Governing alternatives in international schools
As international schools have proliferated, so have the different types of governing bodies. In this analysis Russell Speirs brings some welcome clarity to an often-confusing area.
What sort of governance arrangements exist at your school?
Do you have a board of over 20 governors, elected by parents or nominated by embassies and large corporations? Or perhaps your school board is located hundreds of miles away and consists of finance and investment specialists who have never visited the school? Then again, the board to whom the Principal reports in your school could be a close-knit family whose board meetings take place around the dining room table and run late into the night. Whatever the arrangements at your particular school, there is no denying that the proliferation of international schools over the last 20 years has brought about a diverse array of Board structures and approaches to governance.
A new taxonomy of governance models
From our work as consultants and our research into this topic, we have developed a new taxonomy which identifies the five main types of governance in existence today. We have chosen to call the models:
- Traditional / not-for-profit
- Advisory
- Company / group
- Proprietary / family
- No Board
Here are some of the main characteristics of each model as well as some of their advantages and pitfalls.
1. The traditional/not-for-profit board
These boards tend to
- Be legally responsible for the school and able to hire and fire the Principal
- Comprise volunteers, most of whom are parents
- Have members whose length of service is fixed and whose conduct and work are defined in a code of conduct or terms of reference
The main advantage of these types of board is the clarity of roles and the strong interest its members take in the school’s success and its values. The fact that they have collective responsibility can also bring coherence and cohesion. However, while this structure is the norm in many of the world’s best known and oldest international schools, it is fraught with difficulties. In-fighting, rapid turnover, a lack of professionalism and too much attention to the day-to-day operation of the school are just some of the problems these boards can present.
As one head put it
“It’s called a Board and it looks like one on paper, but they are all parents without any job descriptions. If I don’t do what they ask, they threaten to terminate my contract and find somebody who will.”
2. The advisory board
This type of board tends to
- Comprise experts in education
- Have no legal responsibility or financial investment
- Be made up of paid or unpaid people, sometimes both
As the name suggests, these boards exist to provide advice, sometimes based on many years of experience and widely recognised expertise. Some Principals relish the challenge and inspiration these boards provide and the professional growth they experience at every meeting. Other Heads of School, however, end up feeling exposed and adrift because of the lack of real commitment from these advisory boards whose members drop in, share their wisdom and then disappear. They have no “skin in the game”.
3. The company/group board
This type of board tends to
- Be made up of business professionals, with no educational expertise
- Treat the school as just another asset in their portfolio, which may comprise of several businesses in different sectors
- Be quite hands-off when it comes to the details of education
For many educators who become Heads, these boards can present a great many frustrations, with an over-emphasis on the bottom line, excessive bureaucracy and a lack of interest in the school as a community. However, like all the models we have identified, this model can work extremely well in some situations. For example, Principals of these sorts of schools can enjoy the freedom to focus on education and are able to learn a great deal from the business professionals to whom they report. And in some situations, the school is a very important and visible entity in the community and the company cares deeply about its reputation. When this happens, a Head can flourish:
“I can get on with running the school. It’s a reassuring system. I believe I am experiencing excellent practice . . . it’s just different. My old place looked amateur next to this.”
4. The proprietary/family board
These boards tend to
- Be chaired by the founder or the most senior family member
- Comprise family members and sometimes other investors or trusted friends and advisors
- Oversee just one or two schools
These boards can be particularly wonderful or spectacularly dysfunctional! They may display deep commitment to the community served by the school, for example, and their schools might draw continuous inspiration from the origin story. Then again, the owner may be so present and well known that parents and other stakeholders direct all their questions to them, bypassing the Head entirely. A positive characteristic of these boards is that they tend to make decisions quickly and communicate easily. But there is a fine line between those positive traits on the one hand, and impulsiveness and a lack of rigour on the other.
Nevertheless, serving this kind of Board can still be a positive experience for a Head:
“Family means everything here. It’s different and I work within their love for the school which, for me, is better than clinical corporate efficiency”.
5. No board
And then there is the school with ‘no board’. But let’s not go there for the moment – the consequences of having no board can, of course, be serious.
So, which model is best?
At iGNIS, we believe very strongly that no one model is inherently better. All of the models offer pros and cons. All of them can be prone to a blurring of lines between oversight and management and, in any case, established hierarchies and relationships will usually trump agreed protocols.
Perhaps the most useful way to look at these different models is to do so with an open mind. If switching to a new school with a different model as a head, focus more on the values, attitudes and motivation of the people than the structures in which they are organised. Above all, ask yourself “What are the outcomes which the board helps to create?” rather than “What are the mechanics by which the board operates?”
Russell Speirs is the Executive Director of iGNIS – the Governance Network for International Schools. iGNIS exists to facilitate and promote good governance in international schools, whatever their ownership and governance model. It is the first membership network dedicated to the governance of international schools.
For more information see https://ignisnetwork.org/
FEATURE IMAGE: by Unsplash+In collaboration with Curated Lifestyle
Support Images: by Unsplash+In collaboration with Curated Lifestyle, Unsplash+In collaboration with Getty Images, Unsplash+In collaboration with Curated Lifestyle, Unsplash+In collaboration with Getty Images & by S O C I A L . C U T on Unsplash