Table 4-13 Case F Overview
Board Size1 6 to 8 School Size 110 students (small)
Elected or Co-opted Elected parents and 1 teacher representative
Involvement in Operations
Very high
Chair Elected Yes Location Middle to upper class
area of Perth
Member Tenure 3 years Strategic Plan Developing
Constitution Status Not recently reviewed Effective GEFs2 1 Contextual factors Board has high level of
professional skills
Poor GEFs3 4
Notes: (1) Members specified by constitution; (2) Scores of 7 and above; (3) Scores of 3 and below.
Board F oversaw a small autonomous, parent-run community school in a middle to high socio-economic–level suburb of Perth. With one hundred students, it was the second smallest school in this study. Board F was a member of AIS.
Although a small school, the board was not planning to grow since its small income meant it could not afford better premises in its catchment area, which had high land values. It owned a multilevel building suited to its current size but lacked ovals or grassed play areas.
The board comprised parents and a staff representative. Reflecting its egalitarian community-building ethos, a student position was constitutionally specified, although currently unfilled due to concern about the time demands on senior students.
4.2.6.1 GEF 1: Focus
Survey and interview responses indicated the board was firmly grounded in community values, although so far it had not formally articulated these or created a mission statement. This school was heavily engaged with the local geographical community as well as the parent body, seeing both as key stakeholders. The school actively sought to be part of local community events and activities, and board members were encouraged to help organise and participate in such events.
While four of the six respondents agreed that the board had “a strong focus on the achievement of strategic goals”, three were unable to clearly describe its mission and the board was only in the initial stages of developing a strategic plan. Like most others in this study, especially the smaller schools, its focus was strongly operational.
4.2.6.2 GEF 2: Approach
Members had little understanding of the nature of governance or published models of it. Their focus on the school community’s interests broadly reflected the community and constituent models discussed in Chapter 2, but this did not result from knowledge of these.
Members believed that their community focus should include school staff, and they therefore gave the principal significant practical help and volunteered to help with school operations. In this regard, they saw themselves as supporters of the principal rather than overseers of the school’s direction and management. The principal approached board members directly for assistance with tasks such as organising events or excursions and members considered this part of their role in a small school with a tight budget. This board was therefore the most ‘hands-on’ in this study. In this regard it was similar to board C, which was also highly hands-on, but differed in having a more collaborative approach to working with the principal (Case C did not work closely with the principal).
Board F’s community focus had resulted in a more representative board membership than most other boards in this study, having a teacher (Board E also had this) and a student representative position (the latter currently unfilled).
As in many other cases the focus on operational support for the principal was accompanied by a lack of strategic thinking and planning. However, the board chair reported having recently begun a draft strategic plan, although apparently with little input from members so far (and not made available to the researcher).
While this board had little formal knowledge of the difference between management and governance, most survey participants believed their community focus formed an effective foundation for board operations. While this outlook led to a good understanding of their key stakeholders’ needs, future development of the board
would require developing an understanding of governance, taking formal oversight of the principal and adopting a more strategic focus for the board’s work.
4.2.6.3 GEF 3: Roles
Interviews and surveys revealed that members generally saw their role as assisting the principal in maintaining a healthy financial position, managing school assets, overseeing staff working conditions and promoting the school. An example of this support role was observed in a meeting that involved detailed planning for a school float in a street parade, with tasks being allocated to individual members.
Although the principal reported to meetings, the board did not formally oversee her or conduct regular performance management; rather, any oversight was ad-hoc and informal.
Only two respondents could clearly articulate the board’s role within the school (citing principal oversight and overall accountability), and three expressed confusion, for example, “I am not sure of my role—but I try to support and participate as an interested community member”. This appeared to stem from the absence of a written statement of the board’s role.
4.2.6.4 GEF 4: Relationships
The principal expressed her appreciation of the board’s support and board members reported a good working relationship with the principal and respect for her ability to run a school with few resources.
Consistent with the board’s community focus, survey and interview responses suggested it had a good relationship with the school community. Interviewees spoke at length about the board’s community spirit, identifying it as a highly visible and respected part of the parent community. However, one disagreed in suggesting that “there is not much engagement with the families in the school”. This member referred to a lack of formal engagement through parent meetings and formal communications rather than being visible. Overall, the perception of the board members was that it had positive relationships with the school community, yet it appears that this based mostly on its visibility rather than formal methods of school
community engagement (e.g. meetings, written communications etc.). This appears to suggest an opportunity to improve engagement with the school community.
Relations among board members were seen as positive in the survey and interviews. Members shared a keen sense of common purpose and enjoyed working together in school and local community engagement activities, such as the float in a local community street parade. There were no signs of intra-board tension.
4.2.6.5 GEF 5: Competences
Board members had varied but predominantly professional skills, representative of the broader parent group’s middle or upper socio-economic level. However, while all six respondents agreed the board had the necessary intellectual capacity, two acknowledged that they personally lacked knowledge or skills necessary for an effective board such as strategic thinking and understanding of governance or effective board processes. It appears none had prior knowledge or experience of board governance.
There was little attention to board member training and development, with no budget allocation or mention of training in the minutes. Being a very small school and requiring members to be either a parent or teacher limited their ability to recruit members with competences relevant to governance.
4.2.6.6 GEF 6: Processes
This board had few formal policies or processes and while respondents cited a few written policies these could not be produced when requested. Despite all but two board members having professional backgrounds, the board’s operational focus and its collaborative, small school culture resulted in a very informal approach to its operations.
Survey participants agreed their meeting procedures were effective, but observation suggested meetings were well focused in some ways and not others. Documentation included the agenda, minutes and principal’s report, although relevant documents were not always provided in advance. Much of the observed meeting was conducted in an ad-hoc way. A member asked, “do we have an agenda tonight?” as only some had received the emailed agenda. Another asked, “who is going to do the minutes?”
The main items were the principal’s report, the logistics of a school camp and a treasurer’s report recommending changes to the kindergarten student intake, which was news to members yet received only cursory discussion before acceptance. Other topics involved a wide range of operational issues: floats for pageants, raffles, fashion shows, concerts, school camps and zoo excursions.
Only one survey respondent believed the board had processes to evaluate its own performance, succession planning for board members or processes for appointing the principal, suggesting these elements of formal policy were missing.
As with other small schools in this study, members were happy with their board’s informal, hands-on style and had little awareness of the nature of governance.
4.2.6.7 Summary of Case F
Table 4-14 Summary of Case F Effectiveness
GEF Focus Approach Roles Relationships Competence Process Context
Rating 3 Poor 4 Poor 2 Very Poor 7 Effective 5 Moderately effective 2 Very poor 4 Poor
This board oversaw a small and very community-focused school. Members often had professional experience, but none had significant knowledge of governance. As a result, the board focused on operational support for the principal to the detriment of strategic development, and did not formally oversee or evaluate the principal. Business and meeting processes were ad-hoc and very informal, and the board lacked written policies and documentation of processes. Training and development of board members received little consideration. The board had positive relations with the principal and school community and good internal relations.
Overall, while this school’s small size reduced its resources, the board’s lack of understanding of governance limited its potential for future growth and development and its ability to guide the principal in this. Board F was rated poor or very poor in four GEFs and only effective in Relationships.