Part III - What We Want for Our Students
Our "Hopes and Dreams" for Student Success
The first part of this series (describing our school district’s desires for our students in the area of character and citizenship) was published two weeks ago, and the second part (describing Todd Rose and the Purpose of Education) last week. This part relates to the mission of public education and the challenges of social change and political turmoil.
Phil Gore is a friend of mine with many years of experience beginning with service on a school board followed by service as a trainer for school boards on the staffs of four state school board associations and the National School Board Association. Phil sent me a link to a podcast (see “The Why of Idaho’s Public Education” to get his views) in which he discusses the mission of public education, how school boards can contribute to that mission, and how they can at times work at cross purposes with it.
Viewing his podcast and thinking about the points Phil made gave me a reason to extend my own thinking about what we want for our students. Some highlights I took from his conversation, and my response (in italics) that I shared with him, are as follows:
Purpose of Education as a Public Good as well as a Private Good.
You argue well the fact that we all benefit when all children gain an education that supports society. You also make a great argument that it is important for school boards to understand and to explain to the public the value of its public education system.
Values & Vision.
Your advocacy for the board engaging with its community to continuously update its sense of the community's values and the community's vision is well reasoned. We should not, as you state, get lax about engaging with our community to assure that the board, and the district, are aware of and aligned with societal and community shifts in sentiment.
John Carver (Boards That Make a Difference) calls such engagement 'linkage.' Linkage may be the weakest area of performance for a policy governance board, in my view, because any expression of values that is contained in policy ought to reflect the community's (not just the board members’) values. Equally, any expression of a vision that is to guide the district must reflect the community's (not the board's) vision. Boards can get lax if they rely on maintaining their connection with voters only every four years at election time, but don't do anything in between. It is even worse in non-contested elections, because their motivation to go out on the stump during elections disappears without an opponent.
Values and vision are two of ten responsibilities I list in A Framework for School Governance. The two constitute what I call the school board’s 'Strategic Voice'.
When I talk about the board’s 'Strategic Voice' I am referring to values and vision expressed internally through strategic guidance in the form of a district’s strategic plan and its policies that guide the superintendent (not the hundreds of pages of operational policy but perhaps several dozen pages of truly strategic policy that guides the superintendent in leading the district.) You (or perhaps the podcaster) mention 'true north' that guides long-term policy, and my view of Vision is that it defines 'true north' for the district. Values and vision are also expressed externally in the board's advocacy efforts, intended to influence not only community action by local levy/bond voters but also out-of-district action by state and national policymakers. Such external voice communicates the community's values and its vision to inform and positively influence these external policymakers.
Social Change and Political Turmoil that Lead to ‘Churn'
Your description of social changes that can take place in a community that have an effect on school boards and the entire school district rings true to anyone who has paid attention to schools for a reasonable period of time.
For the last five years, local school boards have experienced an uptick in political turmoil as voices external to the local community have inspired community members to assume that a problem highlighted in the national news, or in a neighboring school district, exists throughout the public school system and requires urgent change locally.
Political turmoil not only impacts school board seats through the ‘slumbering giant’ in the electorate that can ‘awaken’ at election time. It also impacts superintendent turnover, and as you point out, it disrupts unintended good features of curriculum, instruction, etc. that may not have anything to do with the social upheaval. A study of social turmoil’s impact on superintendents and staff is at Cultural Conflict Comes with a Cost For Public Schools - UCLA School of Education & Information Studies
Frederick Hess, in Spinning Wheels, refers to such upheaval as 'churn' and describes very well the deleterious effects of churn on the bottom line of schools - student learning. I think Hess's description of churn is akin to the Dissatisfaction Theory of American Democracy of Lutz and Iannacone because of their idea that the default for voters (the slumbering giant) is that they are normally uninvolved and disengaged - until aroused by some problem (real or perceived) that needs correction. Such a default leaves the public vulnerable to calls for “change” without analyzing the motivations of those who advocate for change or studying the evidence (or lack thereof) behind it.
Again, (see “The Why of Idaho’s Public Education”) to listen to the interview and draw your own conclusions about what this highly experienced board trainer and consultant has to say.
It is very difficult to take the time to review issues that may or may not exist in our own local school system, but school boards will do well if they exercise the self-discipline of withholding judgment, reviewing each challenge as it comes, reviewing existing policies and practices to ensure that they appropriately address sincerely expressed concerns, and keeping our collective eye on the strategic values of the community and the ‘true north’ of our vision compass when guiding long-term efforts toward long-term results. Immediate knee-jerk reactions are easy. Deliberative, thoughtful, strategic and proactive responses are hard. But it is always the better application of an effective governance mindset and a systematic approach to our governance role.