
c.
Research and policy analysis should not be assigned to the board support staff but reserved for
the board/superintendent team.117
274
d.
Board members should usually be very clear about their decision-making process in terms of
study, learning, reading, listening, receiving data, questioning, discussing and then deciding
and evaluating.115
275
e.
Provides direction, assistance, and resources to align, support, and enhance all parts of the
system in meeting organizational and student performance goals. 119
276
26. Superintendent Succession
277
a.
Boards should have a superintendent succession plan in place to ensure leadership
continuity.136
278 Measures of System Effectiveness
279
27. Student Achievement
280
a.
Boards should approve standards for student learning.113
281
b.
Boards should ensure that curriculum, instruction and assessment are aligned with student
achievement standards.113
282
c.
Boards should participate in periodic work sessions to review student standards and the
district’s initiatives to help all students achieve.113
283
d.
Boards should provide resources needed to increase the number of students meeting
standards.113
284
e.
Boards should ensure that instructional programs are evaluated for effectiveness in helping
1
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
2
Commission Meeting, July, 8, 2008
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
134
McAdams, Donald R., “Responding to Board Member Requests for Information”, The School Administrator, March, 2008.
7
Key Work of School Boards , NSBA.
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
11
McAdams, 2006.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
135
McAdams, Donald R., “Administrative Support for Board Members”, The School Administrator, January 2006.
136
McAdams, Donald R., “Planning for Your Own Succession”, The School Administrator, January, 2007.
Confidential DRAFT
91
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
students meet standards.113
285
f.
Boards should approve and periodically review an assessment system for all students.113
286
g.
Broads should provide funding to support an effective assessment system. 113
287
h.
Boards should approve and monitor policies to assure a strong assessment system. 113
288
i.
Boards use student achievement results to drive decision-making.113
289
j.
Boards approve and monitor policies to assure that students are encouraged to challenge
themselves by taking higher level courses.113
290
k.
Boards consider student instructional, social and emotional needs when planning for improved
student achievement.113
291
l.
Boards provide for staff development that will advance student achievement priorities of the
district.113
292
m.
Boards approve the selection of textbooks and instructional materials that support instructional
priorities.113
293
n.
Boards assure that technology is integrated into the curriculum to enhance student
achievement.113
294
o.
Boards approve budget needs based on student achievement priorities. 113
295
p.
Boards monitor progress of the district’s instructional practices and programs as related to
student achievement goals.113
296
q.
Boards approve and monitor programs designed to meet special instructional needs of students
who are not meeting achievement goals or standards. 113
297
r.
Boards provide adequate resources to meet student achievement goals through the budgeting
process and monitor budget regularly.113
298
s.
Boards approve and periodically review a district plan to build collaborative relationships with
key stakeholders at all levels based on gaining support for student achievement as the district’s
top priority.113
299
t.
Board members had high expectations for all students.115
300
u.
Establishes and implements a comprehensive assessment system, aligned with the system’s
expectations for student learning, that yields information which is reliable, valid, and free of
bias.119
301
v.
Ensures that student assessment data are used to make decisions for continuous improvement
of teaching and learning.119
302
w. Demonstrates verifiable growth in student performance that is supported by multiple sources of
evidence.119
303
28. Accountability
304
a.
Boards initiate, adopt, and monitor policies related to accountability.
305
b.
RESULTS-ORIENTED - Exceptional boards are results-oriented. They measure the
organization’s progress towards mission and evaluate the performance of major programs and
services. They gauge efficiency, effectiveness, and impact, while simultaneously assessing the
quality of service delivery, integrating benchmarks against peers, and calculating return on
investment.123
306
c.
Sup - The school board and the superintendent should achieve consensus on the superintendent
evaluation process that clearly linked to district performance.137
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
Confidential DRAFT
92
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
308
d.
Sup - School boards should have an evaluation that can respond to a superintendent who cuts
ethical corners or abuses subordinates.117
308
e.
What - The district’s performance report should be comprehensive, weighted heavily to student
achievement but also include financial, facilities, human resources, customer satisfaction and
other measures of district performance.117
309
f.
How District performance should be reported to the board and to the public at least annually
using comprehensive performance metrics.117
310
g.
Result - District performance reporting should be in place to align the district’s work and
resources with the board’s priorities.117
311
h.
How - The board monitors progress toward the vision periodically. 113
312
i.
How - Boards participate in work sessions to understand accountability measures, including
data analysis, and how the board, administration and staff should use this information. 113
313
j.
Sup -Boards ensure that the superintendent’s evaluation includes accountability measures.138
314
k.
How - Boards ensure effective and timely communications on the accountability system and
progress.138
315
l.
How - Boards ensure funding to implement accountability measures.138
316
m. What - Boards assure periodic assessment of school climate throughout the district:
i. Attendance data
ii. Discipline data
iii. Surveys of students, staff, parents
iv. Enrollment in higher level classes
v. Staff turnover
vi. Student enrollment trends138
317
n.
Boards assure a safe and orderly learning environment in all schools. 138
318
o.
Utilize procedures for addressing a school board meeting.107
319
p.
Proactive and transparent communication up and down and out to the community. No hidden
agendas. (Shown in both “Roles/Resp” and “Acct/Ethics” categories). 107
320
q.
What - The Board will publish the names of members that did not meet training requirement.
If pass/fail, then publish those members names who did not pass training. 107
321
r.
What - Less than half of states mandating training also have an enforcement provision built
into the law. Where they exist, sanctions include:114
i. Removal from office
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
11
McAdams, 2006.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
137
1
McAdams, Donald R., “Link Your Evaluation to District Performance”, The School Administrator, September 2006.
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
8
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
138
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004
Confidential DRAFT
93
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
ii. At call for election, board chair announces those who have/have not met training
requirement
iii. Commission of Education may withhold funds from the school system
iv. Seat can be declared vacant
v. School report card shows school board members not meeting minimum requirements
vi. Removal by state school ethics commission
322
29. Headcount, Demographics
323
a.
Board members often referred to student needs—as shown through data about students and
groups of students—as the focus for decision making. Board members mentioned data on the
dropout rate, test scores and student needs. They talked about receiving information on a
routine basis, such as monthly reports.115
324
b.
Maintains a secure, accurate, and complete student record system in accordance with state and
federal regulations.119
325
30. Operational Statistics & Financial Results
326
a.
Exceptional boards link bold visions and ambitious plans to financial support, expertise, and
networks of influence. Linking budgeting to strategic planning, they approve activities that can
be realistically financed with existing or attainable resources, while ensuring that the
organization has the infrastructure and internal capacity it needs. 123
327
b.
Sponsors working sessions to understand accountability measures, including data analysis and
how the board, administration, and staff should use this information. 138
328
c.
Adopts an annual superintendent performance plan and ensures that the superintendent’s
evaluation includes accountability measures.138
329
d.
Ensures effective and timely communications on the accountability system and progress to
parents and the community.138
330
e.
Ensures compliance with state accountability measures.107
331
f.
Ensures funding to implement accountability measures. 113
332
g.
Uses data on student achievement as a measure to drive decision-making.107
333
h.
Adopts an annual superintendent performance plan and ensures that the superintendent’s
evaluation includes accountability measures.107
334
i.
Provides for systematic analysis and review of student performance and school and system
effectiveness.119
335
j.
Implements an evaluation system that provides for the professional growth of all personnel. 119
336
k.
Conducts a systematic analysis of instructional and organizational effectiveness, including
support systems, and uses the results to improve student and system performance.119
337
l.
Uses comparison and trend data from comparable school systems to evaluate student
performance and system effectiveness.119
338
339
1
31. Board Specific Measures & Self-Review
a.
Develops a code of ethics and core values that models respect. 139
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
6
Goodman, Richard H. and Zimmerman, William G. Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21st Century School
Board/Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High Student Achievement, 2000.
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
Confidential DRAFT
94
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
340
b.
Five standards – vision, structure, accountability, advocacy, and unity – should be used as
criteria for continuous development and self-evaluation of a team’s leadership and governance
performance.112
341
c.
Boards evaluate themselves on board goals related to student achievement. 113
342
d.
CONTINUOUS LEARNING - Exceptional boards embrace the qualities of a continuous
learning organization, evaluating their own performance and assessing the value they add to the
organization. They embed learning opportunities into routine governance work and in activities
outside of the boardroom.123
343
32. Alignment of Standards (DOE, SACS, GSBA)
344
a.
Boards should adopt and revise policies to support standards. 113
345
b.
Boards assure compliance to state accountability measures.113
346
c.
Boards assure curriculum alignment supports district priorities. 113
347
d.
Adhere to and follow national / international standards.107
348
e.
Adhering to the same standards for reporting test scores. 107
349
33. Communication
350
a. Serves as advocates for excellence in education and higher student achievement in the
community and also at the state and federal levels.113
351
b. K- Builds public support for higher student achievement and increases public trust in the district
through formal and informal communication and through openness.113
352
c. K Ensures a climate of open communications at board meetings and throughout the district. 113
353
d. K Ensures clear, jargon-free communications about standards that increase the awareness and
understanding of parents, staff and community. 113
354
e. MC Board members must continually reach out to community groups and individuals to build
personal relationship and educate, educate, and educate.117
355
f. K Boards must communicate the vision to all stakeholders. 113
356
g. K Boards should assure effective, user-friendly communications on assessment measures and
progress.113
357
h. K Boards ensure that the public understands the relationship between standards and
curriculum.113
358
i. L Board members could describe specific ways board actions and goals were communicated to
staff, such as a post-board meeting for teachers and administrators.115
359
j. L Board members could describe structures that existed to support connections and
communications within the district. For example, board members could describe teaching teams,
faculty committees and how they related to school improvement initiatives. 115
360
k. L Superintendents described various means for sharing information frequently and broadly.
They were intentional about involving people in decision making. 115
361
l. A Provides a system of communication which uses a variety of methods to report student
performance and system effectiveness to all stakeholders. 119
362
m. A Fosters collaboration with community stakeholders to support student learning.119
363
n. A Uses system-wide strategies to listen to and communicate with stakeholders. 119
32
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004
139
????
Confidential DRAFT
95
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
364
o. A Solicits the knowledge and skills of stakeholders to enhance the work of the system.119
365
p. A Communicates the expectations for student learning and goals for improvement to all
stakeholders.119
366
q. A Provides information that is meaningful and useful to stakeholders. 119
367
r. A Monitors and communicates the results of improvement efforts to stakeholders. 119
368
s. A Exceptional boards promote an ethos of transparency by ensuring that donors, stakeholders,
and interested members of the public have access to appropriate and accurate information
regarding finances, operations, and results. They also extend transparency internally, ensuring
that every board member has equal access to relevant materials when making decisions. 123
369
t. Encouraging Community Involvement. “Officials, school administrators, and teachers in every
site reported that community organizing influenced policy and resource decisions to increase
equity and build capacity, particularly in historically low performing schools.” 140
370
34. Community Norms
371
a.
Boards should reflect the needs and culture of the community and provide structure and policy
stability.141
372
b.
Boards encourage community support for standards.113
373
c.
Boards ensure that parents receive annual personalized data on their children’s achievement. 113
374
d.
Boards serve as advocates for higher student achievement in the community and also at the
state and federal levels.113
375
e.
Boards build public support for higher student achievement and increase public trust of the
district through formal and informal communication and through openness. 113
376
f.
Boards advocate student achievement as a top community priority. 113
377
g.
Creates and supports collaborative networks of stakeholders to support system program. 119
378
h.
Assesses and addresses community expectations and stakeholder satisfaction.119
379
i.
REVITALIZATION - Exceptional boards energize themselves through planned turnover,
thoughtful recruitment, and inclusiveness. They see the correlation between mission, strategy,
and board composition, and they understand the importance of fresh perspectives and the risks
of closed groups. They revitalize themselves through diversity of experience and through
continuous recruitment.123
380
35. Independent Reporting
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry, The Iowa Association of School Boards, October, 2000.
11
McAdams, 2006.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
140
1
Organized Communities, Stronger Schools. Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
7
National School Boards Association Survey of State School Boards Associations, Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members -- April 2004.
13
AdvancED Accreditation Standards for Quality School Systems. 2007.
17
The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource 2005.
141
McAdams, Donald R., “Whose Job Is It to Lead Reform?”, The School Administrator, May, 2004
Confidential DRAFT
96
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
381
a.
Board/superintendent governance teams should be required to select from approximately 3
models of effective governance such as the Reform Governance in Action model. 107
382
b.
There should be transparent, public, unbiased, independent reporting consistent across school
boards on measures of board effectiveness to all – boil down to an ROI.107
383
c.
Some measure of ROI on property taxes (similar to demonstrating shareholder value).107
384
d.
There should be a Return on Investment (ROI) analysis on the level of student achievement,
bond rating, HSGR, cost per student, percentage of administrative staff to the percentage of
classroom teachers.107
384
e.
Board measurements should be aligned with district goals.107
385
386
387
388
389
390
Managing Problems/Interventions
36. Role of DOE vs. Board (if under-performing school)
a.
Create a Receivership Authority at the state level to oversee continuously underperforming
systems. This authority could also monitor those systems and their boards that are in jeopardy
of going into receivership.
37. Identification & Timing
a.
District intervention strategies for low student achievement are reviewed by the board for
effectiveness.142
38. Responses & Responsibilities
391
a.
Create “receivership” authority.107
392
b.
Leadership assistance provided to boards underperforming ($ - staff – mentors – training –
etc.).107
393
c.
State intervention for failed school boards.107
394
d.
Process mechanisms for dismissal/removal of board members not behaving/performing
appropriately.107
395
e.
Force accountability and action on underperforming schools, provide support as needed. 107
396 School System Structures & Models
397
39. System Scale & Size
398
a.
Size appears to be a benefit in affluent districts, but the benefit of size seems to decline as the
poverty level of the district increases.143
399
b.
As can be seen, the likelihood of reporting “a great deal” of progress increases with the size of
the district. The smallest districts, those with enrollments between 300 and 2,500, are the least
likely to report high levels of progress in any reform elements. 144
401
c.
402
403
142
1
40. Relevant Business Models
a.
Governance is seen as a specialized form of ownership rather than a specialized form of
Noted from the National Center for Educational Accountability web-site in McAdams, 2006.
Advisory Committee Meeting, June 26, 2008.
34
Organized Communities, Stronger Schools. Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.
143
Big Isn’t Always Bad: School District Size, Poverty and Standards Based Reform. The Urban Institute and U.S. DOE, 1998.
Big Isn’t Always Bad: School District Size, Poverty and Standards Based Reform, pg. 10. The Urban Institute and U.S. DOE,
1998.
144
Confidential DRAFT
97
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
management. That is, the board is more identified with the general public than with the staff
and more akin to the phenomenon of owning than of operating.145
404
b.
The board as a body is vested with governing authority so that measures to preclude trustees
from exercising individual authority are crucial to governance integrity. This means that
instructions and advice of individual trustees do not have to be heeded by staff.145
405
c.
The board outlines boundaries of acceptability, within which the superintendent and staff are
permitted free choice of means. Hence, maximum creativity, innovation and decentralization
are allowed without giving away the shop. The proscription of unacceptable means tells the
superintendent how not to operate rather than how to operate. 145
406
d.
The board monitors performance on ends and unacceptable means in a systematic and rigorous
way.145
407
e.
Board meetings are spent largely in learning about, debating and resolving long-term ends
issues rather than dealing with otherwise delegable matters.145
408
f.
The new paradigm of governance requires a school board to exercise uncharacteristic selfdiscipline, but it enables the board to govern the system, rather than run it:; to define and
demand educational results rather than poke and probe in educational and administrative
processes; to redirect time for trivia and ritual actions to strategic leadership; to give a
superintendent one boss rather than several; to grant administrators and educators great latitude
within explicit boundaries; to be in charge of board agendas instead of dependent on staff; and
to guarantee unbroken accountability from classroom to taxpayer. 146
409
g.
Board/superintendent teams should be authorized to meet privately from time to time, exempt
from open meeting laws, to evaluate the work of the team and of one another, but not take
action regarding district policy matters. 147
410
h.
School districts should manage human resources like great companies – spot and develop
talent, promote from within and plan for succession. 147
411
i.
Recognize that education is a business, system with business models, not education models – 1
vote of 1.107
412
j.
Board/superintendent Governance teams should be required to select from Georgia School
Board Association three models of effective governance such as the Reform Governance in
Action model.107
413
k.
Reforms need to be comprehensive and need to affect every level of the education system. 148
414
l.
School Boards are overextended with the myriad of tasks that have been added to their
responsibilities and their focus should be narrowed. The school board’s stated mission, as
described in several state education codes, is to set policy and guide the management of
schools in a district. An inventory of six state education codes shows that legislatures have
heaped more responsibilities on local boards, requiring them to perform a variety of tasks that
do not necessarily align with the stated mission. Board members must wade through a sea of
legislated responsibilities that range from levying taxes and hiring the superintendent to
selecting materials for sex education courses and ensuring that students dress appropriately.12
415
m. Alliances of education scholars and business leaders have suggested that the cacophony of
demands on school boards and schools be reconciled. They want to eliminate all requirements
unrelated to student safety and civil rights and aligning spending, curriculum, testing and
145
Carver, John, “Toward Coherent Governance”, The School Administrator, March 2000.
146
Carver, John, “Remaking Governance”, The American School Board, March 2000.
147
McAdams, 2007.
Hill, Paul T., Kelly Warner-King, Christine Campbell, Meaghan McElroy, Isabel Munoz-Colon, “Big City School Boards:
Problems and Options”, Center on reinventing public education, December, 2002.
148
Confidential DRAFT
98
The Commission for School Board Excellence
ID
School Board References
CANDIDACY & ELECTION PROCESS
teacher training around specific expectations for student learning. 12
416
n.
School boards should imitate boards of private businesses and recruit board members from
business who can transform school boards.12
417
o.
The constituency to which school board members answer should be broadened. Broadening
board members’ constituencies e.g. through district-wide elections or mayoral appointment, are
supposed to weaken links between board members and particular interest groups. 12
418
p.
Limit school boards’ basic powers and duties. Proposals to narrow board members’ duties,
limiting tier activities to approval and performance oversight of whole schools and leaving
questions of hiring and compensation to be resolved at the school level, are supposed to
eliminate the possibility of patronage and therefore focus board members’ attention on
management of a portfolio of schools.12
419
q.
Eliminate school boards’ exclusive authority to oversee schools in a particular geographic area.
Exclusive authority to provide public schools is assumed to encourage complacency about
school quality.12
420
41. Laws & Local Statues
421
a.
Laws and local statues should be detailed enough to handle an ethics violation committed by a
school board member.107
422
b.
After each session of the Texas Legislature, including each regular session and called session
related to education, each school board member shall receive an update from an ESC or any
registered provider to the basic orientation to the Texas Education Code. The update session
shall be of sufficient length to familiarize board members with major changes in the code and
other relevant legal developments related to school governance.114
EXAMPLE REPORTS FOR DISTRICT COMPARISON
3rd Grade CRCT – All Students
Confidential DRAFT
99
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Confidential DRAFT
School Board References
100
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
3rd Grade CRCT – by Race/Ethnicity
Forsyth County
Glynn County
Confidential DRAFT
101
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Harris County
Confidential DRAFT
102
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Graduation Rates
Confidential DRAFT
103
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Graduation Rates
Confidential DRAFT
104
The Commission for School Board Excellence
School Board References
Attendance
Confidential DRAFT
105
The Commission for School Board Excellence
Confidential DRAFT
School Board References
106