Whose job is it to lead reform?

Much confusion exists today among board of education members and superintendents about governance roles, especially when a district is low performing and the public is demanding bold reform.

Part of the confusion comes from the definition of reform. To many Americans, school reform means fine-tuning what education historian David B. Tyack calls The One Best System. To others it means fundamentally new structures, processes and incentives.

Lack of clarity about what governance is and isn't creates additional confusion. Some superintendents and board members believe that superintendents lead and boards follow. Yes, boards approve policies, but they have little role in developing them. Superintendents are active. Boards are reactive.

This view of governance, however, creates great frustration among some board members, especially those in large urban districts. They want rapid improvements in student achievement. They tend to ask themselves, "What are we supposed to do--just react to the superintendent's leadership?"

Shared Authority

I define governance as the trusteeship of power on behalf of the owners of power. Management is the exercise of power under the oversight of governance. Governance means making the rules; management is playing the game. Govern-ance is steering; management is rowing. Governance is deciding what is to be done; management is doing it. In a democracy, governance needs to be shared. Management responsibility needs to be concentrated in individuals.

School boards govern, but they do not govern alone. They share governance power with state legislatures, the federal government and the courts. The superintendent, because of his or her involvement in policy development, is also part of the governance team, but the board is the dominant partner.

It is universally recognized that in crisis situations power needs to be concentrated. Given the condition of many urban school districts, concentrating power in the hands of superintendents makes sense. But governance is not management, and whether the governance is in the hands of the mayor, an appointed board or an elected board, governance power should not be given to the superintendent. Concentrated executive power yes; governance power no.

Long-Lasting Task

This takes us back to the definition of reform. If school reform is fine-tuning the one best system, making certain everything works the way it is supposed to, a reactive board that oversees and approves will do just fine. Fine-tuning is management work

But if reform is fundamentally new structures, processes and incentives, then boards must lead. Imagine establishing new policies regarding managed instruction, whole school design, charter schools, outsourcing, district accountability systems, weighted student funding and variable and performance pay every time a new superintendent came to town. No district can change course every three or even every 10 years.

Reforming urban schools takes a city. And it takes at least a decade to embed a new structure and culture.

Superintendents are transitional. Most are from out of town. They come for a season to provide executive leadership and then move on. With good fortune, a city can keep a superintendent for five years, with great fortune for 10.

Boards, whether elected or appointed, are also transitional, but they spring from the community and are likely to turn over slowly. Boards reflect the needs and culture of the community and provide structure and policy stability.

Communities unwilling to live with the huge achievement gaps and incremental improvements in the status quo must have boards that provide leadership for reform through core beliefs and commitments vision, a theory of action for change, goals, policies and astute politics. They also must have superintendents empowered to manage for excellence.

Primary Workhorse 

In this partnership, the superintendent will do most of the work. He or she is the chief executive officer and the only one who can create a new organizational culture. He or she also may have to help educate the board on reform theory and practice so it can fully exercise its reform leadership. But superintendents should not assume the powers of governance, even if they are thrust upon them.

Power is not a zero sum game. Reform-minded boards need powerful superintendents to implement bold change. Reform superintendents need powerful boards (or some powerful governance entity) to own the reform vision, keep them closely linked to the people they serve, provide political cover for tough decisions and guarantee the continuation of the reform vision when they leave.

Readings

Don McAdams suggests these related readings:

It Takes a City: Getting Serious About Urban School Reform by Paul Hill and others, Brookings Institution, 2000.

"Strengthening Urban Boards" by Donald R. McAdams, American School Board Journal, December 2002.

Don McAdams is president of the Center for Reform of School Systems, 123 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 405, Houston, TX 77024. E-mail: [e-mail]. A former 12-year member of the Houston school board, he is author of Fighting to Save Our Urban Schools ... and Winning!