The Commission for School Board Excellence.

The Commission for School Board Excellence

Final Report

September 10, 2008

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

The State Board of Education (SBOE) asked the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, the Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education and AdvancED to assemble a task force, “the Commission for School Board Excellence,” to study national best practices relating to school board governance for 90 days and report recommendations. The Commission for School Board Excellence held meetings from June 10 – September 8, 2008 in Atlanta, Macon and Dalton.

Last year, public school (K-12) education spent $14 billion in local, state and federal funds in Georgia. While improvements are many and distributed, there is a long way to go to bring Georgia’s levels of student achievement to a national or international standard.

Public schools are major institutions in our democracy. They serve their communities and beyond, and are a key link between democracy and education. School board members are critical to the principle of public accountability, and schools are the ultimate in grass roots democracy.

“Without undervaluing any other human agency, it may be safely affirmed that the Common School, improved and energized, as it can easily be, may become the most effective and benignant of all the forces of civilization.”

– Horace Mann (1796-1859), widely known as the father of public education in America

УIntroduction.Ф Edition Education Policy Primer. Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education, 2008-09.

Because of emotional topics involving children and their futures, financing and taxes, new teaching methods and new advocacy platforms, the school system governance process is messy, often cumbersome, and any single position or constituency has to be balanced among all the other competing positions in the community. “Through classroom activities, students learn values, behaviors, and expectations of life in their community.” By watching their school system go about the great process of governance, they see democracy lessons in more profound ways than they may study it in class.

The Center for Public Education, УExecutive summary: School boards and the power of the public.Ф 2007.

There is strong support in the business community, including the Commission members and Advisory Committee members, that successful public schools are the bedrock of our society. As important as growing future citizens may be, there is also a direct link between educational achievement and future economic wealth, both for the individual and for the communities where those citizens live and work. Commission members as employers and taxpayers see the future of our state resting on today’s students. Global expectations of Georgia’s student knowledge and skills are now exceeding federal and state standards.

In Georgia, the school system governance model is being tested from all sides: only the most motivated and community-minded citizens should apply. In a later chapter of this report, the complex nature of the school system governance model and the aspirational qualities of people that would run for such a position are identified.

School board members hold special roles as trustees of public funds – local, state and federal - while they focus on one singular objective: having all students in their district reach their individual levels of achievement. Although elected by the public, school board members are required to work together with the entire board and have no authority as an independent elected official: they are only authorized to take official action as a member of the whole board.

Board duties require specialized skills and education in the performance of vision-setting, policymaking, approving multi- million dollar budgets and hiring a qualified superintendent. The motivation to serve as a board member should be the improvement of schools and academic achievement of all students, and not representation of a special interest or partisan perspective. Board service is not a job; it is citizen service. Given the specialized nature and unique role of board membership, this elected office should be characterized and treated differently from other elected offices where the primary duty is to independently represent constituent views. Board members, similar to judges and district attorneys, should abide by a code of conduct and conflict of interest policy modeled for their unique roles and responsibilities.

The Commission for School Board Excellence makes the following recommendations for improving school board governance and putting Georgia on the path to excellence in student achievement. Recommendation Category 1: Board Governance Accountability

The SBOE shall establish a state- wide public school board governance review and accountability process.

Currently, the legal expectations of school boards are minimal in Georgia. Citizens have the sole responsibility to establish and to demand high expectations of their board. Within the current environment of limited transparency, low accessibility, and minimal voter understanding of core board responsibilities, the community is at a distinct disadvantage in performing their oversight role at the ballot box. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that clear expectations and responsibilities be legislated to hold local school boards more accountable.

1a.Establish an oversight process accountable for collecting standardized student achievement performance information. The process shall also promote self- monitoring and internal evaluation by school boards to include school systems, as well as board performance. Develop a mechanism to ensure outside reporting of board member violation of ethics, conflict of interest or board training non- compliance.

While detailed data on student performance is collected today by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) and posted on its website, the data should be aggregated for more effective, comparative use by boards, superintendents, and the community as well as communicated widely through various public channels.

1b.Building upon the Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) process for performance monitoring (Student Improvement Plan process), provide the necessary early school system assistance and intervention to address underperforming academic systems, accreditation problems, financial and abuse of power issues. Ensure the process has a reasonable, but aggressive timetable for corrective action that is closely monitored.

1c.The SBOE shall be authorized to establish a review panel and investigation process to address and to resolve persistent school system and/or board performance issues aligning with the DOE triggers that are currently in place to initiate such assistance. Whether by contracting through outside service providers or by empowering an independent panel to assist, the SBOE process would be a focused, short-term measure to evaluate the severity of the issue and possible solutions. The independent panel shall be comprised of past school board members and superintendents representing each congressional district. Review panel members may be appointed by the Governor or be nominated by SBOE members.

Receivership shall be a last-resort option and would be the result of a consistently failing school system that has received intensive remediation efforts. The SBOE shall call upon the review panel to determine the question of receivership.

1d.In case a school continues to fail, temporary oversight and control by a receivership authority is appropriate and necessary. Such oversight shall be recommended by the review panel, approved by SBOE and limited to implementation of a specific recovery plan. The SBOE shall determine the question of receivership and appoint the receivership team. If the SBOE has not appointed the receivership team within 45 days, the Governor will then make the receivership appointments. The receivership team shall provide stability until new board members and/or a new superintendent can be installed to begin the recovery process. The primary objectives of the receivership team are to return the school board and the school system to effective functioning and to return the system to local control.

1e.Establish a state-wide code of ethics and conflict of interest guidelines for public school system board members who are the unique trustees of local public education for the entire district’s electorate.

The State of Georgia has a current financial and future societal interest in local education: it has an obligation to educate all its children. Because local, state and federal dollars are being spent in every school system, and because local education is now subject to state and federal standards, the Commission believes an overall governance process attuned to monitoring, assisting and intervening, when necessary, is required. Recommendation Category 2: Education Task Force

Convene a task force of education leaders and organizations to address the following three areas of school board focus:

board roles and responsibilities

state-wide school performance standards

comprehensive board member education and proficiency

Task force participation could include individuals from the Georgia School Boards Association (GSBA), Georgia School Superintendents Association (GSSA), Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education (GPEE), AdvancED (SACS), GDOE, GOSA and other business and community leaders.

This next step phase would reconcile existing terminology and standards for roles and responsibilities, performance standards, and board member education and proficiency.

2a.Improve and clarify the role definitions for school board members and school superintendents and their staff.

i.Board membership should be rooted in the concept of “citizen service” and, as such, board compensation should be limited to coverage of the expenses incurred by board members as they conduct board business. Per diem payments and reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses should be aligned with the established allowances in the code for the SBOE. Payment of benefits should be excluded.

ii.Boards shall be empowered to take governance action only when a majority of the board meets in a duly-called meeting acting as a single authority and speaking with a single voice. The board can only take action as a group, not as individuals.

iii.Ensure state statutes reflect the nature of the board as an oversight and policy-making body that sets vision, approves the budget, and hires the superintendent. The statutes should clarify the role of the school superintendent as the chief executive and manager of the school system. The board exists for the students, not the electorate. It acts as an elected trustee, not as an elected representative. Statutes should include clarity on the need for continuous improvement and priority of student achievement.

iv.A school system lexicon must be developed that clarifies existing language and resolves conflicting language where appropriate. Define and include reserved language in the statutes as follows:

1. “Cause to be managed” is the activity of the school board. “Manage” is the activity of the superintendent and his/her staff.

2.“Governance team” refers to the school board and the school superintendent as a team. “Leadership team” refers to the superintendent and his/her staff. Other terms should have agreed-to definitions.

3.Other specific terms may include: “per pupil expenditure,” “pupil-teacher ratio,” “drop-out or graduation rate,” “classroom expenditure percentage.”

Additional terms and definitions may be determined by the task force. These defined terms should be used to update Title 20 of the Georgia Code.

v.A crucial board responsibility is the recruiting and selection of a highly qualified school superintendent. For this process to be effective, boards must ensure they identify qualifications, solicit community involvement and provide transparency throughout the entire process. The superintendent is the only position that the school board shall be directly responsible for hiring. However, the task force will address and clarify the role of the board in hiring key system leaders.

vi.Other role ambiguity for board members, superintendents and staff needs to be clarified. Example: unless already elected, board chairs should be appointed by board members and may rotate.

2b.State-wide school performance standards

Define state-wide student and system performance standards and tracking metrics for school system performance, and establish a process of tracking, reporting and publication of student and system performance results through varied channels to the public by building on and expanding beyond the current web-based reporting tools of GDOE and GOSA. Consider student safety and civil rights as additional key metrics reporting.

ii.Require boards to develop and to maintain a strategic plan and a process of ongoing, timely review of student and financial performance results and outcomes compared to plan, and timely reporting of results to the community. Strategic planning training for boards should be provided to ensure the validity and value of the plans developed. Leverage current initiatives by GSBA and GOSA regarding strategic planning and reporting.

Any strategic planning toolset developed to assist boards should include core components: vision, high- level goals, objectives tied to goals, community engagement, internal and external communication, and ongoing tracking and periodic adjustment.

iii.Require boards to have a plan for regular community communications and stakeholder input for the purpose of presenting and discussing student and system planning, goals and performance.

2c.Comprehensive board member education and proficiency development

i.Provided the new definitions of roles and responsibilities and new state-wide school system performance standards are established as above, the task force shall also develop a recommended proficiency curriculum for board members to include:

1.School board fundamentals. Consider classroom and web-based training, mentoring and coaching, and whole-board training in fundamental processes of school systems, and in school system metrics focused on student achievement. Consider other local, state and federal law and policy requirements including financial topics.

2. Consider the training GSBA currently provides on strategic planning; build this into the curriculum.

3.The number of hours and sequence of training for new and experienced board members.

4.A training certification and disclosure guideline for board members who run for re-election.

5.A statement that all current board members would be expected to comply with ongoing education requirements.

ii.Provide a school board orientation workshop (similar to the GPEE and GSBA workshops currently offered) coordinated by the SBOE, and encourage board candidates to attend.

School board governance is a complex process requiring careful and coincident consideration of laws, community needs, state and federal education standards, business processes, organizational issues, and fiscal management. Board roles and responsibilities require thoughtful and patient consideration of often conflicting priorities, and personal and partisan forces. Research shows that board members who are prepared to govern using student achievement results as their guiding principal will produce better outcomes. Recommendation Category 3: Board Candidacy and Elections

Legislation shall be enacted to strengthen the election process and school board candidacy requirements.

3a.Establish into law the size of a Georgia public school board as a minimum of five and maximum of seven members, pursuant to best practices. Develop a process for existing larger boards to move to this smaller size.

3b.Establish new election guidelines to provide for 4-year staggered terms of office, running in non-partisan elections held on a general election cycle, e.g., November of even-numbered years. Encourage local citizens to have greater participation in the school board election process.

3c.Establish additional statutory qualifications for school board candidacy to include requirements for self-disclosure, adherence to the state-wide code of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines and to submit to background checks and drug screening by the GBI. While a “grandfathering” of board members without the following requirements is expected, enhanced requirements for board candidacy include:

U.S. Citizen and registered voter

HS diploma or GED

Sign statewide conflict of interest and code of ethics affidavit

Cannot be a “relative” of another sitting board member (already defined in Title 20 of the Georgia Code)

Cannot be a district employee

Cannot be judged mentally incompetent

Must submit to and pass drug screening (Note: this was held unconstitutional for members of the Georgia General Assembly; see Chandler v. Miller, 520 US 305, 1997.)

Must disclose compliance with required training, ethics and conflict of interest policies.

21 or older (in current law)

Resident of the school system district for at least 12 months (in current law)

No felony convictions (in current law)

Cannot be employed by a public or private K-12 school or school system (current law prohibits employment or service on the board of a private educational institution)

3d.Require board member disclosure during election cycle of adherence to ethics and conflict of interest guidelines and training compliance.

The Commission would have preferred to recommend more stringent standards, commensurate with the importance of the school board member role and the experiences they see demonstrated on other community and non-profit boards. However, since citizen involvement and local knowledge by the electorate of the qualities of board members is embedded in the fabric of the school board governance process, these new election terms and candidacy requirements are considered a minimum.

Background Public Education In America

Public schools in America hold a special place in the history and development of our country and culture. Georgia public schools have been around for over two centuries in various forms and now educate 1.6 million students, or 92% of school-age children. Under Georgia’s Constitution, public school systems are subdivisions of government established to fulfill the American vision of public education. Today, public schools are still the foundation of our society and are the largest single spending items in local and state budgets.

School systems are the local, logical and legal organization to implement the state’s goals for public education. But schools and school systems have been bombarded by external and internal forces that have distracted less-able boards from their mission: to teach and educate our children for their future community roles as parents, employees, and citizens.

Boards today are pulled in numerous directions due to the variety of constituencies and demands placed on the board from the Federal government, GDOE, the local electorate, parents, and the education community. It is critical that a governance model be selected that narrows the board’s focus and provides clear and consistent direction and priority to manage these demands.

Boards must utilize governance systems that clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of school board members. Boards should principally be concerned with “ends”, not the “means” of achieving objectives. It is the superintendent and school leadership that should focus on “means”.

With our school systems under pressure from every quarter, and with educational performance in many places in the world exceeding the performance of our public school systems and students, it is not surprising that there is increased focus on improving the effectiveness of our state school boards. Appropriate and consistent school board governance is critical to improving the effectiveness of our school boards. The Board Governance Model

An effective governance model familiar to corporate and public sector leaders is the Board Governance model. The board model of oversight for public education permits public scrutiny and lies at the heart of school board governance. Citizen “ownership” is fundamentally different from traditional management.

School board governance is based upon the trusteeship ideology that the board works as one body representing the entire community. Imbedded in the concept of board action on behalf of a larger group of citizen owners is a shared focus on results, a good faith and honest effort to fulfill the oversight role. Governance of a school board acts for the owners to ensure that the current executive officer fulfills the mission of the organization and ensures its future sustainability. This understanding of a legal and logical entity held accountable is at the core of the American business model. The entity is run by executives, and those executives are accountable to the shareholders through a board of directors.

To quote John Carver, “Board governance represents ownership one level down, not management one level up.” School boards, as with corporate boards, must ensure the school system fulfills its mission while building confidence in their decisions through good governance. Boards, individually and collectively, must demonstrate integrity and must instill confidence in the leadership team. Boards ensure good stewardship of funds, demonstrate ethical behavior, and plan for and support system-wide student achievement of accepted standards. Along with mission alignment, certain common behaviors are expected for for- profit and non-profit boards: professional courtesy, open and enlightening discussion about future plans, and requirements for current resources and operations.

Alliances of education scholars and business leaders have suggested that the cacophony of demands on school boards and schools be reconciled. They want to eliminate all requirements unrelated to student achievement, safety and civil rights and to align spending, curriculum, testing and teacher training around specific expectations for student learning. School boards should imitate boards of private businesses and recruit board members from the community and businesses who can transform school boards.

Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Munoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big City School Boards: Problems and Options. Center on reinventing public education. Corporate versus School Board Governance

In 200 pages of standards and board practice, The Conference Board’s Corporate Governance Handbook, 2007, provides insight into public company best practices. While laying out a minimum set, it shows the aspirational quality of standards that provide the foundation for continuous improvement of corporate boards.

The fundamental requirements for board members are easy to understand: do no harm, exercise care, loyalty and diligence and use personal experience to provide good faith and counsel and honesty of purpose. In business terms, that translates to “know the marketplace and help the organization achieve its goals.”

More difficult in the public services environment, discipline and insight are required to achieve social goals and outcomes that are not easily quantified and achieved. For school systems, and thus the school boards that govern, clear roles, responsibilities and alignment are paramount. Failure to achieve them can ruin individuals and have a long-reaching effect in the community for years, even generations.

Reforms need to be comprehensive and need to affect every level of the education system. However, there are key differences between business systems and public sector systems, which are summarized by Jim Collins in his Good to Great framework in Table 1.

Agreed upon financial performance metrics Fewer agreed upon performance metrics Clear governance structure & hierarchy Many governance components & inherent ambiguityHarder to tap idealism & creativityEasy to tap idealism & creativityCompetitive market pressures force “facts”Culture of “niceness” inhibits candorGoal is economic profit with ROI as key driver Goal is meeting human & social needs not priced at a profitProfit mechanism makes discipline easierDesire to “do good” leads to undisciplined decisions Efficient access to capital that feeds additional resourcesNo capital resources that systematically feed “best performers” Profit driven engine creates independent, sustained growthFunding is often time- limited and project specificCompetition stimulates change & progressPassion for mission makes it harder to change traditions Public School Board Governance

Approximately 95,000 school board members serve on some 15,000 local public school boards in the United States, most with a board size of five to seven. The majority of school board members live in small towns, followed by rural and then urban areas. Even though 80% of school districts enroll fewer than 3,000 students, one-sixth of public school students live in the 50 largest school districts (or less than 1% of all districts). Only 4% of school districts enrolled more than 10,000 students but these districts served nearly half of all public students. In the past three decades, the number of large districts has gradually risen while the number of smaller districts has continued to decline.

Land, Deborah, Johns Hopkins University. УLocal School Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in Relation to Students Academic AchievementФ, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR), U.S. Department of Education, 2002. – Brief History of School Boards The Education Policy Primer, 2008-2009 Edition. Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education and Georgia School Boards Association. 2008. – 1777

Public schools in Georgia were first authorized in the Georgia Constitution of 1777 which provided that schools be established in each county at state expense. – 1910 – 1940

In Georgia, reform of local school boards leads to:

Lay school boards selected through city-wide elections.

Centralized school board modeled on corporate board and focused on policy.

Expanded, professionalized role of the superintendent to encompass more management responsibilities rather than the previous instructional role. – Post 1920s

Reform of local school boards over this period leads to lay school boards selected through district/city-wide elections, centralized school board modeled on corporate board and focused on policy, and expanded, professionalized role of the superintendent as CEO. Last major reform of school boards. – 1970s – 1980s

Multiple challenges are facing the school boards. Increased challenges to the role of school boards in urban areas. Updates made to the Georgia Code that included elections of school board members. – 2007

Recurring disappointment in student achievement. School boards receiving closer scrutiny.

This historical evolution resulted in a school board governance system reflecting a fairly standard set of characteristics.

Local control to meet the specific needs and preferences of each community.

Separation of educational from general governance.

Many school districts with small boards.

Lay oversight of policy-making with a professional superintendent manager patterned after corporate boards with a chief executive officer.

Democratic representation of all citizens through at-large elections.

Nowhere is the pull and tug of local interest felt more than at the fulcrum point of the local school board where local community interests and resources meet the requirements and expectations of state and federal mandates and programs. Public school students will become the future employees and taxpayers of those communities. At stake is the very success of the public school student.

While the traditional challenges of securing and allocating funds remain, school boards face additional, difficult challenges as well. Some of these newer challenges include:

State and federal standards and mandates;

Greater public apathy and a lack of confidence in public schools and school boards;

More diverse student populations;

Controversial and pervasive social problems. 5

Land notes that while these characteristics were not completely uniform, the most significant departure began in the latter half of the 20th century. Multiple pressures and influences have resulted in the reduction of local control by school boards as federal and state governments have assumed a greater role in governing education. Business Participation In Education

In Georgia, there are 185 public school districts supporting 1.6 million students, with the six largest districts supporting a third of the total enrollment (547,000) and the six smallest districts supporting under 500 students each (source: GDOE Financial Data).

For decades, the Georgia business community has been working to improve education for the children of Georgia. Along with local education groups, businesses led by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce have supported and led initiatives to identify better ways to fund, improve, and support education and schools across the state. In recent years, the Metro Atlanta Chamber successfully led an effort to change the Atlanta Public Schools’ charter for improvements at the board and superintendent level.

For 17 years, the Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education (GPEE) has pursued its mission of informing and influencing Georgia leaders through research and non-partisan advocacy for the improvement of student achievement. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the state’s oldest and largest business advocacy organization, has been committed to action that will result in meaningful changes to our education system.

The Georgia School Boards Association’s (GSBA) mission is to ensure excellence in the governance of local school systems through a variety of professional development programs, eSolutions technology services, risk management, communication and advocacy services.

Georgia School Boards Association. УAbout Us.Ф Georgia School Boards Association, 2004. http://www.gsba.com/about/abou t_mission.html.

As employers, business leaders know the value of an educated workforce, and they see the consequences of educational failure for the individual and for the community. One key outcome is Georgia’s ranking among the bottom five states in the nation for public high school graduation rates. In “The Economics of Education,” GPEE finds that “the social and economic viability of a community strongly correlates with the number of high school graduates it produces.”

Introduction.Ф Edition Education Policy Primer. Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education, 2008- 09.

For Georgia to improve its economic future for all its citizens, improving public education and student achievement is paramount.

“Now, more than ever, it is vital to reconsider the fundamental value of public education to individuals and to states and to remember its role as a harbinger of hope, a precursor to economic well-being, and a cornerstone of democracy.”

Table 2: Compounded Impacts of High School Non-Completion Business, education and government leaders know that academic success is critical for the employees of today and tomorrow. Over the past few decades, many economists have outlined macro- level business trends that will increase demands for a well- educated workforce to remain competitive globally. Such predictions have come to fruition as the information technology and globalization trends have reshaped business. Resulting demands for quality and diversity of our workforce continue unabated. Two of these trends are highlighted by GPEE as having particular relevance for Georgia:

Globalization is reshaping our workforce and placing a premium on education and skills.

Inadequate skill levels are narrowing our citizens’ opportunities and threatening our state’s long-term economic viability.

It is fair and appropriate for the business community to provide some guidance on the topic of school board governance. Businesses, both public and private entities, have to comply with various forms of commerce-driven regulations and reporting practices. Compliance with these requirements leads to respect from business peers in the community. Non-compliance leads to censorship, censure and/or fines for misdeeds. More importantly, the marketplace is a strong builder of character and enterprise.

Research Methodology

In April 2008, the Georgia SBOE Chair Wanda Barrs asked the “partners” to charter a task force, composed primarily of business people, to take 90 days to study state and national best practices in school board governance. The request was made to four leading organizations committed to student achievement and having a board representation: the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, the Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education and AdvancED, the “partners.”

Three intermediate groups were formed for this work.

Commission for School Board Excellence In formulating a strategy to examine best practices and develop recommendations, the partners identified three co-chairs (John Rice, Phil Jacobs, and Gary Price) and 22 business, governmental and education leaders to form the Commission for School Board Excellence.

Advisory Committee To provide more in-depth and governance subject matter expertise examination of educational policy, 25 additional industry leaders from government, education and commerce comprised the Advisory Committee members.

Commission Working Group A working group made up of partner member staff and pro bono consulting services from Georgia- based North Highland was formed to explore specific issues raised by the Commission, analyze findings in those areas, facilitate the discussion, and reach closure on recommendations.

The Commission and Advisory Committee had a chance to review background material, engage with nationally recognized experts, and discuss areas of opportunity and appropriate directional changes.

During the earliest conversations among the Commission members and co-chairs, they explored a “value chain” model of school systems. This approach produced the Georgia education ecosystem as a visual representation of the dynamic, interactive nature of Georgia’s system of education. (See Figure 1)

The ecosystem is a helpful tool for analysis of causal interactions, interdependencies, and complexities of the state public education system. The Commission recognized that complex systems are guided by a set of underlying principles including:

Systems must be viewed as a whole because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Change in any part of the system may cause change in every other part of the system.

A system that has comprehensive feedback loops from all parts of the system.

Georgia school systems are comprised of multiple interdependent sub-systems such as school administration, facilities, instruction and curriculum, transportation, and financial and human resources. The school system is governed by a complex set of local, state and federal regulations. The school system operates within a dynamic environment of competing demands from important stakeholder groups including parents, government agencies, unions, taxpayers, and external forces like the economy, technology, and global standards.

An integrated life cycle approach to school board governance was used to consider the complexity and timing of key events in the “life” of a school board member. This systematic approach allowed a thorough yet strategic look at the factors impacting school board excellence.

Seven major subject areas were developed, consisting of 42 categories relevant to school board excellence. These key factors became the operating framework for subsequent research and debate. (See Figure 2)

The people part of the life cycle approach mirrored the Good to Great philosophy of Jim Collins. “Get the right people on the bus, the wrong ones off, and then get the people in the right seat.”

Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.

That simple reminder caused the Commission to review the board candidacy qualifications, the election process and the on- boarding processes of new school board members. But board proficiency is too important for a single event, and ongoing development, both individually and collectively became an important emphasis. The rich dialogue about roles, processes and metrics resulted in a strong conviction that unless the board and the superintendent work together as a team, they will not be able to carry the load.

And here, to no surprise, the findings are rich in aspirational needs, and challenging in the practical day-to-day world of education in 2008 Georgia school systems.

In high-performing districts, the board focuses on the teaching and learning system to deliver student achievement. In the lower- performing districts, student achievement is an afterthought pushed aside by too much emphasis on distracting and secondary issues. And at the height of dysfunction, school systems like Clayton County fail to fulfill the governance role and cease to be effective units and are to be replaced by “reality drama” events and grandstanding. Like a car wreck, it may be fascinating to view but traumatic for those actually involved.

The graphic in Figure 2 shows a life cycle view of school board governance. Several variations were circulated and discussed throughout the Commission’s work. The one shown here is consistent with the key categories and specific items recommended by the Commission.

The first Commission meeting was held on June 10, with the remainder of June, July and August used for a series of meetings scheduled for the Commission and the Advisory Committee. Commission members from throughout Georgia met in Atlanta, Macon, and Dalton to hear from leading experts as well as to review input from the Advisory Committee in order to formulate practical solutions.

The Advisory Committee participated in a variety of facilitated sessions to narrow down a wide breadth of opinion and research to tangible, focused proposals. With each iteration of the Advisory Committee, content was shared with the Commission, who in turn enhanced the work product through their discussions and from testimony from outside experts. New questions, ideas, and areas for review flowed from the Commission to the Advisory Committee.

The following is a list of final recommendations from the Commission. Also included in this report is an appendix that contains a bibliography and online index to those contents.

Recommendation Category 1: Board Governance Accountability