Superintendent-School Board Relations That Work

School Administrator, August, 1994 by Elizabeth Donohoe Steinberger

Bernd considers himself a competent and effective communicator. He is accessible to the local news media and strives to be visible in schools and classrooms. An open-door visitation policy and easy phone/fax access are informal mechanisms that encourage communication.

A more formal mechanism is scheduling regular meetings with board members. Because the Brown Act in California prohibits a majority of the school board from convening in private, Bernd arranges to meet with two or three board members at a time before each meeting. The composition of board members at these meetings changes each month. The purpose of the meetings is always to build an agenda--not to build consensus around an issue, explains Loofbourrow.

Strong two-way communication, according to Bernd and Loofbourrow, is only one factor that contributes to effective board-superintendent relationships. Respect for one another's perspective and role without setting up artificial barriers between administration and policy, says Bernd, also builds bonds of trust that serve as the essential foundation for good working relationships.

For Loofbourrow, the key is resisting short-term solutions for long-term issues. One short-term response for troubled school boards has been to "shoot the messenger"--or, as Loofbourrow puts it, to "fire the superintendent." But sometimes, maintains the veteran board member, "you have to hold your hands to the wheel and focus on what is best for the students--not on your next election."

Pressures and Partnerships

How have these relationships endured intense community pressures that may have pushed other policymakers and practitioners into adversarial positions? How have the individuals profiled here managed to keep "the romance alive?"

The AASA Yearbook on School Board-Superintendent Relationships, published more than three decades ago, offers a still-timely perspective:

"The future of America's children does not lie in turning off the pressures. ... The future, for better or worse, depends on what the school boards and superintendents do with those pressures."

Researchers and scholars point out that perennial concerns such as textbook adoptions and budget votes regularly stir up citizen interest. Episodic issues such as employee scandals and "sick" school buildings can erupt overnight, and dynamic historical, social, and political forces within the community play out in cycles of citizen support and turmoil over time.

These pressures and others can foster partnerships among educational leaders, students, parents, and residents, or they can isolate those who serve the public good at the public's will from their constituencies.

What seems to make the difference is how board members and superintendents work together in a web of complex, interdependent relationships to seek broad public input, secure the best information possible, and then carry their knowledge and expertise into the community to build support for change.

On a personal level, like romantic partners dancing, board members and superintendents become sensitive to one another's cues so they do not get boxed into corners.