School Board Governance

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

No board member at Ford Motor Co. would call the production or sales manager. So, why do school trustees persist in calling the district principal for special education, the manager of human resources, or the assistant superintendent for learning services? They should know better, but they do it anyway.  

Like most corporations, Ford operates in terms of governance principles expressed in writing. Consider this statement from Ford:

The Board is elected by and responsible to the shareholders. Ford's business is conducted by its employees, managers, and officers, under the direction of the chief executive officer (the “CEO”) and the oversight of the Board, to enhance the long-term value of the Company for its shareholders.

Substituting citizens for shareholders, the school board for Ford or the company, and superintendent for the chief executive officer, the statement would read like this:

The Board is elected by and responsible to the citizens. The school board’s business is conducted by its employees, managers, and officers, under the direction of the superintendent and the oversight of the Board, to enhance the long-term value of the school board for its citizens.

Notice that the business of the organization is conducted by its employees under the direction of the superintendent with oversight provided by the Board. Consider what are included among the overall responsibilities of the Ford Board of Directors:

• reviewing, monitoring, and approving fundamental financial and business strategies and major actions.
• reviewing and discussing reports from management on the performance. 
• assessing major risks and reviewing and approving strategies for addressing such risks.
• ensure processes are in place for maintaining the integrity and reputation 

By the time they get to this point, some blog readers will say, “school boards are different; they aren’t corporations. So, the principles of governance that apply to Ford do not apply to school boards.” At the risk of alienating some of them, those readers are wrong.  

According to the legislation governing them, school boards are corporations. The school act in British Columbia is typical of what the legislation says about the matter. Section 65 reads:

The trustees elected or appointed under this Act for each school district and their successors in office constitute a board of education for the district and are continued as a corporation under the name of "The Board of Education of School District No. 5 (Southeast Kootenay)", or as the case may be.

Some readers will respond, “but school districts don’t produce cars like Ford.” That is true, of course. School boards are responsible for producing something much more complex and certainly more important than automobiles: citizens. Moreover, the raw material with which schools must work (developing human beings) is much more variable than the material used to manufacture an automobile, and the developing human beings are subject to many powerful influences.  

I often wonder whether trustees disregard legislation, protocols, and ethics because trustees do not appreciate the complexity of the work and believe they can interpose their ideas for the judgment of the professionals.  

There are no specific qualifications for holding office as school trustee apart from age, citizenship, and residency requirements. The assumption is that any reasonable person will possess the ability to carry out the fundamental legal obligations of being a school trustee. Exercising diligence in making decisions about goals and policy and in overseeing the work of the superintendent (duty of care) are two. Another is making decisions in the best interest of the school district without regard to one’s personal interests (duty of loyalty).  

When school trustees persist in calling the district principal for special education, the manager of human resources, or the assistant superintendent for learning services it is an almost certain sign that they do not understand their responsibilities as trustees or as members of the governing board of the school district.

Teachers should embrace the teachable moment

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The York Region District School Board (YRSDB) in Ontario apparently advised administrators to tell staff to avoid initiating discussions about the Queen’s death because doing so may engender strong, negative emotional reactions. In today’s parlance, such a discussion could be “triggering.” Strong emotional reactions are real. But the fact that students may have such a reaction should not be a deterrent to addressing issues that might engender those reactions if the classroom is an emotionally supportive environment and the topic is treated in an intellectually honest way.  

I am willing to give the YRDSB credit for recognizing the potential sensitivity of the issue, but I think it is discrediting to teacher professionalism to think the board needs to alert educators to the fact that some students might need support when the issue arose. In my experience, teachers are typically alert to students’ needs for emotional support.  

The Queen’s death is what educators call a teachable moment, an opportunity to get students to think deeply about an issue that has gained prominence for one reason or another. As a former social studies teacher, I would use the Queen’s death to have students consider whether, in 2022, there is a role for the monarchy OR whether the death of a relatively popular Queen and the elevation of her son as King would accelerate the efforts of those countries seeking to shed the monarchy OR whether (and how) the monarchy has changed over the centuries. If I were teaching world history, I would ask the students how China’s Belt and Road Initiative is like or different from colonialism as practiced by European nations.  

There are many issues to which students might have a negative emotional reaction. If teachers were to avoid mention of any topic or issue to which students might react negatively, teachers could not discuss slavery, genocide, climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, cloning, guaranteed annual income, Canadian foreign policy, the novels of Gabrielle Roy or Margaret Atwood, the poetry of Earl Birney or F.R. Scott . . . . or pretty much anything else of value.  

If the classroom is an emotionally supportive environment (and it must be), teachers must be free to explore topics and issues in an intellectually honest manner. Avoiding or ignoring teachable moments deprives students of the opportunity to question, weigh evidence, critically analyze media, understand differing historical perspectives, and examine and defend positions they hold.

Could teacher losses in the US be a gain for Canada?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

School shootings, curriculum restrictions, book bans during a pandemic have teachers in the United States stressed. American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT) President Randi Weingarten is quoted in an AFT press release as saying, “Whether it was mask wars, culture wars, the war on truth, or the devastation in Uvalde, members sacrificed and struggled and carried their schools and their students through the most difficult days of their lives.” According to a study by Hart Research Associates for the AFT, 15% of the PK-12 teachers surveyed in June 2022 said they will definitely leave teaching in the next year or two, and another 23% said they probably would leave.  

The Hart Study, “Under Siege: The Outlook of AFT Members,” found that about 90% of the survey respondents believe that “schools have become too politicized, following a year of political attacks on teachers waged by politicians stoking culture wars and banning books for personal gain.”  Politicization of education comes on top of dissatisfaction with other working conditions and compensation.  

I know it sounds predatory, but could Canada benefit from recruiting alienated teachers from the United States?  

Most Canadian provinces and territories suffer persistent shortages of teachers in specialty areas: mathematics, physics, special education, French immersion, French first language, etc. The shortages are especially acute in rural and remote communities.  

Shortages are often filled by people working on a temporary letter of permission, a time-limited permit issued to persons who do not fully meet the requirements for certification. Some shortages are filled by certificated teachers whose preparation is not a complete match with the requirement of the position.  

Individuals who have the educational background and experience to fill labour market needs can immigrate to Canada through the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). Would-be applicants should check each province or territory of interest to determine whether their occupational specialization is eligible. Applicants must select and apply to the province or territory to which they would like to immigrate. If deemed eligible, the jurisdiction must nominate qualified applicants who seek to reside in the province or territory. If approved, the applicant must apply for permanent residence.  

There is no doubt some hurdles will need to be crossed before teachers in speciality areas would be added to the list of nominee-eligible candidates, including credential assessments and criminal background checks. Data from the 2018 TALIS study, indicate that, if anything, the level of educational attainment of teachers in the United States exceeds the attainment of Canadian (Alberta)[1] teachers. Among teachers in Alberta, 84% hold a bachelor’s degree and 14% hold master’s degrees. In the United States 43% hold bachelor’s degrees and 53% hold master’s degrees.  

It would be a win-win if Canada could attract qualified persons to teach in areas of persistent shortage who wished to escape the negative conditions that are making teaching stressful in the United States.

---

[1] In 2018, Alberta was the only Canadian jurisdiction to take part in the TALIS - The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey.

What should school board candidates know?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

About mid-July, a journalist called to seek guidance for an article about what candidates should understand about the responsibilities of school boards. Based upon my 40+ years working in education, I said that most candidates simply don’t understand Board responsibilities.  

That lack of understanding includes such matters as the fact that school boards are legal corporations of which trustees are directors (no stock options). While there are important differences between school boards and private sector corporations, there are common responsibilities fundamental to being a director (trustee).  

Like private sector corporations, school trustees must comply with the legislation and regulations that apply to them and to act in the best interest of the corporation. Trustees fulfill their duty of loyalty to the school district by acting honestly and faithfully in its best interest.  This means putting the interest of the corporation ahead of the trustees’ own interests or the interests of the trustees’ constituents.  

Trustees run into difficulty when they fail to exercise the care, diligence, and skills that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. Common breaches of this duty of care include failing to prepare for the deliberations and decisions in which the Board must engage, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, and disclosing to others confidential corporate information.  

Many candidates do not know that, if elected, they will have no individual authority. Only the school board has authority exercised primarily through the decisions it makes in formal, public meetings by majority vote. Candidates who succeed electorally and become trustees will inevitably have different points of view. They may express those viewpoints during deliberations prior to a formal board decision. But, once the Board makes its decision, all trustees are obligated to support the decision of the majority – even if that was not their preferred position. Grousing about the decision after it is made besmirches the reputation of the Board which trustees have an obligation to uphold.  

Candidates who base their understanding of the responsibilities of office from observing how school boards behave will have a distorted understanding. Too many Boards spend too little time addressing the most important of their responsibilities. There are fundamentally two that are central. One is fostering successful student acquisition of learning outcomes and their well-being. The second is reporting the results that student have achieved, and evaluating educational programs, services and supports that are intended to lead to valued student outcomes.  

Everything else is derivative of the Board’s fundamental responsibilities, but not trivial. Recruiting a superintendent and entrusting to the superintendent the day-to-day management of the school district is key. Effective stewardship of resources is another. Having and abiding by a code of conduct governing the Board’s behaviour and the behaviour of individual trustees is crucial because ‘bad behaviour’ impedes addressing the Board’s core responsibilities.  

Candidates should commit to staying within the guardrails of governance if they are elected. Knowing and abiding with provincial legislation, regulation, and ministerial orders are obligatory. The same is true of the Board’s framework of policies and procedures. Trusting the professional knowledge and judgement of the Superintendent, recognizing and staying out of the superintendent’s business, and holding the Superintendent accountable through annual performance evaluations are essential. Boards must demand rigorous evaluation of student results and report those results to the public to continue to encourage public confidence in the education system they support.  

Prior to every election cycle I am optimistic that those taking office will be assiduous in carrying out these fundamental responsibilities. I hope my optimism is confirmed this year.