The board of education is not a supervisory body that sits above the CEO and second-guesses every decision. It is a governance body that sets ends - what outcomes we expect for students - and holds the CEO accountable for achieving them within guardrails the community has set. This distinction changes everything.
School Boards Set Goals and Monitor Them
Research consistently links school board behavior to student outcomes. A study by the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB Lighthouse Study, Delagardelle, 2008) found that board members in improving districts routinely referred to student data to guide decisions and received information on a regular basis from superintendents, curriculum directors, and community sources. Waters and Marzano (2006), in a meta-analysis of 27 studies, found clear links between the priorities of school board and district leaders and student achievement - districts with higher outcomes showed alignment of board, district, and school efforts around non-negotiable goals. The NSBA's Key Work of School Boards framework (Gemberling, 2000; updated 2015) identifies vision, accountability, policy, community leadership, and board-superintendent relationships as the five pillars of effective governance. A study of 10 school boards in British Columbia (LaRocque and Coleman, 1993) found that boards in higher-performing districts had a clearer sense of goals, shared firm beliefs about students, and deliberately articulated those values with their communities.
What the Board Does
- Sets vision and measurable goals for student outcomes
- Adopts guardrails that protect community values
- Hires, evaluates, and supports the CEO
- Adopts the budget aligned with the strategic plan
- Establishes and reviews policy annually
- Engages community and communicates results
- Hires and evaluates the Board's Executive Officer
- Does its own professional development
- Monitors progress - not manages operations
What the CEO Does
- Leads day-to-day operations of the district
- Implements the board's strategic plan
- Hires, develops, and manages staff
- Prepares and monitors the budget
- Communicates proactively with the board
- Brings recommendations - with data and options
- Builds the accountability system for all staff
- Is the first learner, teacher, advocate, and collaborator
- Runs the system - within the guardrails the board sets
The Board-CEO Partnership is Interdependent
The Broad Academy's "Superintendent/Board Relations" framework (Old Mission Leadership Partners, 2011) identifies five hallmarks of peak-performing governance teams: united in service to children with no other agendas; board and CEO in an interdependent relationship where everyone understands their distinct roles; shared indicators of success for the district; relationships built on trust, loyalty, and respect; and strong, durable community linkages. The CRSS Reform Governance Model identifies five main areas of governance-management conflict that boards must navigate: board meetings structure, constituent service, management oversight, policy development, and theory of action.
Research on superintendent tenure and board stability is also instructive. Togneri and Anderson (2003) found that board members and superintendents in high-achieving districts "set their courses and stayed with them for years - continuity allowed superintendents and boards to grow together." Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy (2002) found that in large urban districts that raised achievement while reducing gaps, stability of board membership and low superintendent turnover "were necessary prerequisites for meaningful change." (Sources: "Best Practices for School Boards," Waters and Marzano, 2006; Togneri and Anderson, 2003; Snipes et al., 2002.)
This is not a principal-subordinate relationship. It is a partnership. The board holds the CEO accountable through the annual evaluation - the primary tool of governance accountability, used rigorously every year, not saved for contract renewal. Per John Carver's Policy Governance model, the board evaluates system performance and "pins it" on the superintendent - but only on criteria the board has clearly stated in advance, not on personal irrelevancies. (John Carver, "Remaking Governance," American School Board Journal, March 2000.)
A new CEO considering Baltimore is evaluating the board just as much as the board is evaluating candidates. A board known for micromanagement, adversarial behavior, or not doing its own work signals to any strong candidate that they are set up to fail before they begin. Ash knows this firsthand as an executive director herself: no organization succeeds unless everyone rolls up their sleeves.
The Six Standards of Effective Board Governance
Drawn from the Board Effectiveness Diagnostic (BED) developed by Education Board Partners based on their Standards for Effective Charter School Board Governance - the framework Ash uses to hold herself accountable as a commissioner. (Education Board Partners, "Board Effectiveness Diagnostic," edboards.org.)
🎓
Student Achievement First
- Know how outcomes are defined and measured
- Review data by subgroup quarterly
- Track gaps and hold CEO accountable in evaluation
- Benchmark against high-performing schools
👥
Exceptional Leadership
- Annual comprehensive CEO evaluation
- Monitor CEO goal progress quarterly
- Support CEO professional development
- Succession planning for both emergency and planned transitions
⚖
Exemplary Governance
- Diverse board in race, gender, skills, perspective
- Clear role expectations for every member
- Strategic, well-run meetings
- Annual board self-assessment
🎯
Strategic Action
- Annual board goals driving all work
- Multi-year strategic plan approved by board
- Governance and oversight - not management
- Community engaged in major decisions
⚖
Resources Used Wisely
- Quarterly financial dashboard review
- Full financial policies and procedures
- Annual audit reviewed by all members
- Board giving policy - all members contribute
⚖
Legal and Regulatory
- Compliance data reviewed routinely
- All school policies reviewed annually
- Bylaws reviewed every three years
- Equity review of policies that may disadvantage students
Sources for governance framework: Iowa Association of School Boards Lighthouse Study (Delagardelle, 2008); Waters and Marzano, "School Leadership That Works" (2006); NSBA Key Work of School Boards (Gemberling, 2000); LaRocque and Coleman (1993); Togneri and Anderson (2003); Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy (2002); Alsbury (2008); Bartusek (2000); John Carver, "Remaking Governance," American School Board Journal (March 2000); Broad Academy/Old Mission Leadership Partners, "Superintendent/Board Relations" (2011); Clayton County Public Schools Board of Education Retreat materials, Jasmine Bowles (October 2019); Education Board Partners, Board Effectiveness Diagnostic (edboards.org).
The Board Office: Governance Infrastructure
The Board Office is the full-time professional staff that makes governance possible. Unlike the rest of the district, the Board Office answers to the board - not the CEO. The board hires the Board's Executive Officer directly, evaluates their performance, and is responsible for ensuring this office is adequately staffed and resourced.
An under-resourced Board Office means commissioners are navigating a billion-dollar institution without infrastructure. It means the board risks unconsciously deferring to district administration simply because the administration has more capacity. The board's independence from the CEO requires a Board Office strong enough to support it - and Ash's commitment is to treat this as the essential governance infrastructure it is.