School Board Talk-2 Hearing from the Public

This is a second in a series written to provide a better understanding of how school boards function, and to suggest some principles of what might make them function better.   I'm trying to build on nearly 15 years experience as an elected school board member of the St. Cloud District.   My District spans 250 square miles and serves a diverse population of about 10,000 students. During the time that I lived in this community, since 1978, our district has experience a wide range of governance styles, and of management styles.   Today's post is about hearing from the public.  It may take me two posts, at least,  to cover the topic.

Some citizens expect school boards to take public comment on a broad range of topics, and to do so almost on demand.  Often they derive this idea from their experience with small city government.  Cities hold numerous hearings, because hearings are required by law.  Many of the hearings held by cities involve zoning decisions that impact property rights of the applicant, and from nearby residents effected by the proposal.   Moreover, city councils frequently pass ordinances or regulatory resolutions which require public hearings and findings. 

In contrast, most of a school board's work is akin to that of a corporate board approving major management decisions brought forward by management.  .Almost none of the board's decisions require a hearing by law.   That's because the legislature expects boards to delegate major decisions to management, and to use board decision making to maintain a level of business like accountability.    

The best, most effective school boards expect their operational leadership to bring major decisions to the board only after engaging in a consultative process with stakeholders, staff, citizens, students, and district leadership.   When the board of directors of a business corporation approve major decisions proposed by management, they don't hold a public hearing for their stockholders to take comments on whether the decision is prudent.    The corporate board expects that management has engaged in due diligence, and conducted appropriate consultation.  Similarly, a school board expects that district management will engage in careful due diligence before a decision is brought to the board for approval.   The superintendent defends his recommendation by showing how the decision supports the strategic plan, and by confirming that controversial decisions have already been vetted through a consultative inclusive process.

This question:  "where should public consultation occur?", is central to school governance philosophy.   When a school superintendent changes curriculum, changes graduation requirements, increases or decreases class size, implements budget cuts by distributing those cuts across the district, where should input occur?   Effective boards expect that the input should occur before the superintendent makes the recommendation to the board for approval.   When difficult budget cuts occur, those proposed cuts need to be vetted through an inclusive process, and effective boards expect that the superintendent will conduct an effective inclusive process, before making recommendations to the board. 

When the school board creates an expectation that citizens can come to the board meeting at the last minute and supplant the superintendent's inclusive process, why then stakeholders are likely to say, why bother going to the meeting at the school to discuss changes, I'll just wait until the final school board meeting, that's where the real decision will be made.  

School boards differ from corporate boards, of course.  They are accountable to the public through the election process.  However, whatever issue that comes before a school board, effective school boards expect their management to engage in appropriate consultation in advance of the meeting where the recommendation is delivered.   Major decisions that come before the Board, brought by the superintendent, should be vetted through a formal inclusive decision making process.  It is the school superintendent's job to conduct a consultative process that is equivalent to a public hearing.    

There are other problems with collecting public input informally in the middle of a public meeting.   A well organized consultative process provides equal access to all sides of an issue and all regions of the district and to parents with power and parents who are less powerful.   A board hearing by its very nature abbreviates the amount of input, and often one side organizes a group presentation, whereas others, unaware of the planned input, don't have reason to attend. 

The result is that the hearing often isn't really a hearing, but a board ambush by a small segment of the impacted stakeholders.   That's why it is so important that school boards expect that the superintendent and his leadership team conduct effective inclusive deliberative decision making processes.  In most cases, the Board's due diligence should be focusing not on the few people who show up to complain, but rather on whether the Superintendent and his team have engaged in appropriate stakeholder consultation, and whether the superintendent is accurately reporting the results of that consultation.

In my next post on this topic, I'm going to describe some board policies on public input and level some critiques on some of those policies.