Board games

I came across an NPR story about a religious community who had no children in their local public school district and yet they took over that district's board. This reminded me of the trojan horse incident in England where another religious community took over that school's board. In both cases, this was democratic and lawful.  Neither was appropriate.

The US story is complicated in that public schools are not funded centrally but locally so taxpayers around the school pay for it, even if they do not use it. This is why schools in poor districts are under-funded and cannot get a funding increase (aka a tax increase) approved because their community cannot afford it. Meanwhile, schools in wealthy districts routinely raise money through tax increases, special levies, bonds and overrides and the gap gets wider.

School governance is tricky, indeed any committee or governing board is a minefield of potential problems. Trade unions and university student associations have been challenged in court and even made voluntary or have closed because a member or group of members took exception to a decision taken "on their behalf". A meme is currently circulating declaring that "he is not my president", indicating someone did not vote for the incumbent or feels that the office-holder does not represent him/her.

What I find inappropriate about the two examples above is that a school has a Mission Statement, a declaration of its values and of what it does and intends to do, and a school board must further the goals of the school's Mission and in these case the Board did not. A board governs on behalf of the school's members, however they are defined (former students / families / staff, current students / families / staff, local community etc). A Mission is the school's long-term strategic goal and direction, is concerned with tomorrow and not today, is defined by the members and should be changed or updated only by the members (the role of General Meetings).

When a board goes against a school's Mission or against clearly established policies and precedents which should be consistent with the Mission, then it is wrong and acting inappropriately.

I know of a case where a parent felt that the school day was too long. In fact, it later transpired that she objected to waiting for 30 minutes between the end of her job and the her son's leaving school. Interestingly, her son did not want to leave when she did in any case; he much preferrred to remain with his friends and would probably have stayed on campus overnight!

So she lobbied, was elected to the Board, and pushed through a shortening of the school day over the objections of the principal. The principal could not cut program, so he was forced to cut recess. (Guess which parent later complained about her son being boisterous and hard to manage when she picked him up and took him home?) As you'd predict, academic results fell and discipline issues increased, especially at the end of the day.

The Board had contravened one of the extensions to and policies derived from its Mission which explicitly allowed for multiple periods of recess, splitting academic and no-academic blocks of time, student-directed free play, discovery and boy-friendly activities etc. Had the Board listened to the principal, consulted current and former stakeholders, or reviewed its decision in light of the Mission, I believe it would not have made that decision. So while a Board may act legally or democratcally, it does not always act appropriately.

**Remember to sign up for an email alert to new posts by completing the box to the right**

Further reading

https://teaching-abc.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-governance-mis-step.html

https://teaching-abc.blogspot.com/2014/07/dont-fix-what-aint-broke.html

https://resilienteducator.com/classroom-resources/rogue-school-board/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/when-schools-go-rogue-the-accountability-gap-1.3856116

https://www.weareteachers.com/when-things-fall-apart-the-abuse-of-school-board-power/