Case C: Small Remote Rural Christian School (S,R,Ch)

Table 4-7 Case C Overview

Board Size1 6 School Size 70 students (small)

Elected or Co-opted Elected parents and non-parents

Involvement in Operations

Very high

Chair Elected Yes Location Remote rural town in

northern WA Board Member

Tenure

3 years Strategic Plan No

Constitution Status Not recently reviewed Effective GEFs2 None Contextual Factors Isolated geographical

location

Poor GEFs3 7

Notes: (1) Members specified by constitution; (2) Scores of 7 and above; (3) Scores of 3 and below.

Case C was located in a small town remote from the city and other towns. The smallest school in the study, it had very limited resources. It had experienced slow but steady growth from about 50 to 70 students in the last five years. This autonomous, parent-managed Christian school took in both Christians and non-

Christians. Its constitution required Christian parents to be full members of the school association and non-Christians to be associate members.

This school was a member of AIS and CEN. The school’s managers had previously collaborated with a larger independent metropolitan school but the board chair felt they gained little from this and the relationship had ceased.

4.2.3.1 GEF 1: Focus

This board had a simple mission in “the provision of Christian-based education”. In survey and interview responses, members described their goals as teaching from a Christian perspective while encouraging students to make their own decisions about Christian values and increasing student numbers. Some observed that the goal of growth was complicated by a need to retain a significant proportion of Christian students as required by their constitution. Members generally thought these goals did not need to be formally documented.

Like Cases 1 and 2, the board had an operational outlook and gave no attention to strategic planning. It had a highly informal approach to board meetings (discussed in Section 4.2.3.2 below), and members felt their primary role was to monitor operations closely to ensure the school followed Christian values.

4.2.3.2 GEF 2: Approach

Members of Board C clearly had little awareness of governance as defined in this study. Like the two previous cases, they saw the board’s role as “supporting the principal to manage and run the school”, as one member put it. Members were very satisfied with this role and considered the board effective in it. Observation of a board meeting and a review of the standing agenda confirmed its operational, hands- on focus. The standing agenda had an operational focus and during the observed meeting there were no discussions of any matters of a long-term strategic nature. It appeared the school did indeed function well on the day-to-day level: in effect, the principal had organised board members to help him run the school when professional managers were unaffordable.

It was observed that the only push to be more strategic was from Principal. In a meeting observed by the researcher the current acting principal had expressed

concern about the board’s lack of governance, asking members to consider moving beyond operational management and offering a report with recommendations and justifications. Although his presentation was at a level appropriate to boards in other schools, it gained little interest in this context and the chair quickly introduced the next topic. This observation appeared to indicate little interest on the part of the board to change the status quo with regards to their current approach. Interviews revealed that board members were unaware of the nature of governance, published models of it, or the developmental support available from AIS and similar bodies. Their geographical isolation and limited resources may be at least partly behind this.

4.2.3.3 GEF 3: Role

The principal was seen as “an exceptional principal” in one member’s words, and tended to make all important decisions with the board demonstrating trust and support for this. He regularly discussed with the chair which problems should be brought to the board. Although four of the six board members described the board’s role as overseeing and supporting the principal to operationally manage the school, the support role dominated and there appeared to be little oversight. For example, there was no formal performance appraisal process for the principal.

All six members surveyed believed they understood their board’s role and believed they were effectively fulfilling it. Four clearly had a very operational view of their role as supporting the principal, and were reluctant to change this.

The acting principal running the school during the study revealed in the interview his concern about the board’s understanding of its role as focused on supporting the principal. This prompted him to present an extensive report at his last board meeting (observed by the researcher) in which he requested the board take responsibility for the quality of students’ education: “The quality of the education should be central to the governing board … and not be left to the principal alone … this would not be fair on the principal”. However, members appeared confused as to what this meant and did not appreciate or agree with his proposal.

4.2.3.4 GEF 4: Relationships

Survey respondents all suggested the board had good relationships with the principal (on leave at the time), who, as noted above, was accorded a high level of respect and trust. There appeared, however, to be strong tension with the relief principal. One member described this relationship as ‘cordial’ but three noted that members did not always want to pursue the relief principal’s ideas, which was consistent with observations of the meeting described above.

The chair actively sought to recruit members she knew well, such as friends from the church who met the board’s constitutional requirements. Most members viewed the relationships among board members as positive, and one described their ability to openly consider different views as a major strength.

The board’s relationship with parents appeared to be in need of attention. Some board members suggested parents considered the board out of touch with the school’s needs because a number of members did not have school-aged children. Two suggested the parent community did not understand the board’s role in managing the school.

While most members expressed strong views about the board’s support for school

staff and that the support of the principal often made them visible to staff during the

school day they appeared unaware of downside of this. Only the acting principal spoke of this negatively, indicating that he felt the boards ‘visibility’ was often intrusive and created tensions with staff and parents.

4.2.3.5 GEF 5: Competences

All six members surveyed reported having sufficient knowledge and skills to govern effectively, but interview responses revealed significant limitations in their competences in areas such as business literacy, planning, strategy, finance and legal responsibilities. Only one member came from a professional background and the rest had little understanding of business processes. Three highlighted a need for more members because of the difficulty of gaining a quorum and the high workload. Three believed the board’s succession planning was ineffective and only one thought it was easy to find new members.

As noted above, the researcher observed a board meeting in which members had not understood or responded to the acting principal’s concerns about their lack of governance. When the acting principal left, members indicated that they had not understood the presentation, further highlighting the need to improve basic business literacy and governance-related competences in this board.

Recruiting board members was difficult as members were focused on finding candidates eligible according to their constitution rather than to the specific competences the board needed. Only full members of the school association could apply and these tended to be local Christians committed to the school as a community resource rather than parents of its students. Several members, including the chair and deputy chair, were aged over 60 or 70.

Unsurprisingly given the school’s size, location, resources and informal approach, Board C did not provide training and development opportunities for members. Overall this board appeared to lack many key skills required to effectively govern the school.

4.2.3.6 GEF 6: Processes

Board C had very simple and informal business processes, which is not surprising given its context. It had little documentation as members were less concerned with details than outcomes and took their own notes on important matters. AIS and CEN policies were acknowledged to meet registration requirements, but one member suggested they were seen more as guidelines than policy.

The monthly meetings followed the same standing agenda focused on the principal’s report, which he handed out in the meeting and summarised verbally. The chair’s role at the observed meeting could be described as loose. No agenda or supporting documents were provided in advance of the meeting. Interestingly, all respondents considered their meeting procedures effective: one commented that their simplicity “was popular with board members and consistent with its remote town culture”. They seemed content to continue without formal policies or business processes. While aware these were less formalised than in other schools, they were considered appropriate here: “Many of our practices work well in our context, but probably wouldn’t work as well elsewhere”.

There was no formal review process for Board C. Two respondents suggested the board monitored its own performance informally and one cited a reduction in unpaid fees as a key achievement, again highlighting the operational focus.

A major difficulty for the school was finding good staff, particularly as the need for Christian teachers often required recruiting from other country regions. The board was very involved in helping the principal with this, for example, by acting as a selection panel. Interviewees reported having examined this issue but had so far made no changes to their recruitment strategy. One observed that this had at times led to poor quality staff and a waste of the board’s time in dealing with the consequences.

4.2.3.7 Summary of Case C

Table 4-8 Summary of Case C Effectiveness

This small Christian school’s board was easily the most informal in this study, reflecting the relaxed subculture of its remote small-town setting. Its focus was on supporting the principal in operational matters and members had little understanding of governance, including their role in overseeing strategy and CEO performance. There was considerable room to improve the board’s business processes by conventional standards. At the same time, and perhaps also as a consequence of its cultural setting, Board C appeared highly collaborative and members appreciated its informality.

Despite the obstacles, moving towards governance would offer benefits even for such a small school. The acting principal observed that having oversight of the principal rather than merely supporting him or her, and taking a more strategic approach to the school’s development would be important steps forward. Greater documentation of meetings and board processes would be a helpful short-term improvement: other board policies and processes could be developed over time.

Overall, Board C was poor or very poor in all GEFs. Becoming more effective would require learning about the nature of governance, developing the intention to implement it broadly and finding the resources for this.