4c1 Setting Expectations for Boardsmanship
The Board sets criteria for what it expects of individual board member performance
This post is the first of those focused on accountability for individual board members. It describes the board’s responsibility to set expectations for how its members can contribute to the board’s collective performance. The board does so by setting the criteria by which it will judge successful boardsmanship - how each board member contributes to the effective performance of the full board.
(1) Setting Criteria for Board Member Success.
[Does your board set expectations for board member performance?]
Individual board member performance is, in a word, boardsmanship. The first step in improving boardsmanship is identifying and communicating criteria that will be used to monitor board member performance and define board member success.
Come to meetings adequately prepared.
Speak only when recognized.
Not interrupt each other.
Not engage in side conversations.
Not repeat what has already been said.
Not “play to the audience” or monopolize the discussion.
Support the Chair’s efforts to facilitate an orderly meeting.
Communicate openly and actively in discussion and dialog to avoid surprises.
Encourage equal participation of all members.
Practice respectful body language.
Place emphasis on building consensus among members.
Seek the input of the Superintendent as issues are discussed and decisions made.
The above policy language is found in a protocol adopted by a school board, describing its expectations for board meetings and identifying how individual board members can contribute to or detract from effective board meetings.
When the whole board develops these protocols its individual board members are put on notice that their colleagues, as a group, commit to regular review of individual members’ meeting behavior and (to the extent available to it) enforcement (at least reinforcement) of agreed-on criteria for success. When boards set expectations for their members, they impose a discipline in their work that supports effective governance, and in turn supports better results for students. The following excerpt from one board’s code of conduct is an example set of such criteria:
Focus on issues rather than personalities.
Respect decisions of the full Board.
Exercise honesty in all written and interpersonal interaction, never intentionally misleading or misinforming each other.
Criticize privately, praise publicly.
Make every reasonable effort to protect the integrity and promote the positive image of the district and one another
Never embarrass each other or the district2
Research-supported boardsmanship practices have been shown to positively impact student learning. A study of video-recorded meetings by researchers David Lee and Daniel Eadens reported significant positive correlation between board members exhibiting the following characteristics and student achievement in their districts.
Board members listen respectfully and attentively to the person speaking.
[No members] seem to advance their own agenda [like grand standing and wanting to look good in public].
Board members and the superintendent seem to have a good working relationship3
John Carver writes that a governance model, no matter how well designed, cannot automatically “make a bad board good.” Similarly, a board cannot make a bad board member good, but it can establish boardsmanship criteria to be used in pointing out errant behaviors and in the process shaping future behavior.
Harold was an experienced board member whose spouse also happened to be a teacher. He was known to always support teachers, voting regularly on their behalf. He might hear both sides of argument(s) related to teacher interests but felt compelled to “follow his heart.” During the previous summer’s negotiations, the media widely reported how school board member Harold was marching with the teachers during demonstrations against his own district. The superintendent noticed how the union negotiating team always seemed to know what the superintendent could or could not agree to, and suspected Harold of “leaking” executive session bargaining information to teachers. As an elected school official, Harold regularly told colleagues he only answered to those who had elected him, not the Board of Trustees. As much as the other board members disagreed with Harold's behavior, they felt powerless to make him take a more neutral stance, because they had repeatedly avoided discussing these kinds of uncomfortable matters.
In the above story, Harold is an example of the fact that in a democratically run society, waiting for the next election sometimes seems like the only fool-proof way to get decisive corrective action, delivered by the voting public. But boards need not remain powerless between elections. Declaring criteria for boardsmanship success is the first step toward empowering the board.
There are many examples of guidance that can be used for such criteria. Vermont School Boards Association offers a code of ethics that includes these individual board member commitments:
[I will] Act within the scope of my official role:
Act only as a member of the board and not assume any individual authority when the board is not in session, unless otherwise directed by the board
Give no directives, as an individual board member, to any school administrator or employee, publicly or privately
Avoid making commitments that may compromise the decision-making ability of the board or administrators
[I will] Act within the scope of my fiduciary role:
Ensure prudent use of the district’s assets, including facilities, people, and goodwill.
Ensure that the district follows applicable laws, policies and resolutions or actions adopted by the board.
Refrain from engaging in activities that harm the district’s ability to pursue its mission.
Provide oversight to ensure activities of the district advance its effectiveness and sustainability
[I will] Respect my peers and constituents, and uphold confidentiality:
Voice opinions respectfully and treat with respect other board members, administrators, school staff, and members of the public
Maintain confidentiality of information and discussion conducted in executive session and uphold applicable laws with respect to the confidentiality of student and employee information
Attend all regularly scheduled board meetings insofar as possible4
The effective board is knowledgeable of performance measures that can be used to judge board member performance. The board publicly commits to these measures as its expectations. These commitments are reinforced by the knowledge that the board will monitor board member performance in meetings and between meetings.
Indicators. The following indicators demonstrate a board’s setting expectations for board member performance:
Be (dispositions)
The board believes the behavior of individual board members impacts total board effectiveness.
The board is willing to give feedback to its members.
Know (knowledge)
The board knows research and best practices for effective boardsmanship.
Do (skills)
The board sets criteria for judging compliance with its boardsmanship expectations.
The board decides what measures of board member performance will be used in monitoring.
Horry County Schools, https://go.boarddocs.com/sc/horry/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CTMHRS499D94# (retrieved May 2024.)
Lake Washington School District Code of Conduct, https:/go.boarddocs.com/wa/lwsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BSEUPY7D16D8, retrieved May 2024.
Lee, D. & Eadens, D., “The Problem: Low Achieving Districts and Low Performing Boards”, International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 9(3) (2014).
Vermont School Boards Association, (retrieved 2026).
Source:
A Framework for School Governance (2017) Rick Maloney
Rick Maloney
www.governance101.com