POLICY GOVERNANCE
"The public-board relationship supersedes
the board's relationship with everyone else."
---John Carver

"...community engagement must be deeper and richer
than one person speaking at a school board meeting.
True community engagement enables board members
to listen to what community residents have to say
about public education - about their hopes and dreams for their schools."
---- Anne L. Bryant, Executive Director, National School Boards Association.

Making these true here in Durango might require very dedicated public servants, but we believe it would lead to positive changes in the way our district works.

And what is this mysterious “governance” model that the 9-R Board uses and why is it so hard to understand? If the "public-board" relationship is primary, why would a Board spend most of its time talking and listening to staff?

Who is John Carver and how does he describe the benefits of "Policy Governance?"

Policy Governance is a highly successful method for improving the performance of boards. It looks good on paper. And when it's working, it can be a huge improvement over contentious arenas that school boards often become.

Our concern is that for too many years, 9-R hasn't been using the whole model and the public is missing out.
Carver's most important "public-board relationship" quoted above has been relegated in 9-R to second class status in favor of the "superintendent-board relationship." Despite requests for sounding boards and study circles, the substitution of paid consultants is the preferred method of reaching the public. Any direct connection by the Board with "the owners" of the system has been trivialized as less informative than the staff reports that comprise most of 9-R meeting time.

Citizens wishing to express ideas or concerns to Board members risk looking like "squeaky wheels" or "special interests" as they spit out their messages at the one-way, 3 minute, "Public Participation" microphone slot. The Board recently created a new "closing the loop" space where public comments of the previous meeting are acknowledged; potentially an improvement, if substantive attention is paid. However, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for citizen or parent concerns to rise to discussion/action agenda items, especially if they might be construed as "critical" or "negative." Years of ignoring public pleas for dialogue - from the impacts of No Child Left Behind to the failure to provide appropriate educational methods for special ed students - have led to costly lawsuits, because anything less than legal action seems to fall on deaf ears. Because the new board must work with the accumulated baggage of past years, we sincerely wish them well!

A Policy Governance board's job is to monitor its one employee, in schools it is the Superintendent. How well is she carrying out the District's "Ends Policies? And is she complying with the "Executive Limitations" that say what she "must not fail to do?". Getting this right requires broad input beyond the superintendent's staff reports. Lacking any regular way to engage with the public, and reluctant to use the word "violation," it is no surprise our superintendent has an almost perfect 100% record of compliance with every policy. Perhaps 98% of those decisions were accurate, or perhaps not. But a failure to include other voices diminishes the legitimacy of the monitoring process, and everyone loses, including the Superintendent who then has to cope with the background noise of citizens grumbling because they know their voices weren't heard.

Has Policy Governance really streamlined the 9-R Board's work? Or does micromanaging continue to limit time for visionary policymaking? Viewers of Board meetings on Channel 22 - DCAT-Public Access TV could confirm that members spend the bulk of their meeting time engaged with staff, often listening to long detailed statistical reports better read outside the business meeting. We believe the Board could and should shift away from quantitative assessments and create time to dialogue with each other, and with representative segments of our community. Policy Governance, when fully implemented, allows (and requires) board members the time for strategic conversations and visionary policy work - far more than is seen in 9-R's interpretation of the model. The new Board membership looks as if it is trying change this dynamic, perhaps in response to expressions of community dissatisfaction.

Durango Herald Editorials and Op-Eds - Policy Governance issues

Policy Mis-governance : District 9-R board disconnected from the community March 13, 2005

Redistricting Separates Children Aug 8, 2004 "The board's primary obligation is to us. Its job is not to defend the superintendent or look for guidance from her. We ask that board members include our voices and values as they evaluate the superintendent's performance."

Paulson, John Carver and the problems with policy March 20, 2002

What have citizens specifically objected to in 9-R's use of Policy Governance? The board appears consistently biased in favor of staff when groups of citizens bring concerns about process or decision making to their attention. The board's interpretation of the model has been used as a shield to avoid receiving input from parties with viewpoints that differ from the central administration. To ordinary folks, this just doesn't make sense. We need to sit down and talk about the value of this model as currently used. For example, communications, especially with the public, were a key concern for candidates in last fall's election [Read more] on candidate concerns about9-R Policy Governance implementation.

Policy Governance recognizes that the visionary potential of the board could be short-circuited by micromanaging matters best handled by staff. However, the board has regularly refused to engage in discussions about big picture concerns brought with much thought by citizens who genuinely want to make things better. Policy Governance does allow the board to deal with "means" issues despite 9-R statements to the contrary; in fact, it requires them to be vigilant about the means used to achieve the board's goals – that's why“Executive Limitations" to the superintendent are written - to be monitored.

The 9-R Board has missed the mark by failing to spend adequate time and resources on public input (known as "community linkages" in PG jargon.) Robert Tschirki, a consultant hired following serious charges of confidentiality breaches by the Superintendent, spoke at length in August about people being hurt or feeling pain from poor communications. Carver never intended this model to be so rigid that segments of the system's owners would feel estranged from their representatives. Carver also never intended boards to choose the pieces they think fit their needs.

John Carver, creator of what many call a "breakthrough in board leadership" talks about the benefits of shifting to Policy Governance.

"Liberated from hours of preoccupation with system operations, trustees have more time to meet with community groups, other public boards, and pertinent authorities. Raising its visibility as a governmental leader, the board demonstrates its focus on ends and its long-term perspective by the language it uses, questions it asks, and topics it schedules. Joint meetings with city councils, hospital boards, social service boards, and other organs of the public become commonplace.

Board meetings are spent learning diverse points of view on what is most important for schools to produce, differing projections of future needs of students, and any other wisdom that helps in making wise long-term decisions about ends. The public is integral to these meetings, but carefully organized so the board gets representative input.

Many board meetings are not meetings in the usual sense at all, but take place in community settings where certain segments of the public can be heard. Wherever the meeting, the atmosphere is tailored for listening and entering into dialogue.

Board meetings are places of thoughtful dialogue and debate rather than the trivia that commonly besets conventional agendas.

Through focus groups, the board assesses public values about priorities and costs of educational products. This is not a sporadic or single-purpose effort, but an unending process. These carefully planned interactions are not for public relations, but for the dual purpose of enhancing board understanding and reinforcing the public's sense of ownership of its schools. Trustees are perceived as the public's servant-leaders in the great challenge of preparing citizens for a democracy."

Remaking Governance:
The creator of 'Policy Governance' challenges school boards to change
By John Carver
American School Board Journal , March 2000, p. 26
http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/writing/asbjcarv.html

 From CASB, the Colorado Association of School Board's "Governance Page" some basics of what boards are supposed to be doing:
"Whether a board adopts "Policy Governance" or relies on traditional models, it has three main job contributions:

The board's primary relationship is with those to whom it is accountable -- the general public, the "shareholders" of public education. The board is the public's purchasing agent for the educational product.

The central task of a board is to assimilate the diverse values of those who own the system, to add any special knowledge (often obtained from experts, including staff), then to make decisions on behalf of the owners.

The formal link from owners to trustees is the election process -- a tight link with respect to a trustee holding office, but a very loose link with respect to knowing the public's mind.

Typically, boards rely on open meetings, public hearings, and constituent phone calls for the bulk of public input. These methods not only fail to fulfill the board's obligation to connect with the owners, they are misleading in that the "public" is self-selected and typically expresses not its owner role, but its customer, vendor, or operator role. Boards rarely hear from a representative sampling of owners. Because the general public is so large, a continual system of focus groups, surveys, and advisory mechanisms is required to achieve even a semblance of fulfilling the board's owner-representative role.

The time is overdue for putting the public back into public education.

Read more about ways the board could be linking with the "owners" (the public)