4 Dec 2007, Thomas E. Glass
[This is an abstract of a paper given at the symposium School Board Research: Main Lines of Inquiry, in Des Moines, Iowa, September 14-15, 2007. The full paper is published in Relevancy and Revelation: The Future of School Board Governance, by Rowman and Littlefield, Spring 2008.]
The question of whether elected dysfunctional large urban school district boards should be replaced or substantially restructured is a serious policy question impacting the lives of million of students. There most definitely is a recognizable linkage between governance at the board level and performance of students and teachers in classrooms. Although board members may not directly intervene in classrooms they certainly control the management, budget, and operational factors impacting the daily lives of teachers and students. Governance carried out competently insures administrators have the tools to lead the instructional program and manage operations. Incompetent governance creates instability, doubt, uncertainty, and ineffective leadership on the part of the superintendent and administration.
Until, the 1960s a majority of large city urban boards were appointed by mayors and other political bodies. Amidst the “Civil Rights Era,” both elected and appointed urban boards ceased being populated by “community elites”. New “reform” board members largely came from neighborhood groups with a sprinkling of professionals possessing organizational leadership experience. By the 1970s the power transition from community elites was completed in most cities. With popularly elected n board members came a new form of “board politics”. Previously, politics had been principally confined to interaction between political groups, business, civic organizations and board members (Tyack 1974).
New board members without ties to civic organizations saw local, state, and private groups as an enemy withholding needed resources and support. In the midst of transition to elected boards white flight and displacement of the business tax base to suburbs occurred in many cities. Many board members became disillusioned with failures in improving achievement and did not seek reelection. In their place came a substantial number of “politicized” members running on single issue personal agendas.
The result of three and half decades of elected boards in many large urban districts has been massive underachievement and political chaos. It would be unfair to attribute all the chaos and underperformance to the boards. However, in district after district over a period of time elected boards have not been able to effectively lead and manage an urban institution under stress.