School Boards and Committees

America's public schools operate under the governance of nearly 15,000 school boards. While often garnering limited public attention and interest, school boards perform a vital function in the administration and oversight of local public schools, though the specific agenda of a board can vary with individual districts' needs. In most cases, board members are elected; however, voter turnout tends to be low when elections do not coincide with federal, state, or municipal elections. Setting up effective committees is a key part of running a successful school board.

Keywords Committeemen; Consolidated Elections; Public Education; School Board; School Districts; Selectmen; Special Elections; Standing Committee

Overview

The United States' system of public schooling is rooted in a long tradition of local control and directional independence. Rather than operate under the direct control of the central federal government, the nation's nearly 15,000 school systems and districts each maintain a certain degree of autonomy and independence in their administration and function. Hess (2002) notes that this methodology of "[l]ay governance of public education is a uniquely American institution, with roots in the locally controlled schools of the New England colonies and in the common school movement of the mid-19th Century" (Hess, 2002, p. 3).

As autonomy breeds variety, precisely due to the local, lay nature of school governance, arriving at general conclusions regarding the makeup, nature, and function of school boards is often difficult. Further complicating the issue are the numerous committees and subcommittees which populate the organizational chart of America's school boards. If understanding of school boards as a whole is lacking, understanding of school board committees is even more so. Yet, an examination of research that has been conducted into these bodies that direct the education of America's youth will reveal certain trends and truths that will greatly enhance one's understanding and appreciation of the more than 95,000 men and women who govern America's school boards.

How is the average school board defined? Assigning quantitative values to factors such as median size, demographic distribution, or gender makeup may provide an outline of school board bodies, but it hardly fills in the lines to paint a full picture. Frederick Hess (2002) endeavors to dig deeper than the surface characteristics of boards and board members to uncover the true essence of America's school boards. In doing so, Hess poses several questions which guide his exploration of the nature of school boards. Among these are the following (Hess, 2002, p. 6):

• How are board members selected for office?

• How competitive are board elections?

• What kinds of people serve on school boards?

• How demanding is school board service?

To these questions, it will be helpful also to add the following:

• What is the basic function of a school board?

• How are boards organizationally structured?

• What are the various types of committee assignments within boards?

According to Allen and Plank (2005), the purpose of school boards is to "set the policy agenda for public schools" (p. 511). In "The Purpose of School Boards" (1982), the National School Boards Association (NSBA) expands upon this broad definition by exploring the history and development of school boards.

History

Colonial Schools

As early as the 1620 Mayflower Compact, the philosophy of local and lay control of education is strongly visible. In colonial America, an expectation that government would assume the responsibility of educating children was virtually unheard of. If a community were intent upon offering localized public education, it remained for average citizens and local leaders to take up the reins and establish a local school. As history indicates, this is precisely how early American education unfolded.

In colonial New England, Dame schools for boys and girls, grammar schools for boys, and Latin schools all developed under the oversight and administration of local leaders. As the new nation would model over a century later, elected representation formed the backbone for school administration. The NSBA notes that, in the earliest days of public schooling, town officials, also known as selectmen, held the responsibility of administering public schools. As time progressed, however, education administration became a delegated task, falling to committees the members of which were named by the town officials.

In colonial days, school committeemen were responsible for finding a location to hold classes and locating a qualified adult - namely, one who could read and write - to become schoolmaster. In addition, once a schoolmaster and location were selected, committeemen were charged with providing food and shelter for the former and maintaining the upkeep of the latter. Aside from the logistical concerns of administering a public school, colonial committeemen also maintained oversight of students' academic progress. This was done in part through visitations to the school. According to the NSBA, committeemen would visit the school during session several times per year to observe classroom activity.

After the advent of textbooks in the mid-1700s, committeemen also oversaw textbook selection and even petitioned the town to fund their purchase. From the 1600s through to the beginning of larger-scale organization of public schools in the 1800s, school boards constituted the governing bodies that directed and oversaw nearly every organizational aspect of local public schools. In brief, school boards performed the tasks of "administration, supervision, testing, personnel, evaluation, textbook adoption, plant maintenance, and community relations - all in embryo stages; and all without administrative help" ("The Purpose of School Boards," 1982, p. 2).

20th Century School Boards

As the U.S. population both increased in number and migrated in direction, school boards proliferated. According to the National School Boards Association, however, such expansion eventually took a toll on function as school boards soon became numerous enough to hinder their own effectiveness. For example, as smaller towns and villages grew into larger cities, the addition of new schools resulted in the addition of new school boards, and at one point, the cities of Chicago, Buffalo, and Detroit each had twelve or more school boards operating within their respective districts ("The Purpose of School Boards," 1982, p. 2).

Rather than advancing public education, such duplication of organizational responsibility soon clarified the need to combine boards in order better to serve the learning population. The consolidation of school boards that followed laid the foundation for the structure of public school boards as they exist today. In this structure, each town or city generally maintains one school board, and all schools within the locality operate under the jurisdiction of one superintendent, who is subject to the authority of the school board.

Further Insights

Within this broad framework, then, what is the profile of the average school board? In an effort to create an accurate picture of today's school board, Hess (2002) undertook a comprehensive survey of school board members in 2,000 school districts.

Rural v. Small School Boards

Regarding school boards in general, a distinct difference exists between larger, urban school boards and their smaller, more rural counterparts. In school districts serving student populations of 25,000 or greater, for example, Hess writes, "[b]oards are relatively political bodies, with more costly campaigns, more attentive interest groups, more politically oriented candidates, and more hotly contested elections." He notes, however, that these larger boards represent only 2% of the nation's school boards. Contrasted with this, school boards in smaller areas "tend to be relatively apolitical bodies that attract little attention and feature inexpensive, often uncontested campaigns" (Hess, 2002, p. 3).

The concerns faced by school boards vary in relation to their relative size. Whereas school boards in larger areas must often deal constantly with issues of violent crime, school boards in less populated areas are usually less occupied with handling such a threat. Despite their differences, however, both large-and small-district school boards share the same commitment to advancing academic achievement for the students they serve. Moreover, Hess notes, that across population demographics, "[b]oard members nationwide … contribute considerable time to school leadership, and two-thirds of them receive no pay for their work" (Hess, 2002, p. 3).

Moreover, in larger districts, candidates and the general public alike must contend with outside factors in the form of special interest groups, lobbying organizations, and, at times, political parties that seek to influence the outcome of school board elections. While these pressures are not by necessity absent in smaller school districts, their presence is less pronounced than in small districts' larger counterparts.

School Board Elections

How, then, do these public servants, many of whom are elected volunteers, come to earn the title of school board member? While a position on a small percentage of school boards in America is by appointment, the vast majority of school board members step into their roles through public election. As indicated, the level of contest in these elections is often reflective of the size of the school district. Likewise, the costs of school board elections vary according to similar data. Hess writes that while most candidates for school board will spend less than $1,000 during the course of their campaign, in larger districts, approximately two-fifths of school board elections carry a price tag of $5,000 or greater.

Despite the recognized importance of school boards to the operation of a town's or district's public school, voter turnout at school board elections remains disappointingly low. Allen and Plank (2005) examine this issue and its relation to the timing of board elections by studying school elections in four Michigan districts. Two of the districts held consolidated elections, meaning that the school board elections were concurrent with general municipal elections in November, and the remaining two districts held special elections, meaning that the school board elections took place in June separately from municipal elections. Allen and Plank concluded that school board elections held in November drew decidedly larger turnout than those held in June. In fact, voter turnout was as much as three times higher or more in November elections than in June elections. While in one sample June election, only 4% of voters in the two districts participated, 13% of voters in the two November election districts turned out (Allen & Plank, 2005, p. 516). This finding corresponds with Hess's conclusion that "[s]chool board election turnout is substantially higher when board elections are held at the same time as elections for state, federal, or general municipal offices" (Hess, 2002, p. 3).

The Work of the School Board Member

For those candidates who have successfully passed the milestone of election day, school board service holds challenges and opportunities uniquely its own. From time investment to policy considerations, the duties of board members are varied and broad. Through his research, Hess learned that the average school board meets approximately 23 times per year; yet, this time commitment alone represents merely one-third of the total time invested by board members. Indeed, members report spending an average of 25 hours per month on board business. Yet, like other aspects of board service, the factor of time investment varies depending upon the size of the school district (Hess, 2002).

For example, some board members serving larger school districts devote as many as 20 hours per week, or 80 hours per month, to their board service, while most members representing smaller districts spend fewer than 7 hours per week occupied with board business (Hess, 2005, p. 17). When one takes into consideration that for most board members, education is not their profession, the time commitment assumes a new level of importance and notice. Indeed, like the committeemen of colonial days, today's school board members are often interested and concerned citizens who choose to enter into public service for the advancement of education. Among respondents to Hess's study, only 13% of board members reported a professional background in education. Contrasted with this, 45% percent stated their background as professional or business, and over 25% were homemakers or retirees. Interestingly, these percentages varied between larger and smaller school districts, with larger districts boasting a higher rate of educators than smaller districts (Hess, 2005, p. 26).

Benefits of Standing Committees

Diversity of backgrounds notwithstanding, once members take their seat on the school board, their focus is the same: providing a high-quality education for their district's students. While the accomplishment of this goal may often be complex and always requires determination, it forms the basis for school board activity. In Governance by Committee, Doug Eadie indicates that governing committees are vital to the successful operation of a school board. According to Eadie, "standing committees are one of the preeminent keys to doing the kind of high-impact governing work that makes a significant difference in district affairs" (Eadie, 2005, p. 2). Eadie highlights the three important benefits of organizing school boards based around standing committees:

In-Depth Attention

The scope and nature of a school board's responsibility is often so great that board meetings do not provide adequate time for members to address in-depth the many important issues at hand. Committees, however, are able to give to the issues the attention that the full board cannot, thus relieving the full board of time-consuming work while at the same time providing more targeted focus to each issue. The net result of this system is that the board as a whole is able to accomplish more than it could without the assistance of its internal committees.

Expertise & Ownership

Eadie notes that participation on standing committees increases board members' sense of "ownership" of their position and the issues within their purview. He writes, "Dig[ging] into governing matters in detail builds board members' expertise where it really matters - in the meat of governing work. This … builds feelings of ownership among board members, consequently fueling their commitment to governing" (Eadie, 2005, p. 2).

Holliday (2003) echoes this point in addressing the importance of effective communication between the school district and the public, and he encourages districts to utilize the school board, among other resources, as a tool for communications. He writes that school boards should appoint at least one advisory committee per year to focus on a specific issue. In becoming experts on this issue, committee members will be able to provide accurate information to district communicators, and they, in turn, can convey this information to the public at large.

Continuous Improvement

A final benefit of governance by committee is the overall betterment of board functions and service as a result of the work and dedication of standing committee members. As a case in point, Eadie describes a committee whose mission is community relations and how this committee initiated the development of a speakers' bureau to schedule school board members to address local community groups.

Eadie writes that, at base, each school board should include the following standing committees with their corresponding responsibilities:

• Governance or Executive Committee: Comprised of the superintendent, standing committee chairs, and board president; responsible for directing the agenda of the board.

• Planning Committee: Responsible for budgetary and operational planning and recommendations.

• Performance-Monitoring Committee: Responsible for documenting academic and financial performance within the district and recommending appropriate changes or improvements.

• External Affairs Committee: Responsible for establishing and maintaining relationships between the district and the public at large.

While Eadie recommends specific committees, he also cautions against forming committees that do not correspond to the overall mission and governing responsibilities of the school board. For example, committees created to address secondary education might appear to be valid formations. In reality, however, they do little to further a school board's core function and in the end, as Eadie writes, "are more like technical advisory bodies than governing vehicles" (Eadie, 2005, p. 2).

Establishing School Board Committees

To avoid this mistake and to capitalize on the benefits of adopting a structure of standing committees, Eadie offers four guidelines for establishing school board committees:

• "To avoid stretching board members too thin, every member should serve on one and only one standing committee - with the exception of committee chairs, who also serve on the governance or executive committee.

• "Standing committees should be the only path to the full board agenda for recommended action items and informational reports. This will give committees real teeth and keep them from being mere discussion groups.

• "Standing committees do not take any formal action on behalf of the whole board; these committees are always advisory in nature.

• "Standing committee chairs and members should be rotated regularly - both to expose board members to the full range of governing work and to prevent an unhealthy degree of 'functional ownership'" (Eadie, 2005, p. 4).

Few would dispute that no two districts identically mirror each other. Indeed, growing as they did from the local independence of colonial America, today's locally controlled school boards reflect the spirit of early American education. Yet, with their diversity and the invaluable functions they perform, school boards and committees make possible the system of public education that today flourishes across the country. From small rural towns to large urban centers, the vital service of school board members remains a keystone in our country's system of public education.

Terms & Concepts

Committeemen: In colonial America, men appointed by town officials to a committee responsible for the oversight of local schools.

Consolidated Elections: School elections held in November, concurrently with federal, state, and municipal elections.

Public Education: Education provided by the government and funded through tax revenue.

School Board: The governing body of a school district. School board members are usually elected, although in limited instances they are appointed.

Selectmen: Another word for town official or member of the board of officers of a town; the term applies to New England towns.

Special Elections: School board elections held separate from federal, state, and municipal elections. Special elections are often held in Spring.

Standing Committee: A permanent committee that is continually operational as long as the overall governing body is in session.

Bibliography

Allen, A. & Plank, D. (2005). School board election structure and democratic representation. Educational Policy, 19 , 510-527. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://epx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/19/3/510

Blumsack, K., & McCabe, T. (2013). 7 practices of highly effective board members. American School Board Journal, 200, 21-25. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89212618&site=ehost-live

Dawson, L. J., & Quinn, R. (2013). 4 questions for school boards. American School Board Journal, 200, 26-29. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89212619&site=ehost-live

Eadie, D. (2006). Governance by Committee. American School Board Journal, 193 , 24-26. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19375659&site=ehost-live

Hess, F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of district governance. National School Boards Association. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://www.nsba.org/site/pdf.asp?TP=/site/docs/1200/1143.pdf

Holliday, A. E. (2003). Communicating on a peanuts budget. School Administrator, 60 , 33. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9126831&site=ehost-live

Johnson, P. A. (2012). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15, 83-102. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78167622&site=ehost-live

National School Boards Association. (1982). The purpose of school boards. In Becoming a better board member: A guide to effective school board service. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://www.aasb.org/BoardStds/SBpurpose.html

Suggested Reading

Beaudoin, N. (2006). Giving stakeholders a voice. Educational Leadership, 63 , 74-75. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20809986&site=ehost-live

Colson, H. (2006). The board's role development. Independent School, 66 , 70-80. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23017086&site=ehost-live

DeKuyper, M. (2006). The well-run board. Independent School, 66 , 58-68. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23017085&site=ehost-live

Eadie, D. (2007). From information to action. American School Board Journal, 194 , 64-65. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24358353&site=ehost-live

Frankel, M. T., & Schechtman, J. L. (2006). How to pick good trustees. Independent School, 66 , 38-47. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23017066&site=ehost-live

Lister, G. (2007). 7 tips for effective boardsmanship. American School Board Journal, 194 , 44-45. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23395402&site=ehost-live

Rooney, J. (2005). No failure to communicate. Educational Leadership, 62 , 90-91. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16712223&site=ehost-live