Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Why school boards fail to comply with their own policies


Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

On November 27, 2019 The Ontario Minister of Education appointed a review team to investigate anti-Black racism and discrimination; lack of cooperation among trustees and between them and the Director of Education; board performance; hiring and promotion policies and practices; workplace equity; the handling of grievances and complaints; and a suite of governance issues in the Peel District School Board. In February 2020, the Minister received the Review of the Peel District School Board. Notwithstanding the formality of the language used in such reports, it was scathing. In March 2020, the Minister issued 27 directions to the Board and on April 28th appointed an investigator to determine whether the Peel board was carrying them out.

The problems that prompted the review of the Peel Board go well beyond their failure to govern effectively, but its failure to govern is among the key problems the board faces. Among the 27 directions, the Minister ordered the Board to engage the services of an external governance expert to “establish procedures and practices for effective, respectful, and transparent governance” and create a permanent position “to provide professional governance advisory services and support to the Board.”

School board trustees usually have no training in governance prior to their election to school boards. However, not long after they take office, the boards to which they have been elected and the provincial professional associations of school boards typically offer governance training. The Ontario Public School Boards Association, for example, offers a suite of 21 modules devoted to various aspects of governance. But the report of the team that reviewed the Peel Board noted:

All trustees acknowledged that they received inadequate training in bylaws, Code of Conduct and key PDSB policies and procedures, and they continue to struggle with the distinction between governance and Board operations. The ability of the Board of Trustees to effectively govern has been limited by the failure of the PDSB to provide a comprehensive orientation for newly elected trustees, as well ongoing professional development and governance advice and support (p. 23-24).

Inadequate preparation and professional development are just two of the reasons that school boards fail to comply with their own policies. Policies are central to effective governance. Students and staff suffer when trustees fail to govern in accordance with their policies, and the public loses confidence in the school system.

Preparation alone is not the only reason why boards fail to govern according to their policies. School trustees too often do not know their own policies and, therefore, do not monitor the impact of those policies. A school board that fails to enforce its own policies in effect has no policies. As the review report makes clear, knowledge of governance is essential for effective governance. Trustee orientations and professional development are essential. Most school board associations do offer new-trustee-orientations and a suite of professional learning opportunities for trustees. 

Even trustees who are knowledgeable about the policies by which they are supposed to govern often fail because they do not monitor compliance with policy or cannot distinguish compliance from non-compliance. Case studies are useful in exploring the intricacies of compliance and non-compliance. However, they are only helpful to trustees in school boards that monitor policy implementation and impact by using metrics and measurement wisely.

There are, of course, trustees who can distinguish compliance from non-compliance but choose not to identify non-compliance in the hope that it will not recur.  “If I overlook what is happening, maybe it won’t happen again.” The head-in-the-sand approach usually does not work. Policy non-compliance has impact. Breach of fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, employment standards violations are just a few of many consequences of looking the other way.

Some school boards have ignored policy non-compliances because they fear that identifying the problems will undermine the public’s confidence in the Board. If anyone is inclined to think that is a successful strategy, they should read the Peel report.

Some trustees rely on the Board Chair to identify non-compliance in the mistaken belief or understanding that the identification of non-compliance is the Chair’s responsibility. It is not. Identification of non-compliance is a responsibility of the Board (not just the Chair) and must be a Board decision.

Non-compliance sometimes arises because a trustee fails to adhere to the Board’s trustee code of conduct. When that kind of non-compliance occurs, and the board members fail to uphold the Chair when the Chair identifies non-compliance, it undermines the authority and integrity of the entire board. Board members must realize that, in such circumstances, the chair is acting on behalf of the Board (not as an individual board member). Failing to uphold the chair’s ruling that a code of conduct violation has occurred threatens the integrity of the entire board.

Judgments about policy compliance and non-compliance, whether about codes-of-conduct or other board policies, should not be made for partisan advantage. It is unfortunate that they sometimes are. That, too, impeaches the integrity of the Board and undermines the public’s confidence in the school district.

The current investigation is just another plot-point in the drama unfolding in Peel. In the meantime, Peel students and parents are being victimized by the drama. Good governance is no mystery, but its absence will cause serious damage for students, parents, the wider community, the morale of employees, and the public’s confidence in the educational system.