Published Online:
Published in Print: March 13, 1991, as Urban 'C.E.O.'s': Untangling the Governance Knot

Commentary

Urban 'C.E.O.'s': Untangling the Governance Knot

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

Suppose you know a successful chief executive officer of a small to medium-sized company. He is well paid, but you know he has the talent to go on to a more challenging position. You know he could do better financially as well.

Now suppose further that "Headhunter" came to him and offered him the position of ceo of a bigger firm with lots more money and benefits. But the firm is in deep trouble.

Headhunter doesn't want someone who is looking for a job. He's looking for someone who is very successful, happy, and undervalued where he is. This position is the bigger challenge your friend is seeking. Profits and productivity are down and expenses are high. Foreign competitors are producing better-quality output at less cost.

Your friend is confident because he knows how to turn the company around. He has done it before. He has even done it in this industry. What an opportunity!

"How about the board of directors?" he asks.

"Fine people!" says Headhunter. "They know nothing of managing your industry but they are fine people."

"That's O.K.," your friend says. "They are more likely to stay out of my hair and let me make the tough decisions that have to be made.''

"Well, it's not quite that way." Headhunter's voice drops. It's barely audible.

"What do you mean?"

"They meet rather often."

"How often?"

"The board or one of its subcommittees meets on average once a week. Sometimes more."

"Are you kidding?" he says. "My board meets once every three months! What do they do?"

"Well, here is a regular agenda. They consider and approve all of this." Headhunter hands him an agenda about an inch thick. It's full of detail on appointments of professional staff, aides, vehicle drivers, and secretaries. There are many awards for supply contracts. "Much of their time is spent discussing these kind of issues. They rarely discuss the bottom line," Headhunter says, while gazing at his shoes.

Your friend glances disbelieving through the agenda. "About how much of the ceo's time is spent on this board? I mean, how much of his time is spent in meetings, preparation, follow-up, persuading board members?" There is a touch of irritation in your friend's voice now.

"Sixty to 90 percent of the time," Headhunter responds quietly.

"You are wasting my time!" Your friend is clearly disgusted. "Bring me a deal where the board really wants someone to lead a company out of trouble. This company is doomed. What they want is an executive secretary to preside over its burial."

The company in question, an urban school system, may indeed be doomed, along with its whole industry, urban public education. There are a great many of us who have spent a lifetime working in public education who believe that at the very least, it is doomed in its present form. School boards spend little time focusing on the "bottom line"--academic performance--while concerning themselves with unbelievably detailed administrative issues related to how the system is run and, very often, who gets jobs. In most cases, you can add to this process a heavy dose of pure, energy-draining politics. Some of it is overt, some very subtle. But the result is that neither the superintendent nor the board gives appropriate attention to priority educational goals and performance assessment.

There is no one, single problem draining the effectiveness of public school systems, but a whole host of interrelated ones, from the relatively short length of the school year to the weakening of the family structure. As we address the problem in its totality, though, we need to carefully examine the major barriers to progress that relate to governance and to the position of school-system leader.

In Tsukuba, Japan, the superintendent of elementary and junior-high schools is appointed by the mayor, as is his board of education. That board is mainly advisory and is made up of respected, retired educators and sometimes other professionals. It meets about once a month. A similar structure exists at the prefecture (state-county) level for high schools in Japan. The board of directors of a nationally respected, private secondary school in Tsukuba meets once every four months.

The point is that much less time, effort, and attention of the these Japanese school administrators is taken up with preparing for, attending, and following up on meetings, with communicating with members individually and collectively, and with the political process generally than is the case in the United States, particularly in urban districts.

In our experience, between 60 and 90 percent of urban U.S. superintendents' time is taken up with these matters. In addition, we have observed a "multiplier effect" on members of the administrative staff, both in terms of the proportion of their time spent responding to board requirements and in an increased number of administrators. Use of the categorical-grant strategy by the states and federal agencies adds to the administrative workload. State and federal legislators and governors who correctly point an accusing finger at administratively overstaffed school systems should accept much of the blame for this state of affairs. Restrictive grants and excessive paper requirements emanate from their laws and regulations. The result is more administrators.

To address these issues, we make five modest proposals in the form of the following recommendations:

The superintendent must be given the job of chief executive officer if he or she is to be held accountable with the professional staff for academic results. Right now, no one can tell who is accountable because the leadership, managerial, and administrative-policy roles are so mixed up between the board and superintendent. For example, personnel appointments, promotions, demotions, and separations--as well as service, supply, and equipment contracts--should be totally in the domain of the superintendent.

The major argument against this position is that this will lead to an educational dictatorship. Our assumption is that the board in its strategy will not want to create a central-office dictator, but will want to create energetic, effective schools with accountable principals and faculties as the means to effect change. That will be a stated criterion for the position. If the superintendent is to share power to effect this end, he has to have it to share.

The board, including its subcommittees, should cut way back on the number of meetings. There should be no more than one regular meeting a month and no subcommittees except financial audit and academic/organizational performance audit. That kind of redefinition of the roles will allow for a significant reduction of meetings and board activity, particularly administrative and political activity. It will also increase productive time spent on the "bottom line." Board members should never be paid by the number of meetings they have. The reverse would be better.

The main argument against this is that the people need to be able to reach their elected representatives easily and that the board should ''know what is going on" and be "responsive." The assumption is that the present arrangements achieve this end. In fact, they do not. Academically, by our observation, boards do not know what is going on because 90 to 99 percent of their time is spent on administrative matters.

The superintendent should have an ombusdman capability to deal with day-to-day matters of concern to parents, citizens, and constituents of members of the board. Most of these matters should be dealt with at the school level. In Tsukuba, Japan, for example, principals say most are dealt with at the classroom level.

When you have a problem with your Ford or Toyota you do not go directly to the company board of directors. The board's job is to choose a president who will, among other things, set up company capabilities to address problems close to the customer. So should school systems. Clearly, important and systemic problems should be dealt with by the board in their goal-and-strategy sessions focused on improving the effectiveness of the organization.

Boards should be as representative as possible of the racial and ethnic composition of the population they serve. They should include parents, but should be dominated by successful professional, business, and labor leaders, each of whom brings strengths in such areas as organizational leadership, planning, finance, business, law, education, and the like. They should be appointed by a designated, elected official or officials through a nonpartisan-panel nominating process that must meet the above requirements in the slate of nominees. Board members should be barred from political office for five years after serving.

The rationale for proposing an appointed, nonpartisan, representative board is to reduce the level of political and administrative activity and increase the level of knowledgeable, productive, goal-oriented work.

The board's major responsibilities should be the following:

Selection, assessment, and retention of the superintendent. These are the key tasks: obtaining the best possible executive, maintaining working conditions that assure success, assessing performance, and making it worthwhile for him or her to stay (or not to stay in some cases). Board members that vote for a failure should resign because they have failed at a primary responsibility.

Before selecting a superintendent, the board should participate in a process that results in a clear definition of what it wants accomplished and why. Not how, but what and why. The selection process should in part include listening to superintendent candidates respond to how they would accomplish the board's goals.

The more that the board can do to define what it wants before selection, the more likely it is to obtain a superintendent who will succeed. The board should do everything possible to avoid an election or a definition of goals by a one-vote majority. A clear definition and consensus should be the basis for a fair and rational performance-assessment process. A third party should also assess the board's role in achieving (or not achieving) progress.

Broad policy: comprehensive educational strategy. The board should review, assess, and adopt broad policy recommended by the superintendent. There should be retreats to discuss informally broad directions of the system. The result should be a high degree of consensus within the board and between the board and superintendent, resulting in a clear mandate.

The superintendent should prepare with the staff a comprehensive strategy as to how major goals such as improved academic performance, college placement, and job placement will be achieved. This should be followed by a comprehensive implementation plan with dates and a reporting system on "indicators of success." Detailed plans with target dates and named responsible administrators should be the superintendent's concern, shared with the board for review and comment but not for approval. The comprehensive plan should be reviewed and commented on at a retreat, but the board should be slow to substitute its judgment.

Acquiring and allocating resources. If the school system lacks essential financial resources, it is up to the board, not the superintendent, to take the primary initiative. The superintendent can help, but his or her time should be preserved as much as possible for substantive, education-related matters. In a broad sense, the strategy and comprehensive plan should define the policy elements of the budget allocations.

The board should not substitute its judgment for the superintendent's in matters of detailed school and program budgetary allocations. The reason is that the board may thereby destroy the accountability of the superintendent and professional staff for academic and organizational results. The board should set the appropriation and appropriate funds to broad financial policy and programmatic categories. It should not appropriate to detailed administrative categories.

Program assessment and reporting. The board should expect in-depth assessments every 6 to 12 months of selected, priority programs identified in the strategy and plan, as well as annual reports on progress toward other goals of the comprehensive plan. These data and the supporting information are the equivalent of the "bottom line" of a private corporation. The reports should contain measurable indicators that reflect both the quality of the process and outcomes. Reports should be subject to an internal audit process.

Statutory requirements and restrictions. In the real world, the board must do certain things by statute or state regulation. These are mandates that in the short term must be addressed. But boards should take a leadership role in getting the state to reduce or otherwise modify these.

Many of the state and federal financial restrictions are counterproductive. As a result of state financial rules, one district we know of is hiring 180 more bus aides this year, while it may have to lay off teachers it needs next year (keeping the aides). Federal agencies are already moving to reduced constraints on the planning and use of categorical funding. Chapter 1, special education, remedial education, and "at risk" state funding all overlap in their purposes and clientele. They should be planned and budgeted together, along with general-fund contributions.

Complex and restrictive state and federal grant-funding practices result in distorted planning processes, with much time being spent on very small parts of the program and budget and relatively much less time on comprehensive, systemwide planning and budgeting. Aid is given out by the states and the federal government in small, restricted pieces so that about 90 percent of the planning goes into 10 percent of the resources. The result is that no one has sufficient time for the whole.

In most states, the school budgeting, accounting, and reporting systems are constructed for the needs of state department of education and state auditors, rather than the people who actually plan and operate the schools. The result is that although technically it is possible to add and use financial categories like "mathematics" and "kindergarten," it just is not done in most places. The financial specialists at the state and district levels conspire to maintain the status quo, because it is easier than developing a system that responds to a school- and program-based approach.

In the United States generally, when one adds the impact of the managerial role of boards and committees to board politics and the complexity of the categorical state and federal requirements, it is no wonder that we have the most administrators and the worst educational results of the developed countries. It is probably not the competence of the administrators that is the central problem. They are probably no better or worse than those found in other countries. It is the basic structural characteristics and requirements designed into the system by governors and state legislatures.

No competent and successful ceo would accept the leadership of a company in the private sector if the board of directors were going to meet once a week to consider and decide upon administrative matters, while the "bottom line"--in this case academic performance--was largely ignored.

The means of achieving these suggested reforms could bestatewide or local-option legislation approved by boards themselves or by voter referendum. Even without legislation, a board could by itself make significant progress in reforming its governing policies and practices. To do so, it would have to lay the groundwork carefully with the public.

"What are you going to do?" Headhunter asks.

"I think I'll accept a job at Harvard to work on the roots of the problem," your friend says.

And so he did.

Oliver S. Brown and Leonard B. Finkelstein are management consultants who sometimes assist urban districts in finding superintendents. Robert S. Peterkin is stepping down as superintendent in Milwaukee to lead a project at Harvard University to improve the effectiveness of urban superintendents.

SUBJ:
Common Sense on Condom Education

Education Week
Volume 10, Issue 25, March 13, 1991, pp 39, 40

Copyright 1991, Editorial Projects in Education, Inc.

Common Sense on Condom Education

By Stephen R. Sroka

Common sense and condom sense seldom accompany each other these days. The mere mention of condom education is enough to make otherwise sensible people emotionally charged and vocal about what they think sex education should be or not be. Some argue it is a matter of morals, but whose morals?

National organizations and leaders give conflicting opinions on the subject. Some encourage condom education, citing data suggesting that it, along with sex education, can delay the onset of sexual activity and promote responsible sexual activity using contraception.

Other groups say teaching about condoms gives an implicit permission to the sexually curious teenager to experiment, which violates beliefs against premarital sex. Condom education has thus become for many not a rational educational issue, but a personal, political, or religious one.

Meanwhile, however, the statistical evidence leaves little doubt that American teenagers are sexually active--and that that fact carries consequences for them and for the country. The average age to have sexual intercourse for the first time in the United States is l6 years for girls and 15.5 years for boys. Every 30 seconds a teenage girl becomes pregnant, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and every l3 seconds a teenager contracts a sexually transmitted disease. There are an estimated 1 million teenage pregnancies a year, and 3 million teenagers--one out of six--will contract a sexually transmitted disease this year.

Today, aids is the sixth leading cause of death for those in the 15- to 24-year-old age group, and 1 out of 500 college students--approximately 25,000 to 35,000--are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) that causes aids.

But as many educators note, the threat of death seems remote to most young people. Because the young feel invincible, immortal, death in the abstract is not a strong enough deterrent to keep them from having sex. That is why some educators have described sexually active teenagers as a ticking time bomb for the aids/hiv/std epidemic in the making.

What, then, are classroom teachers, the people in the trenches, to do as they try to wrestle with the sensitive issues involved with condom education? Ironically, many of the "experts" who speak to them on the subject do so from Washington, Atlanta, or some university or church tower. And they are telling teachers how to do things that they themselves have never done. The experts don't live in the community or know how or what to say face-to-face to students, parents, or school boards.

What I have found, in travels across the country to advise schools on health-related concerns, is that there are pockets of brilliance and pockets of ignorance when it comes to condom education. And the two are not always in the expected places. For instance, sensitive yet realistic condom education can be found in some schools in the Bible Belt, and yet not be found in the schools of some large urban areas.

Here, gleaned from my experiences in training some 30,000 educators nationwide, are seven pieces of advice for those considering condom education. These are suggestions not from the "experts," but from teachers actually teaching about condoms and their use.

Not schools alone--involve the community, especially the parents.

Do parents want condom education in the schools? National surveys say yes. A Gallup poll published in the Phi Delta Kappan in 1988 indicated that 81 percent of public-school parents wanted "teaching the use of condoms" for aids education. In 1990, the Gallup poll found that more people wanted aids education than sex education in the schools. Perhaps this is because some people see aids education as disease control while others see sex education as birth control.

Regardless of this backdrop of support, however, each community needs to develop with care its own condom-education program. Schools cannot perform the task alone, for if the school teaches one message and the community another, the program will lack effectiveness. Successful programs start with community meetings that bring together a range of people beyond the school, enlisting their views and support from the beginning. Outside experts who have dealt with the issues in other communities are brought in to share their experiences. Among those also invited are school-board members, local politicians, medical experts, religious leaders, community and business leaders, parents, school administrators, teachers, and students. What emerges from such meetings is a community consensus on what is an appropriate message--one that is sensitive to the needs and values of the community, yet realistic.

Community involvement fosters ownership, which helps ensure successful implementation of the program in the school, home, and community.

Don't teach condom education, per se.

Successful programs incorporate condom education into a sound educational framework, such as a comprehensive K-l2 health-education curriculum. The content area might be communicable-disease education, aids/hiv education, sex education, sexually-transmitted-disease education, or family-life education. This approach helps desensitize and clarify the condom issues as well as allay fears.

'Just say no' or 'Just say know'--use age-appropriate prevention messages.

Prevention messages must be clear, direct, and in a language students can understand.

Many schools develop programs with messages that reflect several themes, from sexual abstinence to condom education, which are adjusted for different grade levels. They may start with a "Just say no" message for drugs in early elementary school. This is continued in the upper-elementary grades and sometimes extended to sex education. In most schools, in grade 7 or 8, "Just say no" refers to both drug use and sexual behavior. Somewhere around grade 7 or 8 (and sometimes as early as grade 4 or as late as grade 12), schools move the message to "Just say know" and condom education is taught with increasing emphasis at each grade level.

A description of what many schools do can be stated simply as "the ABC's of sex education": Abstinence, Be monogamous, and Condoms.

Almost all schools stress abstinence (no sex, no drugs) as the best way to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Monogamy is taught as ''refraining from sexual activity until as adults you are ready to establish a mutually faithful relationship, such as in marriage." But, since many high-school students are already sexually active, many schools teach about condoms with the message that they reduce but do not eliminate the risk of disease or pregnancy.

Teachers I have talked to stress that to teach about sexual issues you must teach about drugs, because aids/hiv and other sexually transmitted diseases can in many respects be considered to be drug-related illnesses. Certainly, under the influence of drugs, people--especially the young--may not be able to make responsible decisions regarding sexual behavior.

But facts alone are not enough. Students need to be taught life skills. Programs need to stress behavioral strategies to empower students to avoid risky sexual behaviors. Decisionmaking skills, assertive communication, stress management, conflict resolution, and self-esteem skills help students take control of their lives.

Condom Education and condom instruction.

There is a difference between condom education and condom instruction. Condom education usually takes this form:

"Here is a condom, use it." As one educator said, "We can talk about condoms here, but we can't touch them."

But since condom effectiveness is dependent on correct use, condom education without instruction is unrealistic.

You need condom instruction that addresses at a minimum these areas: where to obtain condoms, the need to use a latex condom labeled for disease prevention, and the need to use it from start to finish for any type of sexual contact.

Students need to be told that the condom must be put on before any contact, and that it only goes on one way. Teachers should instruct them to: Pinch the tip of the condom for a space for the ejaculate before you unroll it to the base of the penis. Use a lubricant with a spermicide such as nonoxynol-9. After ejaculation remove the condom before the penis becomes flaccid and dispose of the condom in the trash, not in toilets where they may cause problems in sewers.

Even the National pta states that "ages l3 and up are high risk" and says that teens should know the fol4lowing fact: "correctly using a latex condom with nonoxynol-9 every time one has sexual intercourse lowers the chance of getting hiv"

Before the C-word, always the A-word.

Abstinence should always preface any condom-education message. If for no other reason, this should be done to let students know that "everybody is not doing it." In fact, most students in grades 7-12 are not sexually active, and almost all experts suggest that abstinence be encouraged. Many educators stress abstinence as the best way (medically and morally) to protect yourself from disease and pregnancy. They note that even if a student has been sexually active, he or she can be a ''born-again virgin" and have "second virginity." Just because you said yes once doesn't mean you have to say it again.

No surprises.

A general rule of condom educa8tion is "no surprises." Do not teach something that administrators, parents, and the school board do not know about.

Condom education should be stated in the goals, objectives, activities, and evaluation components of a school program. Implied messages produce controversy and confusion.

In-service training needs to be provided, so that teachers can develop the skills to teach these sensitive messages.

Parents should be notified--and indeed involved with the program's development. Parental consent should be encouraged, but not mandatory. Parents should have the right to withdraw their students from condom education, but they should be notified if they do,of their responsibility to teach this potentially life-saving information to their children.

Don't delay.

Regardless of what they are taught, a substantial portion of high-school students are going to have sexual experiences before they graduate. They need to know now the information and skills that can save their lives.

In my experience, educators who teach about condoms are likely to echo the thoughts of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, when he said of condom education: "It might offend some people, and I'm sorry about that. I wish this wasn't necessary to talk about, but it is, and we can't let people die in ignorance."

For many educators today, it is morally irresponsible not to teach abstinence and condom education.

Steve Sroka is a teacher in the Cleveland public schools, an adjunct associate professor of health education at Cleveland State University, and an educational consultant on aids and other sexually transmitted diseases. His book, Educator's Guide to aids and Other std's, is in its 38th printing.

Vol. 10, Issue 25, Page 38-40

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login |  Register
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Emailed

Commented