The Role of the Board

John Schimmer, EdD, has served in the field of education for 45 years and as a regional director of ACSI since 1978. He has extensive experience consulting with and serving on boards. Dr. Schimmer has been personally trained by John Carver as a Policy Governance consultant, and he serves as an instructor for the ACSI Board Governance Enabler program.

Edgar Stoesz and Chester Raber (1996) wrote an excellent book about effective boards. Doing Good Better! is a wonderfully appropriate title for Christian school board members, who have been called by God to be servant-leaders. What a marvelous calling! Christian schools need men and women with strong spiritual convictions who understand the philosophy and distinctiveness of Christian schooling and are committed to leading schools to the highest possible level of excellence.

Every board member serves on a unique board. I am privileged to serve on three nonprofit boards. Like all boards, they are unique because the personalities, experiences, and convictions of their members shape them. Trustees bring to the board table their likes and dislikes, habits, prejudices, educational experiences, beliefs, values, and the depth of their biblical knowledge and spiritual walk. Also contributing to this uniqueness is the fact that the role assumed by a given board is largely derived from the historical and societal views of the scope of board activity and responsibility. Too often the perception of the local public school board serves as the board model, but generally this perception does not create the best model for the Christian school board.

Board meetings are also unique. Some meetings are formal and structured, while others are quite casual. Some boards have long and arduous meetings; others complete their agenda in two hours. Most Christian school boards, in fact, have lengthy meetings. Edgar Stoesz (2000) posed and answered an important question: “Why do most nonprofit and church boards spend more time in meetings than boards of large corporations like General Motors? It is because most nonprofit boards do not distinguish between governance and operations. They burn themselves out doing administrative work while neglecting their primary function, which is to govern.”

The Ambiguity About Rules

For generations we have struggled to distinguish between board authority and the decision-making role of the school administrator. In 1925, school historian Ellwood Cubberley wrote the following about boards:

Often their procedure is ill-advised, and commonly they are divided into groups or factions primarily interested in political or other advantages, rather than in the promotion of the best interests of the schools…. Nearly all cases of mismanagement, caused by the overactivity of school board members, are due to a misconception as to what the members were elected to do.… Their great work is to select experts to advise them, and on their advice to determine the larger policies of the school system…. They have in no sense been elected to become a board of superintendents to supervise the detailed work of the schools.

One might think Cubberley wrote this opinion in 2003 since we continue to suffer from a profound ambivalence regarding the board’s role.

Board members express frustration over the extraordinary length of board meetings while school administrators report that boards are too involved in the daily operations of schools, failing to lead in policy development, fund-raising, and planning. Unfortunately, few boards devote time to learning how to become better boards. Consequently, boards spend an inordinate amount of time looking inward and backward, rather than looking outward and forward, we as board members must move from a survival mode to a creative mode, from our preoccupation with solving problems to a focus on giving visionary leadership.

Since universities do not offer courses for board members, we have few options. By default, we may assume that former board members knew best how the board should function, and thus we continue to follow their example. Or we can develop a training program that includes studying board literature to find out what the “experts” teach, budgeting for engaging consultants for board training, and sending trustees to conferences. Unfortunately, we are often content with doing what we have always done.

Roy Lowrie Jr. (1998), former president of ACSI, wrote, “Failure to comprehend the board’s responsibilities will result in confusion, awkward situations, poor decisions, and oversights. The board should define in writing its own major responsibilities.” John Carver (1997), noted board expert, sums it up well: “The problem is that we are giving boards the wrong job…. We have watched intelligent people tied up in trivia so long that neither we nor they notice the discrepancy.”

The Board Literature and Board Roles

Board literature abounds with lists of board responsibilities. David Hubbard, president of Fuller Seminary, suggests that boards serve in four primary roles: governors, sponsors, ambassadors, and consultants (Drucker 1990). We are governors when legally assembled to debate, vote, draft policies, set goals, and plan the future. We are sponsors when contributing to the school and soliciting financial support for the school. We are ambassadors when promoting the school publicly, interpreting the mission, expounding the school’s virtues, and defending the school when it is under attack. We are consultants when bringing to the board table our gifts and talents, professional expertise, and most importantly our dreams and vision for the school.

The authors Hughes, Lakey, and Bobowick (2000) list the main duties as setting the direction (mission and goals), ensuring resources (fund-raising), and providing oversight (monitoring budgets, programs, and services). Robert Andringa, president of the Council for Christian Colleges, developed a more extensive list of board responsibilities for ACSI staff training that took place in December 1998:

• The board determines mission and basic values.
• The board maintains board standing policies on all aspects of governance.
• The board selects a chief executive and holds him or her accountable to policies.
• The board supports the chief executive and assesses his or her performance.
• The board ensures effective organizational planning.
• The board approves the major goals, or desired results, and the strategic plan.
• The board ensures financial solvency and integrity.
• The board approves, monitors, and strengthens the school’s programs and services.
• The board helps represent the school externally.
• The board ensures legal as well as ethical integrity and maintains accountability.
• The board encourages and nurtures the chief executive and staff.
• The board serves as the “final court of appeals” for unresolved internal disputes.
• The board recruits and orients new board members.
• The board evaluates and improves itself.

In the second responsibility listed, Andringa specifically states that boards write policies on how they will govern. He purposely did not include that boards draft policies on how the administrator should run the school. By virtue of their training and experience, administrators are vested with authority to direct staff activities and respond to parental concerns without being second-guessed by board members. There are times, however, when the board appropriately becomes more involved in administrative activity. Generally this action takes place when a new school opens or a crisis occurs. But crisis management should begin only after much prayer and consultation with an outside person who is an authority in school governance, and the goal should always be to pull back as soon as possible.

If we study a broad range of board literature, we find agreement regarding the following responsibilities and practices:

• The board hires, manages, and evaluates one employee, the chief executive officer.
• The board speaks as one voice, not many voices.
• The board performs a fiduciary role.
• The board deals with ends, not means.
• The board is a policy maker.
• The board delegates, monitors, and evaluates.
• Board members govern only during a duly called board meeting and have no authority outside of board meetings.
• Board members make impartial decisions.
• Board members are expected to contribute financially to the school and elicit financial support for the school.
• Board members model the values of the institution.

Daniel Vander Ark (1995), executive director of Christian Schools International, describes the board’s job as “preserving the heritage, auditing the present, and planning the future.” This description is especially useful because it focuses the board on its primary fiduciary responsibilities. The board holds many things in trust: the school’s financial assets, buildings and property, the safety and welfare of staff and students, and the school’s integrity. This integrity entails delivering what has been promised—an education that is both high quality and thoroughly Christian. “The most precious asset entrusted to the board … may be the institution’s values and beliefs…. Endless discussions about events [and activities] cannot substitute for deliberations and explicit pronouncements on values…. Institutional values shape the policies, strategies, and tactics—the means [of the staff] to achieve the desired ends [of the board]” (Chait, Holland, and Taylor 1991). The board determines mission, values, ends, and beliefs, and it delegates to the staff the “means” for accomplishing the goals of the board.

In addition to these writings, the works of John Carver can serve as an especially helpful guide for boards. His model, called Policy Governance, focuses on visionary leadership, accountability, and empowerment.

The Gift of Time

I have yet to meet board members who receive financial compensation for their board service. Their gift of time should be carefully guarded. Unfortunately, boards spend so much time directing and approving the activities of the staff that little time is left for discussions about the board’s primary work, which is governing. The board must protect its own time in order to focus on a wide range of governing issues: from preserving and perpetuating the school’s biblical roots, which are expressed in the board’s core value statements, to planning and funding the future.

A misunderstanding about board committees often draws the board into “administrivia.” Committees can expedite board work, but they must help the board to govern, never to manage. Carver (1997) writes, “Have no more committees than absolutely needed.… Disturb board wholeness as little as possible.” He also asserts that “board committees, when they are needed to assist the board in decision making, should do preboard work, not subboard work. They may work on matters before the board does, but at the board level. They should not work below the board level or at staff level.… When boards create committees with titles that duplicate staff functions [for example, grounds committees], those committees can be expected to drift into
staff work.” In other words, committees speak to—never for—the board. Extensive use of ad hoc committees is often preferable to creating more board committees.

The Right Board Members

The bent of board members profoundly influences board culture. It is critical to have a carefully crafted trustee profile that establishes the baseline personal qualities and character traits necessary for the most effective board service. Good boards also have a plan for identifying, recruiting, screening, and grooming potential trustees well before a vacancy occurs. The search committee strives to recommend candidates who best meet the profile. Once elected or appointed, new members then need to complete a comprehensive orientation prior to joining the board.

The goals of the board are to know the mind of Christ, honor Him, and enable the school to glorify Him by achieving the highest possible level of excellence. Above all, board members must acknowledge the leadership and sovereignty of Christ while completely depending on the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. They need to believe in the power of prayer and be exemplary in praying daily for the school. As Stoesz and Raber noted, boards must always reach higher: Doing Good Better!

Reference List

Carver, John. 1997. Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public organizations. 2d ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chait, Richard P., Thomas P. Holland, and Barbara E. Taylor. 1991. The effective board of trustees. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Cubberley, Ellwood P. 1925. An introduction to the study of education and to teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Drucker, Peter F. 1990. Managing the non-profit organization: Principles and practices. New York : HarperCollins.

Hughes, Sandra R., Berit M. Lakey, and Marla J. Bobowick. 2000. The board building cycle: Nine steps to finding, recruiting, and engaging nonprofit board members. Washington: National Center for Nonprofit Boards.

Lowrie, Roy W., Jr. 1998. Serving God on the Christian school board. Rev. ed. Revised by R. Leon Lowrie. Colorado Springs, CO: Association of Christian Schools International.

Stoesz, Edgar. 2000. Common sense for board members: 40 essays about board service. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Stoesz, Edgar, and Chester Raber. 1996. Doing good better: How to be an effective board member of a nonprofit organization. Rev. ed. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Vander Ark, Daniel. 1995. Holding Christian schools in trust. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Schools International. Film.

The Role of the Board 6.4