In part one of this two part series, I went through the changes that Act 1 made to school boards and their authority. Dysfunctional is a term used by education reformers to justify their attack on the system; much like calling teachers ineffective. What I find is that the changes made have not resulted in better outcomes because they were not designed with the goal of improving student outcomes. They benefit business and industry.
Historically, school boards have been comprised of retired teachers, community members, business leaders, etc. and typically thought of as a “stepping stone” to another elected position. Those days are gone. It is vitally important that we elect school board members who prioritize student outcomes and do it efficiently. Here are a few things related to the limited powers of school boards that every district should consider.
Hiring a superintendent: The number one priority of every school board should be the hiring of a superintendent. The superintendent they hire should share the priority of student outcomes. Above all, a superintendent should have a vision for the development of instructional programs, delivery of instruction, and outcomes. Everything else falls below that, because when it boils down to it, if a hurricane flattens the district, children can be educated in a rice field with folding chairs and a tent; if you have an instructional plan. How much money you spend on fancy new buildings and computers is completely irrelevant if you don’t have an instructional plan.
It is also important to understand the culture of the district and to select a superintendent who is a part of that culture, can readily identify shortfalls, and can build consensus toward achieving the goal of improving student outcomes.
Approving a budget: In today’s climate of accountability, public scrutiny, and corruption, it is a must for every school board member to have a more than basic understanding of school finance. Spending in a school district can’t be done on a “per capita” basis. It must be done in a manner that achieves equity in spending; not equality in spending. This can only happen when all of the members of the board share the vision of meeting the needs of every child. Boards often become divided over spending when more affluent districts are able to fund special projects through bonding. It is important to understand the different streams of revenue, and the difference between “per pupil” spending, intensive support spending, and spending on special projects that have been approved and funded by property owners in a specific area.
Because the communities with schools in the most need of repair are most often the poorer communities, securing tax propositions with sufficient millage to do the improvements that are necessary are usually a losing battle. It is worth having the discussion about lower millage propositions levied district-wide to assist with the needs of the poorer communities. Accomplishing this might prove difficult; however, if we have been successful in electing board members with the goal of serving the needs of every student, it can be done.
Setting policy: As I mentioned in part one, when a school board makes policy, it is setting the parameters that the district is allowed to operate. If a board fails to exercise its authority to make policy, it can affect the district’s ability to finance its operation as a result of litigation that might arise from the lack of policy, or unlawful policy.
It is important that school board members have a working understanding of school law. An effective board member will take the initiative to explore the legal ramifications of a policy under consideration and not rely on the word, or recommendation, of in-house legal counsel. There is a misconception about the role of a school board’s legal counsel. Louisiana law provides that the parish district attorney shall serve as legal counsel for a parish school board; however, if the district chooses to hire in-house counsel, then the district attorney is informed that he is relieved of his duties. The legal counsel’s role, however, is strictly advisory to the superintendent, and the board, and does not provide legal representation of either. Should the superintendent, or the board, need representation there is a process for requesting permission from the attorney general. The board must pass a resolution to request permission. Upon approval, the board must pass a resolution to approve an amount to spend at a rate that is determined by the attorney general’s office. If that amount is reached, a new spending resolution is made.
The problem with having in-house counsel, instead of using the district attorney, is that when a pending policy is questionably unlawful, a contracted attorney who views the board as a client may not always read the laws as black and white as a district attorney would; or even the attorney general in a requested opinion.
The bottom line is that board members should at least have an understanding of the laws regarding funding, employment, accountability. One well-placed unlawful policy that affects a large number of people can prove to be detrimental to a district’s finances. It simply isn’t enough to say, “We didn’t know.”
