A Reporter's Thoughts on Necessary Qualities for A School Board Member

If you haven't been able to tell by now, I regularly read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's education blog, Get Schooled.  It's a pretty decent way to see some "hot topics," and the discussion can occasionally be enlightening.  Maureen Downey is the blogmaster/author/what-have-you, and she does a pretty good job of posting regularly, even occasionally participating in the discussion.

In Sunday's print edition of the AJC there was a special pull-out section on metro-Atlanta school boards.  If you've seen any of the news around here in recent years, some prominent counties in metro Atlanta have become notorious for their school boards' dysfunction; one district even lost its accreditation.  Following this section, Ms. Downey posted a blog entry about what she thinks ought to be minimum requirements for school board members anywhere.  It was a thoughtful post; generally she writes an intro based on her experiences with the topic at hand and then shares a related news story, but in this instance she opened with the news and took an opportunity to write her opinion.

Here  is a link to the blog itself, and reprinted here (in italics, to distinguish her writing from mine) is her list of requirements.  I am pleased to say that I agree with most of them.  I've got to step away from the computer for now, but I intend to come back later to comment in more detail on some of these requirements.

In evaluating school board candidates, here are some considerations that I think are important for voters:

— What’s been their historic involvement with the schools? Can they name the schools in their districts and the principals? As surprising as it may seem, some candidates can’t list the schools in the areas they want to represent.

This should be agiven.  In a big enough district, I don't think a candidate needs to know every principal's name, but if you don't even know the schools in your district, you can't possibly hope to represent them.

— Have they attended school board meetings on a regular basis? Potential board members don’t have to show up at every meeting, but they have to attend enough to understand what the board does.

This is a great point.  When I "ran" for the school board position this summer, I had not attended meetings regularly (to be fair, I hadn't attended at all).  I was pretty naive, really, in this respect, and will surely attend meetings regularly when we "land" someplace where we intend to live.  That being said, it is entirely possible to be very involved and yet unable to attend meetings regularly.  I agree with the last sentence 100%: you might not need to attend every meeting, but you sure ought to know what goes on and how.

— What are their plans to improve student achievement? At some forums, candidates never address student achievement except to complain that it’s not high enough. But they offer no ideas about how to raise it.

One of my biggest pet peeves. Can we start, please, with a definition of achievement?  Then, let's talk about what we mean by improving it?  THEN let's see if the candidate has a plan.  Anyone can stand up and pontificate on how we need to improve student achievement (sheesh, it seems everyone already does!); no one ever seems to define it -- nevermind to lay out a plan other than "train our teachers."  Let's not get me started here ...

— Be wary of candidates running because of a private gripe with the district over how their child was treated. Such candidates may be great advocates for their own kids, but lack a broader interest in the success of all students.

Never thought about this, but I agree.  On the other hand, if a personal gripe got a person motivated enough to run and to want to make a difference, who am I to say that they won't take the entirety of the job to heart?  Be wary, I agree; but don't write them off.

— Can the candidates work as part of a team? Everyone loves a rebel, but at some point board members have to work together to pass policy, hire superintendents and create goals for students. A board overrun with mavericks provides great drama but few results. And somebody usually ends up in court.

What if the board is already rife with mavericks?  A person who is abrasive and contentious likely won't get the position to begin with, so this one seems to me a bit ridiculous.

— Can the candidates put forth any proposals to improve student learning that don’t require piles of cash? Because there won’t be piles. Anywhere. For a long time.

Amen.  But again, can we please, please please define "improve student learning"? Anyone?

— Listen carefully when candidates talk about their goals. Are they compliance-driven — do they talk about meeting the mandates set by the state Department of Education? Or are they performance-driven — do they focus on how to get students achieving not only to the state bar, but to national and international levels? You don’t want schools that just comply; you want schools that perform.

True enough.  But one needs to first comply, and for a district that is far enough from compliance that this is an election issue, I'd prefer someone with a plan for getting back on track than someone with a lofty goal for "once we get there."

— What is their broader vision for the schools? And how will they hold the superintendent accountable for acting on the vision? Candidates ought to spell out specific sets of measures they’d use to assess whether superintendents are doing a good job.

THIS has been a particularly important issue for the system in which I applied for the position, and tricky at best.  I don't know that any one candidate can have this solved, but to have not given it any thought would be a big red flag.

— What do they know about the range of programs offered to students? For instance, are they aware of the state’s Virtual High School? If so, can they tell you how many high schoolers in the district are taking Advanced Placement courses online? Can they report how many kids are taking AP classes, period? Do they know why it’s important for students to not only take AP classes, but to take and score high on AP tests?

Again, perhaps too detail-focused.  I'm okay with a candidate knowing the gist of these figures.  Anyone can say "we need more kids taking AP courses."

— Do they have other sources of income or are they regarding the school board stipend as their livelihood? As a rule, people with dire money problems — houses in foreclosure, no clear source of income, collection agencies at their heels — don’t make effective boardmembers. They ought to straighten out their own finances before they manage a district’s finances. (One tip: If a candidate’s phone has been disconnected, he or she is not a good bet.)

Yikes!  In this economy, and for personal reasons, I am perhaps more forgiving of imperfect credit than many folks might be.  But a disconnected phone?!  There's a difference between having had a rough time, and being in trouble presently or persistently. 

— Is the candidate a current or retired school employee? In concept, boards are supposed to give parents a hand in their local schools, but they’ve come to be dominated by educators. That skews the focus of boards from student concerns to teacher concerns. Look for candidates without financial ties to the school system, either their own or family members.

As a former teacher, I have not seen this as a problem, only because I've not seen it.  I'm not a teacher-union kind of person to begin with, but I have actually often thought we need more former teachers on the boards, and not fewer; too many things are blamed on and forced on teachers without any real understanding of the day-to-day implications (or whether it will even make a difference other than to push paper)!

–Watch for the perennial candidates who envision a career in politics and are looking for any foothold. School boards require people willing to slog through reports, scrutinize budgets and read the fine print. Don’t waste a vote on someone who sees the board as way to get their name in the paper on their way to the Legislature.

Amen...

— On the other hand, beware  of lifers. After two decades or more, a member ought to step down and make room for new voices and ideas.

... and again.