School Board Relations

By providing a free public education for rich and poor, local school boards have nurtured and protected American democracy for more than a century. This American institution anchors a local governance model that is unique among the national systems of education throughout the world.

The organization of school districts and school boards has changed little in one hundred years. The new millennium finds about 14,320 school districts predominantly governed by elected layperson boards of five or seven members. The average school district enrolls 2,200 students and is located in a nonurban setting. Although the majority of Americans live in cities and suburbs, the majority of school districts are located in small towns and rural areas. There are nearly 80,000 school board members but only several hundred urban board members guide policy and management for half the nations' school children. Each decade a higher percentage of children attend schools in suburbs and the cities.

School Board Members

Unfortunately, there is little available data describing demographics and characteristics of local school board members. It can be reasonably assumed from scattered data that about 60 percent of board members are men with a college education who work in white-collar positions. The number of women and minority board members appears to be increasing. It also seems that a minority of board members are parents of school-age children.

The role of local boards is characterized in the literature as the means by which community members can participate in setting educational policies affecting their children and the spending of local tax dollars. The local school board member role involves seeking out the opinions of the community and representing their educational interests through formulation of policy.

School Board Service

Most members serve without pay in positions that require countless hours per week of listening to citizens, reading, and attending meetings. Until the 1960s, most authorities described a typical board members' motivation for serving as filling a community obligation. Boards were comprised of "main street" businessmen, professionals, and occasionally retired school administrators. These boards usually functioned without partisan politics, and seldom did members focus on single or controversial personal agendas.

Many boards in the early twenty-first century are comprised of members who are elected to represent specific interest groups, such as teachers or taxpayer groups. Or, they serve on the board with a single agenda interest, such as special education, bilingual education, school prayer, fixing a school program, or firing a coach or superintendent. Most authorities agree school boards are considerably more politicized than in the past. Board members with political agendas sincerely believe their actions serve the schools and the public interest.

The Superintendent

The most important action a school board takes is the selection of a superintendent. For the average school district this happens every six or seven years. For districts mired in conflict it might occur every two or three years. Superintendent tenure data suggests that districts with stable boards and communities tend to attract higher quality superintendents and keep them longer. Since a school district is almost a perfect reflection of its community, it is not surprising to find turmoil-ridden boards in communities beset by contentious issues, such as poverty, high unemployment, illiteracy, and racial tension.

The impression, established by media and journal articles, is that constant turmoil and struggle between boards and superintendents exist in all districts. Fewer than 1 percent of superintendents are terminated each year. A larger number, however, move on to other districts after acrimonious relations with the board or certain board members. The American Association of School Administrators study conducted every ten years gives a more realistic picture of the state of school board and superintendent relations. For decades superintendents have reported their annual evaluations given by boards to be "excellent" or "good." In about fifteen percent of the districts reported, however, the superintendent's evaluation does signal a problem in board relations.

The root of many conflicts between boards and superintendents is a "zone of acceptance." This is the zone in which the superintendent may operate and make decisions. Most boards directly and indirectly create the parameters of the zone. Often individual board members try to add to or delete from the actions a superintendent has been led to believe are in the zone. The result is conflict with the board or individual board members. In turn, superintendents generally create "zones of acceptance" within which other district administrators work. When the superintendent's "zone" is altered, sometimes the entire administrative structure of the district is changed.

Boards and Superintendents: The Working Relationship

The relationship between board and superintendent begins prior to hiring. The superintendent search process for most districts is intensive and includes several visits to the district by each finalist. During these one-or two-day interviews, board members form an initial relationship with the future superintendent. This is probably not true if in-house candidates are being considered. Often one or more board members are not enthusiastic about a candidate later selected by the board majority. This may create a situation where the new superintendent must quickly "prove" himself or herself to the board member (s).

In many districts after initial hiring the superintendent enjoys a "honeymoon" period with the board. This is seldom more than six-months in duration, or until a serious problem arises with the superintendent's position or an action is opposed by one or more board members. During these first few months the superintendent and board are becoming acquainted with each others' views about district operations. This is a critical time for board and superintendent to establish parameters of decision-making. Perceptive boards set limits within which the superintendent may make unilateral decisions. The types of decisions that can be made by the board and those that are the responsibility of the superintendent should be clearly understood and respected by each party. By doing this many potential conflicts can be avoided between boards and superintendents. Well-functioning boards appear to have clear role definitions for the superintendent and themselves.

Communication

Communication is the critical element of superintendent and board relations. Many superintendents spend very little time in direct communication with board members. Several national superintendent studies claim the average superintendent spends less than three hours per week in talking or meeting with board members. Not included in direct communication are written memos and letters from the superintendent to the board. Most likely a sizable percentage of the time superintendents do spend in board communication is with the board president.

A 2000 study of 175 of the nation's leading superintendents showed this group spent three times more effort in direct communication with board members. It was not uncommon for these superintendents to spend more than a full work day each week in talking with board members.

The lack of time spent with board members by some superintendents can be explained by a long-held negative view of boards and board members. Often educators view boards as "outsiders" possessing power to make unwise or arbitrary decisions affecting schools, students, and staff. Collective bargaining often hardens negative opinion about boards in the eyes of district staff.

An important piece of written communication is the "board package." In nearly every school district, prior to board meetings, a loose-leaf binder that contains information about each meeting agenda item is distributed by the superintendent's office. This board package can be voluminous, taking several hours of study time for board members. The content of the board package often serves to initiate communication between board members and the superintendent. A few superintendents take the initiative and personally call board members to ask if they have questions or concerns about the meeting agenda and the information included in the board package. Others wait for board members to call. The flow and type of superintendent and board communication varies from district to district, and is certainly being modified by the use of e-mail.

Some boards desire that the superintendent directly communicate with the board president (or chair), leaving to that board member the responsibility to inform other members. Most boards, however, wish to give each member the opportunity to directly communicate with the superintendent.

Communication problems arise when board members initiate communication directly with principals and staff without giving the superintendent prior notification. Some board members will go so far as to directly, or by insinuation, instruct a principal or staff member. This undercuts the superintendent's authority and creates confusion in the district. Teachers and administrators often interpret intrusion by board members to mean the superintendent lacks authority. The superintendent and other board members may take offense, and the result may be a severe strain on board and superintendent relations.

School problems of board members' children are sometimes a source of conflict between superintendents and individual board members. These personal conflicts can permanently damage working relationships. Despite restrictions on nepotism, in some states, board members have spouses or relatives working in the district. This can be the source of another serious personal conflict between the superintendent and board members. Lastly, some board members may possess direct or indirect business links with district vendors or competing vendors. Board business interests can create conflict with the superintendent and a legal problem for district.

Perhaps the most often encountered superintendent and board conflict area is the "special" interest of board members. Frequently, board members seek board office in order to see a specific objective enacted. This might be the termination of a coach or administrator, or even the superintendent. Or, the special interest might be to have the Ten Commandments posted in classrooms or open the school day with prayer. Superintendents (and other board members) are placed in a difficult position, as they might be required by law or procedure to withhold support of a given special interest. The problem is accentuated many times when the board member is allied with special interest groups in the community. A good example would be a board member who represents the interests of an antitax group. This board member may resist establishing a budget, setting a referendum for a new building, or negotiating with teachers. This type of resistance creates tension within the board, community, and with the superintendent.

Actually, the most serious board and superintendent conflict originates within the board itself. As boards become politicized, identifiable member coalitions emerge and clash with other board members. This is especially the case in large urban districts with boards divided by racial issues.

Conflict among board members often leads to each group trying to receive the superintendent's support for their position. In many conflicts there is little chance for the superintendent to remain neutral and efforts to do so result in alienation on the part of both groups. Internal board politics is a very serious problem in many districts, and there are usually no outside neutral parties available to mediate intraboard differences that are often disguised as superintendent and board conflict. Most likely a majority of superintendents leaving districts in midcontract do so because of intraboard conflict.

The outcome of board conflict, made public when the board votes on an issue, is usually a "split" board, meaning that consensus is very difficult to achieve. Generally, the public interprets the vote supporting a given proposition as reflecting the group of board members who support the superintendent. Some superintendents attempt to insulate themselves from what they consider to be unfair board criticism or interference. A frequent strategy that is used is to create a citizens' advisory group for the superintendent comprised of leaders in the community. Superintendents believe this group can provide protection in the event of conflict with the board or act to stop intraboard squabbling. In addition many of the advisory group members are in a position to be future board candidates, giving the superintendent potential allies in these possible board members.

The superintendent's actions in the community can be a flashpoint for board conflict. Even though superintendents are prohibited from participation in board elections, conflict sometimes arises when board members perceive the superintendent's encouraging a community member to run for a board position. Some board members are also suspicious of a superintendent who serves as chief spokesperson for the district. They perceive this as diminishing their political stature with constituent groups.

Putting Together a Superintendent/Board Relations Plan

Nearly all authorities indicate role conflict to be the leading cause of superintendent and board conflict. In order to reduce the likelihood of conflict it seems important that roles are clarified at the beginning of a superintendent's or a board's tenure. This is difficult to accomplish without a neutral third party facilitator and also because of increased board turnover in thousands of districts.

A potential source of assistance for board members and superintendents is in-service training offered to new board members by state school board associations. Districts that use a strategic planning process have a natural opportunity for the board and superintendent to mutually determine roles and responsibilities.

A majority of superintendents provide orientation sessions for new board members. This is another opportunity for the superintendent to clarify roles with at least one board member. Unfortunately, the politicization of boards has resulted in the increase of sensitive political issues, which makes superintendent and board relations very difficult. In a number of cases, superintendents never even have an opportunity to establish working relations with a board. More often board members are elected on a quasi-political platform of candidates who are sponsored by special interest groups. When this slate of candidates is elected, they immediately "buy out" the superintendent's contract in order to hire a person sharing their political views.

One problem contributing to a negative climate between superintendents and boards can usually be adjusted if not eliminated by the superintendent. This is the time required for board members to spend on district governance and activities. Many board members complain board membership is actually a second full-time job. This is nearly true in large urban districts with serious student achievement and political problems. Board time can be dramatically reduced by the superintendent and management team through careful examination of time demands placed on the board. The superintendent must know the board well enough to be able to screen out unnecessary paperwork and meetings. Needless hours of time can be eliminated if the board is willing to trust the superintendent and management team to perform this task.

Board members who give up family and even work time for board business often believe the superintendent and management team are foisting off decision-making and management responsibilities on the board. In districts where board members spend no more than five hours per week on board business, it is quite likely that superintendent and board relations function more effectively.

The relationship between a board and superintendent establishes a tone for the district environment. If the relationship is cooperative and harmonious district employees feel secure as roles are clarified, expectations are clear, and ambiguity does not cloud attempts to change and improve programs. Conflict between the superintendent and board creates tension inside the district and in the community. The situation discourages program innovation and reform, and deters constructive community involvement in the schools. It certainly can be fatal to any bond or tax rate referenda attempts. Unfortunately, many districts are not proactive in meeting the challenge of board and superintendent relations.