Should School Boards Move Toward a Corporate Board Structure?
(First Published April 2006)

Dan Scinto
President, International Schools Services, Inc.

Over the past three years I have written several articles for NewsLinks. I generally receive several pro and con e-mails discussing the assertions I make. No article, however, has received as much attention as the one I wrote in April 2006 dealing with school boards. It continues to elicit questions and remarks, not only by e-mail, but when I meet people while attending conferences and during business travel.

The goal of the articles I write is to spur discussion, ignite debate, and make people think. While some articles in NewsLinks fall short of these goals, the School Board article did not - and it continues to elicit discussion. I present it again simply because so many people have asked me to do so.

Should School Boards Move
Toward a Corporate Board Structure?

I believe the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” As I stated in a previous article, teachers and administrators in our international schools have evolved over the last twenty years into a professional, experienced, and dedicated cadre of individuals quite capable of running the daily operating activities of a school.

Do they need oversight and policy guidance? Of course they do. Boards, however, have not evolved over the last twenty years; they operate today much as they did two decades ago. The career growth in Administrators/teachers, coupled with the lack of board growth, has created an increasing sense of frustration, needless turnover, and the accompanying problems that power struggles create.

Before discussing these concerns, I want to praise those individual board members who serve on a voluntary basis and wish only to help the school become better. Although they seldom receive accolades from the community or the professional staff, their services should be positively acknowledged and their expertise in non-educational matters utilized. Many can and do contribute in helping schools deal with local business problems and local political concerns.

Having stated this, however, international school boards as institutions have not evolved in twenty years and now need to move toward a corporate model. They continue, however well intentioned, to repeat the same mistakes:

• 1. Boards continue to allow personal opinions and friendships to influence their decisions.
• 2. Boards still function as if they know as much about education as the professionals working in the schools.
• 3. Boards do not treat their Superintendents as they would treat the CEO of any other organization.
• 4. Boards often think short-term (because their children often have a short window in which to attend the school) instead of planning for the school’s long-term educational and financial health.
• 5. Boards have little consistency from country to country or even from school to school within a country.

Some of you may be saying, “Hold on, my board is not like that.” While at any given semester in time you may be correct, I believe that over time nearly all boards have exhibited the types of behavior previously identified. It takes only one or two board members to create major problems. We have all heard of superintendents who have lost their positions after many years of excellent leadership because new board members have specific agendas that may differ from what the educational professionals feel is best for the school. These superintendents should not go from outstanding educators one year to being locked out of their offices the next. There are, of course, superintendents who should be terminated for legitimate reasons but far too often it is politics, not competency, that determines job security.

Examples of why corporate boards can help the situation include:

• 1. Membership is usually composed of individuals who do not have children attending the school. Decisions are not influenced by individual board members’ needs but are based on what is best for the school.
• 2. Corporate boards continue to provide supervision of the Head, establish Board policies, and approve the budget. They can do this in three to five meetings a year.
• 3. Corporate boards allow the Head (CEO) to run the daily operation of the school, using his/her expertise, and that of the professional staff, to move the school’s policies and goals forward.
• 4. Corporate boards tend to do a better job of planning long-term than present board structures.
• 5. If the corporate board is self-perpetuating, which I endorse, then the consistency of mission is maintained.

I realize that many of our colleagues, as well as regional organizations and accrediting agencies, have attempted to impact boards over the last several years. Board training, conference workshops, and accrediting suggestions have all been helpful and productive but have not made a significant difference on how boards operate over the long run. They are helpful in the short term but tend to lose their effectiveness at the next school board election or change in superintendent. I believe that more emphasis in board training workshops should be placed on promoting the corporate model.

In closing, I want to emphasize that, while I do believe individual board members serve for the best of reasons, boards as institutions need to be modified. Roles and responsibilities are more clearly defined in the corporate board structure. Many have identified Board/administrative problems as the single largest reason for a dysfunctional school. As educational leaders and organizations, we should use our skills to convince our colleagues and board trainers to move school boards into the corporate structure.