April 15, 2002
Note: LuAnn Bird is a former President of the Oshkosh Area
School District Board of Education. The following essay, which
appeared in the April 21, 2002 Oshkosh Northwestern, is part of a
much longer study done by Ms. Bird. A more complete version will
appear in Wisconsin School News later this month. LuAnn Bird can be
reached at labird@new.rr.com.
The Oshkosh School Board has two new members and now must
tackle the important issues facing the district due to a failed
referendum, declining enrollments, and budget cuts. Having served
for six years, I know how challenging yet rewarding the job can be.
What can our educational leaders do to pull together and provide a
new direction?
Last fall I took an in-depth look at Wisconsin's school boards as part of a course I was taking at Alverno College. I started by researching the history.
In Wisconsin, the first free tax-supported graded school opened in Kenosha in 1849; by 1937, there were 7,777 school districts. In an effort to improve and equalize education, the State Legislature in 1945 established a committee to study and recommend proposals for reorganizing school facilities in the state. Consolidation began, and by 1947 there were 6,391 districts with 4,127 operating one-teacher schools. Today we have 426 districts governed by elected school boards.
With the exception of Milwaukee, all board members in the state are elected at-large, which is distinctly different from other governing bodies such as city councils or county boards where members are elected by and from an area within the city or county.
According to Steve Hintzman, Wisconsin Association of School Boards director of Legal and Policy Services, the at-large election process was supposed to attract board members who had a broader interest in the school district as a whole. It was also expected that school boards might function more like a "corporate" board as opposed to dealing with political disputes between wards. Similar to business, education has a specific mission.
Wisconsin State Statute 118.01 defines public education as "a fundamental responsibility of the state." Parents share with the school board the responsibility for meeting the following four educational goals:
According to 120.13, school boards "may do all things reasonable to promote the cause of education, including establishing, providing, and improving school district programs, functions and activities for the benefit of pupils. . . ." The statute then lists more specific requirements.
The state defines the mission of our schools but allows boards to choose the method by which they will govern. Being familiar with Oshkosh's approach to governance and having worked as a consultant in several districts, I wondered what models other boards might be using.
In November 2001, I worked with Carol Tyler, consultant and trainer for the Quality Academy, a consulting wing of the Fox Valley Technical College to conduct a survey to find out what models of governance school boards were using, how boards were performing, and in which areas they might need help.
All the public school districts in the Fox Valley Technical College area were included in the research. We reached 81 percent (25 out of 31) of the board presidents by using a phone interview, while 52 percent (16 out of 31) of superintendents responded to a written survey.
Regarding models or approaches to governance, most boards, 92 percent, are using (to some degree) strategic planning, which consists of having a mission, a vision, goals, implementation plans, and measures. Almost three-quarters, 73 percent, are using Policy Governance: The board sets the policy, speaks with one voice, sets the direction, monitors the "ends" of the system, and delegates the "means" or operations to the superintendent. A little more than half, 54 percent, are using Continuous Quality Improvement/Total Quality Management (CQI/TQM), a business approach that uses a management model of empowerment (as opposed to managing from the top down), makes decisions using data, changes processes to improve results, and focuses on customer satisfaction.
In the section on board performance, presidents and superintendents rated most categories in the OK-to-good range. Areas rated the highest included effective board meetings, understanding the role of the superintendent, and teamwork. Lowest were district monitoring, board professional development, and board self-evaluation.
Although the order of priority changed for each group of respondents, both identified the same top seven categories listed below as areas in which they need assistance:
My research also showed that boards with a high score in professional development have a better understanding of their role and achieve a higher level of strategic planning. Fortunately, our district already has a planning retreat scheduled for this summer. I would encourage all board members to attend and to evaluate their own performance as part of the process. They need to set new goals for themselves as well as for the district and learn to hold administration accountable for the performance of the system instead of micromanaging. Oshkosh is not alone in struggling with these governance issues.
Ultimately, the board must agree on a fiscally responsible plan that solves the district's problems in the context of achieving the mission of public education. Our children's future depends on it!
LuAnn Bird
Former School Board President