Governance in Transformation: Alberta School Board Chairs’ Perspectives on Governance

Abstract

School boards are typically removed from nonprofit sector analyses because they are part of the “MUSH” set of organizations (municipalities, universities, schools, and hospitals) that both stand outside of the more typical nonprofit sector and tend to be closely affiliated with government. Nevertheless, school boards offer a unique opportunity to examine the governance of a large system of regulated activity that affects millions of citizens. How such systems should be governed has been a matter of concern for nearly 40 years. This study presents data from Alberta school board chairs regarding their perception of governance transformation being brought about by legislative changes. Five dimensions of governance are proposed as defining the current and anticipated governance domain within which school boards operate. Tensions within and between these dimensions signify symbolic boundary constructions that need to be scrutinized in anticipation of the governance transformation and boundary spanning activities of school boards required by the new legislation.RÉSUMÉLes conseils scolaires sont généralement retirés des analyses du secteur communautaire parce qu’ils font partie de l’ensemble d’organisations « MUSH » (les municipalités, les universités, les écoles et les hôpitaux); ces organisations se distinguent du secteur communautaire typique et ont tendance à être étroitement associées au gouvernement. Néanmoins, les conseils scolaires offrent une occasion unique d’observer la gouvernance d’un vaste système d’activités réglementées qui affecte des millions de citoyens. La façon dont de tels systèmes devraient être gérés fait l’objet de préoccupations depuis presque 40 ans. Cette étude présente les perceptions de présidents de conseils scolaires de l’Alberta en ce qui a trait à la transformation de la gouvernance apportée par des modifications à la loi. Cinq dimensions de la gouvernance sont proposées pour définir à la fois le domaine de gouvernance dans le cadre duquel fonctionnent actuellement les conseils scolaires et celui dans le cadre duquel il est prévu qu’ils fonctionneront. Les tensions entre ces dimensions et les tensions au sein de celles-ci indiquent des constructions de frontières symboliques qui nécessitent un examen minutieux dans le but de prévoir la transformation de la gouvernance ainsi que les activités d’expansion des conseils scolaires exigées par la nouvelle législation.

Charter school board members’ readiness to serve and implications for training

“…For example, Hinchliffe questions who should be the authority for overseeing publicly funded education in the UK. Seel and Gibbons (2012) focus on the dimensions of governance in Alberta, Canada, which has experienced a significantly growing charter school sector. In addition, Mintrom and Walley (2013) examine the connection between governance and performance in countries including South Korea, New Zealand and Finland.…”

School board member definitions of accountability

“…Most important, our findings show that increased usage of charter-style reforms, be they in the USA or in other contexts, challenge the very meaning of educational accountability. Seel and Gibbons (2012), in a study of Canadian school board governance, conclude that the two most important dimensions of governance are role clarity and public engagement. Charter and traditional board members see their core accountability role as different, and have different ideas of their responsibilities to the public, yet both are governing a public good.…”

“…Hinchliffe (2013), for example, questions who should be the appropriate authority for overseeing publicly funded education in the UK. Seel and Gibbons (2012) focus on the dimensions of governance in Alberta, a Canadian province with a growing charter school sector. While Mintrom and Walley (2013) look broadly at the connection between governance and performance in a diverse set of countries including South Korea, New Zealand, and Finland.…”

“…Indeed, as Mintrop (2012), Mintrop and Trujillo (2007), and Seel and Gibbons (2012) discuss, the connection between governance, accountability, and performance is dependent on implementation and buy-in from school-level actors and their surrounding communities. In other words, the interpretation of the meaning of accountability is relevant to the successful use of accountability as a means to improve schools and systems.…”

The use of technology to enable school governors to participate remotely in meetings: A solution to skilled governor shortages in schools?

“…Changes in school governance reveal different trends in different countries. Whilst Lin and Wu (2013) and Viseu and Carvalho (2018) report on decentralized school governance in Japan and Portugal leading to school GBs requiring governors with business skills, in the differing political contexts of South Africa (Duku and Salami, 2017) and Canada (Seel and Gibbons, 2012), there is a greater emphasis on community engagement, and in Georgia (Gorgodze, 2016) there is a move towards recentralization and government control.…”