Last post I related a couple of instances where the school or system suffered a lack of confidence among its stakeholders due to a failure of oversight on the part of the Board. When that happens, it is usually not the Board who suffers but rather the school.
So, if it is a given that the Head must be accountable for her or his actions to the Board, then to whom is the Board accountable when it messes up? It is important to remember that any Board governs on behalf of someone else, in trust.
About ten years ago I consulted with a Board that had taken its eye off of the financial performance of the school. By the time they had woken up to the extent of the problem (the school hadn't paid Revenue Canada its deductions at source for over two years and was millions in arrears) the school was in a mess. Needless to say, the Board held the Head accountable and summarily dismissed him. Eighteen months later the school, which had just recently celebrated its 90th anniversary, closed up for good. The damage to their fiscal position, and reputation proved to be insurmountable. Interestingly, by the time that school shut its doors, there was not a single member of the Board who had been there when the problems had arisen. They had all resigned and disappeared from public view.
So, if it is a given that the Head must be accountable for her or his actions to the Board, then to whom is the Board accountable when it messes up? It is important to remember that any Board governs on behalf of someone else, in trust.
In the public sector, "trustees" act on behalf of the taxpayer. The parallel in independent schools would be to say that they act on behalf of the fee-paying parent. Consider how different their decisions would be, in either case, if they agreed that rather than governing in the interests of the taxpayer or the tuition payer, they agreed to act primarily in the best interest of the learners - regardless of cost. Independent schools have a number of different constituencies who have a stake in the health of the school; students, parents, faculty and staff, alumni, and even suppliers and other service providers. All of these groups would suffer a loss if the school is not managed effectively and ethically.
In most jurisdictions, there is a wide range in the models of Board composition and accountability in place in independent schools. In two schools where I served as Head, the Board faced an Annual General Meeting each year filled with parents, alumni, faculty/staff and even students. The stakeholders were presented with an Annual Report, Financial Statements, and a slate of proposed Board Officers and Directors for the next year for their approval (or rejection!). In the third, the Board reported only to itself as voting members of the corporation. As a self-perpetuating Board they were accountable only to themselves and held the AGM behind closed doors. Although all three Boards were conscientious and responsible in their oversight of the school and its mission, the third was never held publicly accountable for its decisions or for the performance of the school.
Regardless of the model, the key issues remain - how do stakeholders hold the Board to account to ensure that the school is delivering on its Mission? And how does any Board guarantee (even to itself) that it is a high performer?
The Globe and Mail Report on Business publishes annual governance rankings for the corporate sector. As part of this analysis, a major area of assessment is: stakeholder rights. They say that top functioning Boards are those that are accountable to their stakeholders. To ensure this they: face their stakeholders each year; have Directors that stand for election annually rather than serve staggered or open-ended terms; and publish all relevant performance information and audited financial statements. If all independent schools were to follow this benchmark for good governance it would mean that: Boards would face their stakeholders annually; Board membership would be for fixed terms (i.e. three years with one renewal); that candidacy for Board membership would be an open transparent process; Boards/schools would publish annual reports (programme, finance, etc.); and, that Boards would assess their own performance based upon clearly measurable performance metrics.
Regardless of the model, the key issues remain - how do stakeholders hold the Board to account to ensure that the school is delivering on its Mission? And how does any Board guarantee (even to itself) that it is a high performer?
The Globe and Mail Report on Business publishes annual governance rankings for the corporate sector. As part of this analysis, a major area of assessment is: stakeholder rights. They say that top functioning Boards are those that are accountable to their stakeholders. To ensure this they: face their stakeholders each year; have Directors that stand for election annually rather than serve staggered or open-ended terms; and publish all relevant performance information and audited financial statements. If all independent schools were to follow this benchmark for good governance it would mean that: Boards would face their stakeholders annually; Board membership would be for fixed terms (i.e. three years with one renewal); that candidacy for Board membership would be an open transparent process; Boards/schools would publish annual reports (programme, finance, etc.); and, that Boards would assess their own performance based upon clearly measurable performance metrics.
How does your school measure up to these benchmarks of accountability and good governance?
RSS Feed
