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.