As we learned in our class, there are a number of models for school board governance. They all approach the problem of bringing board members together to best dispense with the role with which they are charged. Those roles are:
- Determine a vision/mission for the district that reflects the needs and wishes of the community while focusing on properly preparing students to achieve at high levels and leave school prepared for their next phase of their lives.
- Oversee the work of the superintendent to assure that he or she is leading the staff appropriately to fulfill the mission and vision that had previously been set.
- Communicate out to the parents and community the degree to which the goals were met and what measures will be taken to improve and/or adjust the goals.
Our instructor, presented a number of models of board governance and school improvement models. The one that spoke most to me was the Studer Education Group.
On their website, the Studer Education Group states, "The mission of Studer Education's EBL K12 is to provide students with a great place to learn, teachers with a great place to teach and staff with a great place to work, and parents with confidence that their children are getting a great education."
I don't think that anyone could argue with a system that would live up to this mission. The challenge with this, and any system, is translating the actions of a board into improved academic and social student achievement. In other words, how can the actions of a group of seven adults, who often are not trained in any formal branch of education make a difference to six - eighteen year olds in the classrooms?
We learned that as unlikely as it may seem, well run boards, who practice proper governance procedures and who implement structured improvement plans, can and do improve the development and the achievement of the students in their district.
In the Studer model, It starts off with a strategic plan, district scorecard, leader evaluation, maximize performance which leads into the k12 accountability system and continuous improvement.
A well functioning board, one which focuses on governance and avoids micro-management, interfaces with student performance and district vision in a number of important ways. First the board collects themes which outline the needs, wants and expectations of the community through community conversations. It then helps to set the desired outcomes in the district through the development of results and operational expectations that are communicated to the superintendent and the district staff. The superintendent then leads that staff, possibly through a framework such as the Studer model to the development of strategic planning and quality processes and deployment of improvement plans.
Finally, the analysis of the results data verifies the success of the process and serves to guide necessary revisions or adjustments to the plan and implementation of the strategies.
Brad Saron, our instructor, discussed with us a number of ways that boards can influence the improvement process of a district. There are two key themes that I will take away from our class instruction and discussion. The first is the concept of alignment. With all of the models, the idea that a well functioning district with high student achievement is most often the result of a district that has alignment from top to bottom (and bottom to top). For example, Brad mentioned districts like Pewaukee and Janesville. These two districts have boards that practice good governance, set clear policy and direction for the district and have put systems in place that address student achievement from the board room to the classroom.
The second concept I am taking away is that of the "line of implementation". This is the line in the operational chart at which the Board turns over the responsibility to the superintendent and the staff. It is the demarcation line between a board practicing good policy governance (operating exclusively above the line) and a micro-managing board (one getting involved with duties that are clearly administrative).
I don't think that anyone could argue with a system that would live up to this mission. The challenge with this, and any system, is translating the actions of a board into improved academic and social student achievement. In other words, how can the actions of a group of seven adults, who often are not trained in any formal branch of education make a difference to six - eighteen year olds in the classrooms?
We learned that as unlikely as it may seem, well run boards, who practice proper governance procedures and who implement structured improvement plans, can and do improve the development and the achievement of the students in their district.
In the Studer model, It starts off with a strategic plan, district scorecard, leader evaluation, maximize performance which leads into the k12 accountability system and continuous improvement.
A well functioning board, one which focuses on governance and avoids micro-management, interfaces with student performance and district vision in a number of important ways. First the board collects themes which outline the needs, wants and expectations of the community through community conversations. It then helps to set the desired outcomes in the district through the development of results and operational expectations that are communicated to the superintendent and the district staff. The superintendent then leads that staff, possibly through a framework such as the Studer model to the development of strategic planning and quality processes and deployment of improvement plans.
Finally, the analysis of the results data verifies the success of the process and serves to guide necessary revisions or adjustments to the plan and implementation of the strategies.
Brad Saron, our instructor, discussed with us a number of ways that boards can influence the improvement process of a district. There are two key themes that I will take away from our class instruction and discussion. The first is the concept of alignment. With all of the models, the idea that a well functioning district with high student achievement is most often the result of a district that has alignment from top to bottom (and bottom to top). For example, Brad mentioned districts like Pewaukee and Janesville. These two districts have boards that practice good governance, set clear policy and direction for the district and have put systems in place that address student achievement from the board room to the classroom.
The second concept I am taking away is that of the "line of implementation". This is the line in the operational chart at which the Board turns over the responsibility to the superintendent and the staff. It is the demarcation line between a board practicing good policy governance (operating exclusively above the line) and a micro-managing board (one getting involved with duties that are clearly administrative).
No comments:
Post a Comment