Let's start by making one thing perfectly clear - school performance and board performance are not the same thing. Boards should not, although they often do, take credit for the achievements of a high performing school. You can be sure that most Boards have no interest in shouldering the blame when things go off of the rails - even if they were up to their elbows in making it happen! What Boards can pat themselves on the back for is their mastery of the key performance indicators that tell them just how well the school is actually doing.
How can good governance work to keep the Board on track and not to get drawn into these kind of issues? Obviously the simplest way is to continually remind Board members of their role in providing oversight, and not second guessing administrative procedures and actions. This is good in theory, but flies in the face of human nature. On the other hand, slavish acceptance of the view of the world put forward by the Head and the Leadership team also does a disservice to the school.
A more effective approach is to establish clearly measurable indicators for monitoring school performance. Claims that "everyone is leaving the school" can be quickly checked against enrolment, admissions and retention data. The parent who decries the school's declining academic standards can be addressed through external measures (standardized testing data, Ministry exam performance, IB/AP results, etc.). Concerns about tuition increases, salary levels, administration expenses, etc. can all be checked against local and national benchmarks. In North America, tools like the CAIS benchmarks or NAIS Stats Online, can give some comparator information but it is just as valuable to track year over year trends to show improvements or indicate areas of concern. Effective boards have "dashboards" of selected indicators that they review at least quarterly as well as tracking other larger financial and enrolment trends over time.
The goal of this kind of monitoring is for the Board to hold the administration accountable for the health of the school. Awareness of long term trends and patterns as well as statistical comparators with the marketplace protect the Board and the school from making knee-jerk reactions to changing circumstances.
In addition, a solid command of the data makes it easier for Board members to calm (or fend off) panicky parents or complaining staff. In the final analysis, the more the Board knows, the better it can do its job.
This is the governance lesson that Kevin Page, the PBO, has been trying to teach in Ottawa for the past five years.
In order to fulfill their oversight function and exercise their fiduciary responsibilities, the Board needs to have the "facts" of the school's performance. Unfortunately, "fact-finding" can be a bit of a moving target. Typically, Board members depend upon the Head of School and the senior staff (Finance, Admissions, Development, etc.) to provide them with the information that they need to make effective Strategic Decisions. However, no matter how capable and forthcoming a leadership team might be, there are sometimes blind spots which prevent the most accurate assessment from being shared. For some board members, the "real" information can only be obtained from speaking with faculty or parents. They seek out rumour and innuendo and lend them legitimacy by dropping them on the Board table - usually in a closed session without the Head. You can be certain that some members of the school community who have a personal agenda will seek out and attempt to co-opt these Board members to speak out on their behalf. Strong, aware trustees will encourage them to work their issues out through the administration or, if still not satisfied, to address it in public with the Board as a whole. However, Board members are human and often would like to "solve" problems that are raised with them especially if they come from their friends or their child's teacher.
At best, these personal interventions can be a nuisance. At worst, they can be a disaster for the school if the Board goes off on a tangent based upon limited or inaccurate information.
At best, these personal interventions can be a nuisance. At worst, they can be a disaster for the school if the Board goes off on a tangent based upon limited or inaccurate information.
How can good governance work to keep the Board on track and not to get drawn into these kind of issues? Obviously the simplest way is to continually remind Board members of their role in providing oversight, and not second guessing administrative procedures and actions. This is good in theory, but flies in the face of human nature. On the other hand, slavish acceptance of the view of the world put forward by the Head and the Leadership team also does a disservice to the school.
A more effective approach is to establish clearly measurable indicators for monitoring school performance. Claims that "everyone is leaving the school" can be quickly checked against enrolment, admissions and retention data. The parent who decries the school's declining academic standards can be addressed through external measures (standardized testing data, Ministry exam performance, IB/AP results, etc.). Concerns about tuition increases, salary levels, administration expenses, etc. can all be checked against local and national benchmarks. In North America, tools like the CAIS benchmarks or NAIS Stats Online, can give some comparator information but it is just as valuable to track year over year trends to show improvements or indicate areas of concern. Effective boards have "dashboards" of selected indicators that they review at least quarterly as well as tracking other larger financial and enrolment trends over time.
The goal of this kind of monitoring is for the Board to hold the administration accountable for the health of the school. Awareness of long term trends and patterns as well as statistical comparators with the marketplace protect the Board and the school from making knee-jerk reactions to changing circumstances.
In addition, a solid command of the data makes it easier for Board members to calm (or fend off) panicky parents or complaining staff. In the final analysis, the more the Board knows, the better it can do its job.
This is the governance lesson that Kevin Page, the PBO, has been trying to teach in Ottawa for the past five years.
RSS Feed
