On Outreach & Training: Three ‘As’ to Delegate Authority
By Perry Hill, IV, Ph.D.
Last year, the Journal shared information and commentary on the concept of governance. In this issue, we take an extra look at “delegation” as a tenet of good governance. IASB Director of Outreach & Training Perry Hill IV, Ph.D., shares his thoughts on delegation through IASB’s Foundational Principle 4.
As the corporate entity charged by law with governing a school district, each school board sits in trust for its entire community. The obligation to govern effectively imposes some fundamental duties on the board, including:
Foundational Principal 4: The board delegates authority.
The board delegates authority to the superintendent to manage the district and provide leadership to the staff. Such authority is conveyed through written board policies that communicate district ends and generally define operating parameters.
-
Ultimately, the school board is responsible for everything, yet the board must recognize that everything depends upon a capable and competent staff.
-
“Delegates authority” means empowering the superintendent and staff to pursue board ends by developing/enacting related details. A board that does (or re-does) staff work disempowers the staff. Yes, a board should be apprised, and it may share opinions/positions. Still, it should avoid delving into role duplication of staff (i.e., the board supplanting specialized staff in task completion). If the board provides its preference(s), it should enable and expect its employees (i.e., the superintendent) to ensure alignment. High levels of delegation require high levels of superintendent/staff empowerment and accountability.
-
Delegation is difficult for anyone accustomed to performing direct action. However, to appropriately stay focused on the big picture and avoid diminishing the staff, school board members must discipline themselves to trust and fully utilize their superintendent for staff interactions and not involve themselves in day-to-day operations.
Foundational Principle 4 is more complex than it appears. Delegation of authority is important because it upholds what I call a “Triple-A” rating, which highlights three pivotal areas.
The first area is Acknowledgment — acknowledging that one’s experience and knowledge are not all-inclusive. The second A is Acceptance — acceptance of board governance realities. The third A is Accountability — accountability of the superintendent to the board through adherence to employment terms and outcomes using objective data. The reference to accountability highlights the accountability of the superintendent to the board, but it also emphasizes how a board’s commitment to superintendent accountability serves as a non-negotiable standard/expectation the governance team must practice with the staff.
Let us go back to the first A and work our way through the Triple-A rating.
Acknowledgment
When referring to the first A in the Triple-A rating — acknowledgment that one’s experience and knowledge are not all-inclusive — this presents a realization that no one knows or has experienced everything. As such, the board must champion and promote the competency of and confidence in staff, including the superintendent. A school board, the individual board members, and the governance team encompass district leadership. District leadership has a charge to build and affirm trust in all district areas (inclusive of staff) as well as among its “vested partners” — the community, students, parents, and staff. Alienation of any “vested partner” by district leadership tarnishes the district image, disrupts optimal staff efficiency, and taints the integrity of the district along with board/administrative leadership.
Acceptance
The second A in the Triple-A rating involves acceptance of multiple board governance realities. This particular A features five sub-categories — acceptance of the board governance role; acceptance of minimizing micromanagement; acceptance of board composition; acceptance of the board’s key concerns; and acceptance of promoting objective decision-making.
We first emphasize the board’s acceptance of its governance role, which requires the board to create and contribute to a functional governance team and district. This means that the board takes the time to clarify and craft its ends, particularly its district goals. Accomplishment of these goals stands as a primary work of the board, which supports a diminished likelihood that personal agendas will distract/deter the school board from achieving and maintaining a prioritized, collective focus.
Second, acceptance of the board to minimize micromanagement bolsters a board duty to empower staff rather than callously imposing itself upon the staff. This coincides with the board adhering to the district hierarchical channels that appear in sample Board Policy 3:30: Chain of Command. Simply put, a paraphrased version of Board Policy 3:30 upholds letting staff do the job they were hired to do. After all, the chain of command upholds a system of numerous checks on policy and board compliance through layers of administrative oversight (e.g., deans, assistant principals, principals, assistant superintendents, and superintendent). A board need not micromanage because any appealed matter will inevitably rise through district hierarchical channels, should a final district ruling (by the board) be necessary. Moreover, a board need not micromanage because Board Policy 3:30 states that no one, including the board, can supersede adopted/approved district hierarchical channels. Ultimately, by empowering its staff, the board benefits because it solidifies systemic safeguards around the board. These safeguards center on the board allowing those who are directly involved with an issue to resolve the issue, including all levels of appeals. Such action upholds 3:30 while enabling the board to maintain neutrality and objectivity on every issue.
Our third area of acceptance embraces the importance of board composition. It is important for each board member to abide by sample Board Policy 2:80: Board Member Oath and Conduct, essentially the oath of office, and sample Board Policy 2:80E: Board Member Code of Conduct. Abiding by these policies involves remembering that the effectiveness of the collective board hinges upon the intent and impact of each individual board member. Individual board members add to the identity, perspectives, and depth of a board, but it is the collective board that exclusively and officially acts on behalf of the district.
Next, acceptance encompasses allowing for a focus on key concerns of the board. There really are only two. The first key concern of the board is student achievement. This includes monitoring student progress/growth, allocating resources accordingly, and ensuring consistent monitoring of adopted district goals directly linked with student achievement. The second key board concern is focusing on organizational effectiveness. This refers to ensuring that the board’s meetings are efficient and that the board’s systems are effective.
Finally, acceptance demands objective decision-making. This means that per the previously mentioned sample Board Policy 3:30, the board must resist interference in its district hierarchal channels (i.e., the chain of command) and allow any appealed matter to rise to its level, only if all other stipulated processes are exhausted. Moreover, this area of acceptance stresses the importance of the board exclusively utilizing district-secured/verified, state-secured/verified, and/or federal-secured/verified data to reach decisions. The board should not rely on rumors, gossip, political agendas, or random (unvetted) data. The board should strive to achieve at least consensus-based acknowledgment of a commitment to rely on “official (vetted) data.” Such imperatives affirm that should the board need to decide on a position, sanctioned data — not subjective influences — will aid in reaching an uninhibited decision for the greater good.
Accountability
The third A in the Triple-A rating uplifts accountability to employment terms, board directives, and outcomes. For the board, this addresses the responsibility of its employee — the superintendent — but it also extends beyond the board-superintendent connection. This priority also serves as an expectation between the superintendent and staff to ensure quality performance along with outcomes and to uphold compliance with/to district aims (stemming from the board). After all, the board delegates authority to the superintendent for a particular purpose. As such, any authority the board delegates to the superintendent qualifies for board review within the superintendent evaluation process.
This Triple-A rating expounds on the profound depth of Foundational Principle 4: The Board delegates authority. Applying “Foundational Principle 4” must remain an intentional, strategic board phenomenon hinging upon board/district needs and weighed against the measurable impact from board-delegated authority.