What is the Role of the School Board?
“What is the role of the School Board?” In order to answer this question fairly, we first need to identify a trustworthy source where information on the topic can be found. In short, we can find the most reliable and authoritative information to answer this question—as well as, gain insights on other Michigan educational topics--by reading the actual Michigan school laws, policies, and public acts that specifically refer to the topic(s) that we are researching. As a quick reference, we can utilize the following Michigan governmental website, that provides additional links to legislature on common school topics: https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6564_35176---,00.html (Also, see Appendix A below.)
Second, it is important to realize that the duties of the local School Board are not listed in only one location, but rather in several locations, within Michigan Compiled Law. Because of this, it could take considerable effort and diligence to find complete answers to some School Board questions. That said, an excellent place to begin gathering information is a very comprehensive list of District and School Board duties that resides in Part 16 of The Revised School Code Act 451 of 1976--more specifically, Sections 380.1201-1349. (See Appendix B below.) The actual Michigan Legislature website for this Act is: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2kx3wr4yhzcxnkbechleqech))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-451-1976-2-16. By clicking on any section of this legislative website, we are able to drill down deeper into a respective topic. As an example, if we drill down into Section 380.1229 we will read, “The board of a school district shall employ a superintendent of schools, who shall meet the requirements of section 1246…[and it] may employ assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, guidance directors, and other administrators who do not assume tenure….” From this piece of legislation, we can confirm, definitively and authoritatively, that it is the prerogative of the School Board to employ the Superintendent, as well as, other Administrators at all levels.
However, since it is the School Board that is tasked with “employing” all of these individuals, the Board also has the right and the responsibility to interview, extend offers to, review the work product of, and/or release non-tenure tracked Administrators at all levels. The salient point here is that the Board is not required to—and likely should not—delegate this responsibility wholly to the Superintendent, even though Boards are routinely pressured to do so. I suggest that at least one reason for Boards to retain and exercise this right, is because the Superintendent is not an elected official and hence is not specifically charged with representing the will of District constituents--as Board members are. A second reason may be because these other Administrators hold exceedingly influential and impactful roles in the District. In fact, in many cases, they are every bit as—if not more--influential and impactful than the Superintendent.
It is worth serious consideration that if Boards delegate Administrator hiring responsibility entirely to the Superintendent, it could actually be to the detriment of the District. However, it is not likely that Boards relinquish this responsibility out of negligence, but rather because they are unaware of the depth of authority and operational responsibility that they possess under Michigan law--a situation that is exacerbated by some para-District organizations that encourage extreme divisions of responsibility between the Board and the Administration for the advancement of special interests. I contend that this division or “wedge” can only be dissolved when it is understood that all Administrators are employees of the Board, and as such, the Administration (as a collective group) and the Board are to function as ONE, collaborative team regarding policy and operations instead of two, competing District entities with polar work roles. I cannot stress this enough.
Third, it should be noted and reinforced that the duties outlined in Michigan Compiled Law pertain to the School Board as a whole, not individual members. There are no “lone rangers” within the School Board or anywhere else within the District. Rather, it is the collective and collaborative role of the School Board to accomplish State mandated goals, such that Board members, together, form the governance team of the District.
In that light, and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the vast legislation pertaining to Michigan school law, a local School Board can only feasibly fulfill its governance duties effectively when it:
1. Intentionally represents its constituents
2. Casts vision that expresses the general will of the community
3. Sets policies that meaningfully express State and Federal law in local terms
4. Provides intentional policy and operational oversight pertaining to all areas that the State entrusts to its purview.
Admittedly, this is a much larger role than many Boards are used to embracing, but Michigan law is clear that the elected School Board is tasked with far more policy and operational oversight authority and responsibility than many special interest groups will admit, including the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), the Michigan Association of Superintendents and Administrators (MASA), the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the National School Boards Association (NSBA), and the National/Michigan/Birmingham Education Associations (NEA, MEA, BEA).
What the role of the School Board is NOT
For purposes of contrast, I would also like to explain, what I believe the general role of the School Board is NOT.
The MASB and similar public interest organizations and lobbies across the country commonly summarize the role of the School Board with the following, “In general, it’s the school board’s job to make policy, while the superintendent is charged with administering the policy.” (http://masb.org/school-boards.aspx#sthash.Ugl1xA7H.dpbs) It is also often anecdotally stated that the School Board is to stick to policy, and in turn, stay out of the operational roles of the District. In general, this perspective embodies the governance model under which Birmingham Public Schools presently operates, and this model of governance is referred to as a “Policy Board” or “Carver” model.
While the dichotomy of roles under a “Policy Board” or “Carver” model of governance is convenient, it is never mandated in Michigan law. In fact, to the contrary, a full reading of the Revised School Code, Act 451 of 1976 confirms that there are a vast number of District operational responsibilities vested with the School Board. Even the U.S. Department of State admits, “The classic description – the Board makes policy, and the head [Superintendent] carries them out – does not begin to describe the shades of gray that lie between the black and white.” (https://www.state.gov/m/a/os/41120.htm)
Moreover, from a constituent’s perspective, the School Board is expected to represent the will of the community in fulfilling State mandated goals for public education. The State (and to some extent the Federal government) sets parameters regarding what is acceptable in public education, and it is the local Board of Education that is responsible and accountable for fulfilling those goals in accordance with the will of the community.
To be clear, I contend that a local School Board, governing under a “Policy Board” model (e.g. Carver model), cannot effectively meet the requirements set forth for a School Board commissioned under Michigan Compiled Law. There are simply too many operational duties vested with the School Board under Michigan law, which are not permitted for a School Board to fulfill under a Policy Board (i.e. Carver) governance model. Hence, a different governance model is necessary, if the School Board is to be State compliant as well as effective.
A Governance Model Change: Migration from a “Policy Board” to a “Collaborative Board”
For several reasons, it is ill-advised for the local School Board to operate under a “Policy Board” (i.e. Carver) governance model, where the Board provides policy and advice but functionally rubber-stamps the Superintendent’s--and extended Administration’s--budgets, plans, and initiatives. Specifically, this model is not effective for School Districts since:
1. It deters compliance with the spirit and intent of Michigan School Law, and even steers School Boards toward direct violations at times, by erroneously thrusting all meaningful operational duties on the Administration, even when State law ascribes operational duties to the Board.
Ex. “The board shall prepare and submit to the state board…each year, an annual educational report. The annual educational report shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following information for each public school in the school district:” http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(id4b3lbzndwhonig4btvcged))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-380-1204a&highlight=school
a) accreditation status
b) school improvement plan
c) copy of the core academic curriculum and a description of its implementation
d) a report for each school of aggregate student achievement
e) district pupil retention report
f) the number and percentage of parents, legal guardians, etc. who participate in parent-teacher conferences
g) various and specific high school related reports
2. It does do not capitalize on the vast collaborative resources available within the District
3. It opens the door to surreptitious administrative activity
4. There is no compelling data showing a link between Policy Board governance and student achievement
5. It fosters “siloed” divisions within the District, instead of dissolves them
6. It is particularly restrictive with regard to the needs of elected School Boards
7. Its “siloed” organizational design is the bane of collaborative organizational behavior
8. (See APPENDIX C below for an additional list of Policy/Carver governance model shortfalls.)
Rather, it is advised that the Birmingham Public Schools Board of Education migrate to a “Collaborative Board Governance” model--which is a "hybrid" type of model--because collaborative governance:
1. Is in keeping with the overall collaborative pedagogical direction of the BPS District
2. Best reflects the spirit and intent of Michigan Compiled School Law
3. Is supported by research, as well as, top independent management consulting firms (http://cfar.com/sites/default/files/resources/BN_5theoriesofBoardGovernance.pdf, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/governing_a_collaborative_organization, https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Family-and-Community-Engagement/Models-for-Family-and-Community-Engagement/Collaboration-and-Collaborative-Leadership.pdf.aspx, https://www.ml.com/articles/collaborative-leadership.html)
4. Is results-based and well-suited for non-profit organizations, such as School Districts
5. Is an effective model for providing both the voting constituents and their elected officials a meaningful voice in the education of the community’s children
6. Builds on the successful aspects of existing Board practices and perspectives that are utilized by BPS, while meaningfully addressing and correcting the failing aspects of the “Policy Board” (Carver) model
Thankfully, the local School Board has invaluable resources with which to collaborate in order to accomplish District goals. The Board simply needs to embrace a collaborative governance model that maximizes these vast resources, including:
· The expertise of teachers, who can be monitored for effectiveness and compliance within an organized labor environment
· The expertise of a hired, chief administrator, the District Superintendent, whose operational duties can, and should, be monitored directly by the Board
· The expertise of administrative staff, at both the school building and Central Office levels, who can research, advise, and implement policy, as well as be reviewed by the Board
· The expertise of the parents/guardians, the will of whom it is necessary to respect and accommodate in a democratic society
· The feedback of a multitude of student populations, with regard to their individual and collective needs
What Might a Collaborative Governance Model Look Like?
There is no shortage of opinion with regard to Board governance models. However, in keeping with a Collaborative Governance model, I am proposing that the School Board fundamentally modify its philosophy and practices regarding what an optimal working relationship between the Board, the Administration, and the community looks like.
At a minimum, it is suggested that:
1. The School Board should be involved in reviewing all proposals initiated from the Administration and Staff, at a meaningful and detailed level, BEFORE those proposals are brought before the Board for consideration at a General Business Meeting.
2. The School Board should review, on a weekly basis, all project agendas on which the primary Administrators are working. Hence, it would be exceedingly rare that there would be an initiative about which the Board would be unaware.
3. The community should be kept updated on the progress of all initiatives, so there can be meaningful engagement PRIOR to a proposal being presented.
4. Policy should be set to require automatic line-item School Board reviews of expenditures over an agreed-upon amount of the Board’s discretion.
5. All non-tenure tracked administrative hires, especially those of the Central Office, should be interviewed, voted on, and approved through a plurality of affirmative votes, by the School Board.
6. The School Board should utilize modern teleconferencing meeting solutions (e.g. Skype, Zoom, WebEx, etc.), to facilitate weekly, publicly accessible, District initiative review meetings.
7. The School Board should regularly and intentionally query the community on issues and initiatives that are important to the constituents, as well as, work collaboratively with the Administration to build District initiatives that intentionally reflect constituent goals.
8. Community input (e.g. proposals, initiatives, etc.) should be posted publically, so like-minded members of the community can collaborate on mutually important initiatives.
9. The School Board should be meaningfully involved in the development of the District budget, not simply called upon to approve a budget created by the Administration.
10. School Board members should educate themselves more fully on a wider array of District concerns, so Board members can vote with fuller knowledge of the benefits and/or ramifications of each initiative. This should include all areas of District concern, such as: academic structure and content, character initiatives, facilities management, financial management, resource implementation, community involvement, organizational behavior. etc.
11. The School Board should engage in public community dialogue at Board meetings, so a collaborative spirit is fostered within the entire District.
These modifications are well-supported by the spirit and intent of Michigan school law, and adopting this approach would go a long way to heading-off future problems and controversies, such as what we saw with the implementation of Integrated Math, the replacement of the CFO, the addition of the position of Director of Character Education and Diversity, the natatorium proposal, concern over the African-American History course syllabus, the departure of the previous Superintendent, the operational budget deficit, etc.
Had a collaborative governance model been in place over recent years, instead of a policy board governance model, I contend that none of the problematic situations listed above would have occurred.
What Does the Community Think?
After speaking with countless constituents about what they think the reach of the School Board should be, I can report anecdotally that community members overwhelmingly support the notion of the School Board exercising its State mandated authority to perform in-depth assessments of large expenditures, including reviewing the line-item details of managed service contracts, administrative proposals, bond expenditures, budgetary adjustments, departmental initiatives, administrative hires, and the like. The community does not expect that these activities will be delegated wholly to the Superintendent, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Academic Officer, or any other non-elected employee.
I suggest that there is at least one very good reason for this: It is irresponsible, as a general practice, to expect and rely upon the parties that are presenting proposals, contracts, budgets, etc. to be the primary assessors of the financial merits and educational impacts of their OWN proposals. This represents the proverbial "fox watching the hen house" scenario. Moreover, it is unrealistic to expect a third-party auditor (e.g. Plante Moran), operating under an annual cadence, to represent District constituents with the same breadth of local concern and immediacy that an elected Board member could.
In short, the work product of non-elected Administrators, who manage tax funds, should be reviewed at the operational level by elected officials (i.e. the School Board) to ensure that meaningful, fiscally responsible oversight occurs. This is the most feasible solution for practicing meaningful accountability in a world-class school district. This is not micro-management; it is rather thoughtful and responsible governance in the eyes of the community.
The Role of the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB)
General Information
When discussing the respective roles of the School Board and Administration, I believe it is important also to include discussion specifically regarding the role of the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), because it is arguably the single most directive para-District voice that speaks into the lives of Board members—followed closely by the Labor Union.
The MASB is both a professional association, charging membership dues, and a government sector lobby/lobbyist agent, registered in the State of Michigan (https://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/lobby_srch.cgi). It is functionally a local chapter of the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which is also a registered lobby group. Although the MASB receives some tax-payer funding, it is in no way a government entity, and as such it has no governmental authority. Rather, it functions as a non-profit lobby organization to advance the educational, social, and political agendas that its leadership deems important at any given time. To be fair, like virtually any lobby group, there are reliable aspects, and some less reliable aspects, within the MASB body of work.
It is also important to realize, though, that because the MASB is a lobby organization instead of a government entity, it would not be uncommon to find the MASB supporting agendas and initiatives that may be contrary to existing government statutes. Although this is entirely legal for a lobby group, it would not be quite as acceptable for a School Board, because the local School Board is required (by oath) to know and abide by existing State and Federal laws. Hence, there is always a potential conflict of interest if a local School Board implements the guidance of the MASB (or any other lobby group), without first consulting Michigan Compiled Law on a given topic. The illustration cited above, where the MASB espouses, “In general, it’s the school board’s job to make policy, while the superintendent is charged with administering the policy,” is an example where the MASB confidently lobbies a position that is not espoused by Michigan School Law, but is rather refuted by Michigan School Law.
To further illustrate this point, consider a recent MASB handout entitled, “Protocols for Board/Superintendent Communication” which states of the local School Board, “We recognize that the superintendent is the only employee of the district who reports to the seven board members,” citing Michigan School Code 380.1229 and a neighboring District Board policy. This simple statement, promulgated by the MASB, intentionally lobbies to restrict the operational oversight of the School Board in a manner that Michigan School Law does not. As explained above, Section 380.1229 actually states, “The board of a school district shall employ a superintendent of schools, who shall meet the requirements of section 1246…[and it] may employ assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, guidance directors, and other administrators who do not assume tenure….” Hence, Michigan School Law indicates that ALL non-tenure-track Administrators are employed by the Board, not simply the Superintendent. To imply or lobby otherwise is intentionally misleading, and I would cite this as an example where the MASB (as a lobby) intentionally leaves out of its publication/presentation a significant and clarifying portion of Michigan School Law, in order to steer School Boards in a direction that suits an MASB agenda, even if that direction is in apparent conflict with Michigan School Law.
MASB Board of Education Governance Standards
I want to be explicit, however, that I believe the MASB does many very good things in support of local School Boards. One such example is the “MASB Board of Education Governance Standards” publication, which is an excellent resource for Board members to utilize as a tool for familiarizing themselves with the types of questions and issues that shape healthy governance behavior. The publication seeks to provide Board members with a shared framework from which to build the health of the Board. These standards are functionally a compilation of the best intentions and practices of Board members across the world, so in a practical sense, it anecdotally represents the compiled wisdom of Board members across the world who have learned from their Board experience and are sharing that wisdom with other Board members. Even though the publication is not a government nor legal document, it has the endorsement of the Michigan State Board of Education, which is significant.
Other MASB Literature
Although the MASB Governance Standards are an excellent Board resource, other MASB literature may not necessarily be as helpful and may not be endorsed by the State Board of Education. In short, it behooves every Board member to be discerning as to which publications he/she is reading from the MASB. Let me offer three examples where I believe MASB resources are perhaps not the best to follow:
1. The MASB adopts and espouses a polar (functional extreme) position regarding the division of labor between the role of the Board (e.g. policy-making) and that of the Superintendent and other Administrators (e.g. operations). It is a division that resembles more of a wedge than a collaborative effort, since it discourages the Board from exercising any meaningful degree of operational oversight. As a result, the MASB approach functionally gives all meaningful authority for the operation of the District to the Administration and the Labor Union. Glaringly missing from the MASB model is the will of the community, expressed through meaningful School Board oversight. I contend that the MASB approach would not be effective for many responsible organizations—let alone a School District--and we would be hard-pressed to find a well-functioning, multi-million dollar non-profit organization where the governance Board is so restricted from operational oversight that its employees are granted more functional authority than the Board itself.
2. In a recent MASB presentation, an MASB moderator indicated that there is a body of research that shows a correlation, and a likely causation, between School Board achievement and student achievement. The implication was that as School Boards become more effective and higher achieving, the students of those districts also become higher achieving. The moderator cited the “Iowa Lighthouse Study” to confirm this, also referencing work by Marzano and Waters.
In short, the moderator’s implications are problematic on many counts. First, the implication came across to the participants as far more conclusive than the data actually support. Second, there are so many problems with the methodologies of the sources utilized by the Iowa Lighthouse Study that the conclusions of the study would be deemed unreliable, and even invalid, by normal research standards. A short, but encompassing, review by Honingh, Ruiter, and VanThiel (2018), offers a thoughtful and systemic analysis of the Iowa Lighthouse Study, including the work of Marzano and Waters, effectively showing that there is no compelling evidence to support the moderator’s implications and conclusions regarding the effect of School Board achievement on student achievement. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2018.1487387). As well, StateUniversity.com concludes, “Governance and organizational changes do not appear to improve classroom instruction” (http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2390/School-Boards-SELECTION-EDUCATION-MEMBERS.html .
Certainly, the appeal to be data-driven and research-based are well intentioned, and most of us fully support initiatives that hold these pillars as foundational to making good decisions. Unfortunately, it is human nature to present data and research that confirms our agendas, while at the same time discounting and/or omitting data and research that refutes our agendas. This is true of human beings, and it is true of special interest groups and lobby organizations. Wisdom directs Boards to be respectfully skeptical, especially regarding data and research that are not clearly compelling, such as with the Iowa Lighthouse Study.
3. In the same recent MASB presentation, all of the slides that outlined operational tasks (e.g. Budgeting, Staffing, Employment, Facilities, and Curriculum) had the Superintendent responsible for those operational items, with the School Board only approving the Superintendent’s recommendations. I contend that this is exactly the type of “wedged” organizational design that keeps the Board and Administration competing with each other, instead of collaborating. In contrast, I suggest that Michigan School Law gives the Board, as a collective whole, the authority and responsibility to be involved meaningfully in:
· Developing a budget; not just approving a budget
· Creating and reviewing non-tenured staff positions; not just approving the Superintendent’s suggestions
· Interviewing, extending offers to, and reviewing the work product of Administrators at all levels; not just approving personnel funds that can be spent however the Superintendent desires
· Keeping abreast of on-going facilities concerns, and developing solutions, not just approving departmental and administrative proposals that come before the Board
· Being involved in curricular reviews and selections from the very onset of the process; not just approving departmental and administrative proposals that come before the Board after the fact
Challenge
I submit that if we truly want to dissolve the existing adversarial relationship between the School Board and the Administration—as well as remove arguably the greatest impetus to the never-ending issues that result from the flawed, “Policy Board” (e.g. Carver) governance model--the Birmingham Public Schools Board of Education formally should embrace a Collaborative Governance Model, such as the one outlined above.
The flow of both influence and communication between the School Board and the Administration should be two-way--not adversarial--and this can only happen by embracing a fundamental change in the perspective of what the role of the School Board is, as well as, by better aligning the Board’s duties with the spirit and intent of Michigan School Law.
Admittedly, this shift would require far more time and effort than perhaps the School Board has enjoyed in the recent past, but I believe the far-reaching progress that we would see in our District by embracing a Collaborative Governance Model would far surpass anything that we would experience under our present Policy/Carver governance structure.
Moreover, this is an excellent time in the District’s history to choose a different and better governance path forward, a path where the School Board is far more active in the operational oversight of all areas that the State entrusts to its purview.
I encourage the Birmingham Public Schools Board of Education to challenge the status quo and embrace this better, more collaborative path forward.
Best regards,
Bob Saad
APPENDIX A
The School Law unit provides leadership and technical assistance on proposed state laws and current laws, the Revised School Code, the State School Aid Act, and other school related laws, administrative rules, and K-12 educational corporation programs to families, nonpublic schools, local and intermediate school districts, state agencies, legislative staff, and other interested individuals.
APPENDIX B
THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1976
Part 16
BOARDS OF EDUCATION; POWERS AND DUTIES GENERALLY
Board; business to be conducted at public meetings; validity of board actions; closed sessions; legal meetings; notice of meetings; signing of minutes; vice-president to act in absence of president.
Record of proceedings, accounts, and business; public records; inspection.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Conflict of interest.
Annual educational report.
Repealed. 1990, Act 25, Eff. Apr. 13, 1990.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Conduct of elections under MCL 168.301 to 168.315.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Mills levied for school operating purposes; limitation; reduction of mills from which homestead, qualified agricultural property, qualified forest property, supportive housing property, property occupied by public school academy, and industrial personal property are exempt; effect of insufficient mills allowed to be levied under subsection (1); additional mills; number of mills school district may levy after 1994; exemption of commercial personal property; approval by school electors; excess tax revenue; shortfall; allocation under property tax limitation act; reducing number of mills; definitions.
Certifications by department of treasury; appeal of determinations; appeal conference; final decision.
Repealed. 1994, Act 258, Imd. Eff. July 5, 1994.
Additional mills; limitation; presentation to school electors as separate questions; school district not described in MCL 388.1620.
Repealed. 2003, Act 126, Eff. Jan. 1, 2004.
Affidavit claiming exemption on qualified agricultural property; filing.
Sinking fund; creation; purpose; tax levy; audit; submission of proposition to school electors; election; ballot; approval; definitions.
Filing certified copy of resolution certifying taxes to be levied; time.
Additional millage; authorization by resolution; levy, collection, and enforcement procedure; proceedings as to first debt retirement fund tax; proceedings as to separate tax rate limitations.
Accounting for moneys; fund designations.
Use of money raised by tax.
Support and maintenance of sectarian schools prohibited; transportation of nonpublic school pupils.
Purchase, rental, or lease of cars for board members or for chauffeurs for board members prohibited.
Assessment, levy, and collection of school taxes; budgets; provisions governing school districts.
Annual budget; adoption; budgetary assumptions; transmission to CEPI; submission to department of treasury; information; potential for existence of fiscal stress within school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy; determination; basis; duties of state treasurer; administrative review of financial status; contract; provisions; waiver of certain requirements; periodic financial status reports; submission of enhanced deficit elimination plan; conditions; determination under subsection (13); availability of documents on website; administrative review of financial status of public school academy; definitions.
Adoption of or operation under deficit budget; prohibition; requirements; reports; deficit elimination plan; approval; likelihood of recurring operating deficits or recurring financial stress; failure to eliminate deficit; enhanced deficit elimination plan required; enhanced monthly monitoring report; definitions.
Deposit of district or academy funds; designation of financial institution; limitation on deposit or investment of additional funds; “deposit” and “financial institution” defined.
Deposit of district funds; limitation.
Investment of funds; authorization; restrictions; deposit of obligations; commingling prohibited; exceptions; earnings; deposit of funds accumulated under deferred compensation program; security; limitation on deposit or investment of additional funds; “deposit” and “financial institution” defined.
Tax-deferred investments for employees; purchase; payroll allocations; ownership; rights nonforfeitable; liability for purchase; nondiscriminatory application of section; “tax-deferred investment” defined.
Power of board to borrow money and issue notes; purpose; pledging money to be received from state school aid; notes as full faith and credit obligations; agreement with Michigan finance authority; due date; limitation; school district not able to redeem notes within 372 days of issuance; multi-year repayment agreement; notes issued for next succeeding fiscal year; maturity; failure to receive state school aid; number of borrowings; obtaining line of credit.
Statement of assessed valuation of school district.
Estimates of necessary taxes; insurance reserve funds; adoption of budget; apportionment of school taxes.
Contract between school or intermediate district and public school academy to provide services.
Employment of superintendent and administrators; notification of contract nonrenewal; meeting with board; contract with intermediate school district or another person to serve as superintendent of schools.
Removal of person as superintendent of public instruction; settlement prohibited; limitations.
Offer of full-time, part-time, or contract employment; criminal history check; employment as conditional employee; conditions; voiding contract and terminating employment; position as substitute teacher or substitute bus drivers; report received by another district; consent; request; conducting criminal history check; report; disclosure of conviction of listed offense or felony; verification; use; disclosure; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; exception; verification information; definitions.
Criminal records check through federal bureau of investigation; employment as conditional employee; voiding contract and terminating employment; application as substitute teacher or substitute bus drivers; obtaining copy of results from another district, public school academy, or nonpublic school; consent; form and manner of request; use and disclosure of results; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; definition; initiation of criminal records check by department of state police; disclosure that individual convicted of listed offense or other felony; verification; exception; verification information; definitions.
Applicant for employment; information regarding unprofessional conduct to be provided by previous employer; signed statement authorizing disclosure; request; immunity from civil liability; prohibition; use of information; violation of subsection (5) as misdemeanor; effect of contract or agreement; other information; definitions.
Notice of conviction of listed offense; report to department; employment prohibited; definitions.
Employee or applicant for employment of school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or nonpublic school charged with crime; requirements; violation of subsection (1) or (2); person not convicted of crime; forwarding of form; development and implementation of automated program; report; definitions.
List of registered educational personnel; definitions.
Fingerprints submitted under MCL 380.1230a and 380.1230g; maintenance in AFIS database.
Individual employed or working under contract; criminal history check or records check; use of results received by another district; consent; request; use of results for limited purpose; "misdemeanor conviction involving sexual or physical abuse" defined; duties of department of state police; verification; disclosure of conviction for listed offense or other felony; exception; definitions.
Disclosure.
Hiring of teachers; teachers' contracts generally.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Teaching or counseling by noncertificated teacher; prohibition; exceptions; notice to superintendent of public instruction; waiving student teaching as requirement for vocational certification; competency test; employment as substitute teacher; renewal of school counselor credential; career counseling; professional development; approval by department; rules.
Employment counseling and placement services; agreement to establish joint or cooperative service; assistance; MCL 338.2006 inapplicable.
Teaching of certain courses by noncertificated, nonendorsed teacher; requirements; effect of ability to engage certificated, endorsed teacher; waiving student teaching.
Engagement of noncertificated, nonendorsed teacher to teach in community district schools; conditions; waiving of student teaching.
Exchange teachers; compensation, rights, and privileges.
Sabbatical leave.
Substitute teachers; leave time, salary, and privileges; applicability of subsections (1) and (2); contract; “day” defined.
Person or entity furnishing substitute teachers; contract; “entity” defined.
Employment of individual who does not hold teaching certificate to provide speech and language services.
Law enforcement agency; creation.
Superintendent, principal, assistant principal, administrator of instructional programs, or chief business official; conditions for employment; continuing education; rules; time period to meet certification requirements.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Personnel decisions resulting in elimination of position; policies; collective bargaining agreement; expiration; action brought by teacher; remedy.
Performance evaluation system for teachers and school administrators; requirements; posting information about evaluation tools on public website; effect of collective bargaining agreement; establishment and maintenance of list of teacher evaluation tools; rules; training to be paid from educator evaluation reserve fund; operation or applicability of MCL 380.1248 not affected; "teacher" defined.
Assignment of pupil to teacher rated as ineffective; notification.
Performance evaluation system for school administrators; requirements; posting information about measures used for performance evaluation; establishment and maintenance of list of school administrator evaluation tools; rules; training to be paid from educator evaluation reserve fund.
Compensation including job performance and accomplishments as factors; effect of collective bargaining agreement; length of service or achievement of advanced degree as factor.
School psychological service; rules; reports and information.
Professional nursing services; rules; reports; section inapplicable to certain nursing services.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Expenses of board members and employees; expenditures and policies as public record; payment; credit or debit card.
School district; compliance with public employees health benefit act.
Medical benefit plan for 100 or more public employees; contract provisions; medical benefit plan for fewer than 100 employees; effect of subsection (1); "medical benefit plan" defined.
Inspecting, monitoring, removing, or treating asbestos or material containing asbestos; contractual agreement to provide legal representation against civil liability.
Repealed. 2018, Act 7, Imd. Eff. Jan. 26, 2018.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Building schools; requirements; compliance; review and approval; submission of site plan to local zoning authority; "high school building" and "local zoning authority" defined.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
School buildings; construction, addition, repair, or renovation; bids; exception; advertising; security; opening and reading of bids; rejection of bids; readvertising; local policy giving preference to Michigan-based business; applicability of section; adjustment of maximum amount; "Michigan-based business" defined.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Insuring school district or public school academy property.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Meal program for pupils.
Lunch program; breakfast program.
School meal programs; nutritional standards; fees; free and reduced price meals; free milk; confidentiality; discrimination; planning and evaluation of meals and other foods; fund-raising activities during school hours; sale of food and beverage items not meeting nutritional standards; number and frequency; upper limit.
Applicability of MCL 380.1272a.
Duties of department of education.
Meal program.
Procurement of supplies, materials, and equipment; written policies; competitive bids; approval of purchase; adjustment of maximum amount; local policy giving preference to Michigan-based business; items purchased through cooperative bulk purchasing program; acquisition of equipment; payment; purchase of heating and cooking equipment; "Michigan-based business" defined.
Energy conservation improvements and operational improvements; payment; contract; bond; terms; removal or treatment of asbestos or other material injurious to health; issuance of bonds; competitive bidding requirements; reports; forms; payments under lease-purchase agreement; termination; definitions.
Purchase, storage, or use of free flowing elemental mercury or instrument that contains mercury; restrictions; absence of mercury-free alternative for instrument; disposal of mercury and instruments containing mercury.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Pedestrian overpasses; acquisition or construction; payment of costs; contracts; approval.
School improvement plan.
School improvement plan.
Accreditation of schools in school district; requirements.
Workgroup.
Core academic curriculum.
Requirements for high school diploma.
Award of high school diploma; credit requirements; personal curriculum; annual report.
Award of high school diploma; credit requirements; personal curriculum; annual report.
Information on career and technical education programs; availability; posting on website; providing information to pupils; in-demand occupations; credit for completion of program; "state licensed proprietary school" defined.
STEM endorsement; requirements.
Repealed. 2016, Act 532, Eff. Apr. 9, 2017.
Report of irregularities; notice to school district or public school academy.
Credit awarded to pupil not enrolled in course.
Use of tests to measure pupils' values or attitudes prohibited.
Report of irregularities to any person or entity involved in scoring or administration.
High school credit in foreign language.
Repealed. 1997, Act 177, Eff. June 30, 2001.
Michigan merit examination; definitions.
Academic credit for internship; requirements; reflection project; appeal.
Accreditation.
Specialized or alternative school or program.
Grades 1 to 5; yearly test or assessment.
Identification of lowest achieving 5% of public schools; list; placement under supervision of reform/redesign officer; submission of redesign plan; implementation; creation of state school reform/redesign school district; appointment of chief executive officer to control multiple schools; implementation of restart, turnaround, or transformation models; release of public school from measures imposed by subsection (6) or (7); report; posting of certain information; issuance of order placing school under supervision of state school reform/redesign officer; prohibition.
Notice of adequate yearly status; notice of accreditation status.
Grade 3; English language arts proficiency; assessment; duties of school district or public school academy board; pupils exhibiting reading deficiency; reading intervention programs; summer reading camps; pupils enrolled in grade 3 during 2019-2020 school year; enrollment in grade 4; pupil not promoted to grade 4; good cause exemption; procedure; repeating grade 3; limitation; staffing plan; federal funds; English language learners; additional intervention services; retention report; definitions.
State board; duties generally; examination and audit of official records and accounts; action to compel accounting; waiver from compliance with rules.
Legislative declarations; cost study to determine per pupil resources to provide public education; contract; report; completion.
Reports required to be submitted under act.
Grades, schools, and departments; courses of study; opportunity to achieve state endorsement; special assistance.
Repealed. 2001, Act 121, Imd. Eff. Sept. 28, 2001.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Length of school year; certification; strikes or teachers' conferences; rules.
Common school calendar; exceptions; definitions.
School in session before Labor day; prohibition; effect of collective bargaining agreement; year-round school or program; waiver; exception; "Labor day" defined.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Child care center subject to fire prevention or fire safety requirements; requirements for operation of before- or after-school program.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Course requiring wearing of industrial quality personal protective devices.
Participation of female pupils in interscholastic athletic activities.
Local school security task force.
Michigan information network.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Parent involvement plan; adoption; distribution; review.
Parental involvement contracts.
Auxiliary services for pupils in nonpublic schools; use of state school aid; scope of auxiliary services; rules.
Educational program for certain children; board as agent for federal government; payment of per capita operation and capital outlay costs; deduction of allotments; approval; section inapplicable to land attached under MCL 380.1298.
Attachment of land under exclusive federal jurisdiction; hearing; rights and privileges of pupils.
Limited open forum; equal access and opportunity; definitions.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Sexual harassment policy.
Pregnant persons; expulsion or exclusion from public school prohibited; withdrawal; alternative educational program or program of special services; rules.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Pocket pager, electronic communication device, or other personal communication device; applicability of subsection (1).
Bomb threat; search by school employee.
School lockers; no presumption of privacy; search policy; assistance of law enforcement agency; model policy; admissibility of evidence.
Use of seclusion and restraint in public schools; uniform policy; objectives; right or remedy under state or federal law.
Use of seclusion and restraint in public schools; adoption and implementation of local policy; noncompliance as violation of act.
Statement of prohibited practices.
Emergency seclusion and emergency physical restraint; state policy; provisions.
Documentation and reporting of seclusion and restraint; state policy; provisions.
Development and implementation of emergency intervention plan; state policy; provisions.
Data collection; state policy; provisions.
Training; state policy; provisions.
Definitions.
Statewide school safety information policy.
Conduct constituting suspension; action by teacher; report; supervision; conference; return by student; adoption of local policy by school board; definitions.
Physical assault at school against another pupil; suspension or expulsion; alternative education program; definitions.
Report.
Policy prohibiting bullying; adoption and implementation; public hearing; submission of policy to department; contents of policy; annual report of incidents of bullying; form and procedure; school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or parent or guardian reporting act of bullying to school official; modified policy; definitions; section to be known as "Matt Epling Safe School Law."
Restorative practices as alternative or in addition to suspension or expulsion; definitions.
Suspension or expulsion of pupil; factors; exercise of discretion; rebuttable presumption; section inapplicable for possession of firearm in weapon free school zone; consideration of factors mandatory; definitions.
Suspension or expulsion of pupil.
Physical assault by pupil against employee, volunteer, or contractor; expulsion; verbal assault or bomb threat; suspension or expulsion; alternative services; referral; reinstatement; immunity from liability; petition for reinstatement form; rights of pupils eligible for special education programs and services; eligibility of school for prorated share of foundation allowance; report of assaults; responsibility for enrollment in educational program; definitions.
Strict discipline academy; powers; definitions.
Repealed. 2014, Act 256, Imd. Eff. June 30, 2014.
Strict discipline academy; organization of corporation; authorizing body; application; oversight; suspension of power; fees; presumption of legal organization.
Strict discipline academy; issuance of contract by authorizing body; placement of question on ballot; submission of contract and application to state board; selection, term, and number of members of board of directors; contract requirements; compliance with applicable law; immunity; exemption from tax; property acquisition and condemnation.
Levy of taxes or issuance of bonds by school district.
Strict discipline academy; location; tuition; admission policies or practices; enrollment; types of pupils; special education pupil; pupils committed to high-security or medium-security juvenile facility, mental health facility, or child caring institution; pupil ceasing to meet requirements under subsections (3) to (5); custody of or jurisdiction over child by department of corrections; residence requirements; grades.
Strict discipline academy; additional powers.
School district subject to court desegregation order.
Use of certificated and noncertificated teachers; teaching techniques or methods.
Personnel.
Authorizing body as fiscal agent; revocation of contract.
Strict discipline academy; compliance with public employees health benefit act.
“Corporal punishment” defined; infliction of corporal punishment by employee, volunteer, or contractor; exercise of necessary reasonable physical force; liability; violation; deference given to reasonable good-faith judgments; development, implementation, and enforcement of code of student conduct; model list of alternatives to use of corporal punishment; authority permitting corporal punishment void.
Dangerous weapon found in possession of pupil; report; confiscation by school official; determination of legal owner; “dangerous weapon” defined.
Public school fraternity, sorority, or secret society prohibited; definition.
Public school employee or volunteer; prohibited conduct; exceptions; penalties; definitions.
Use of performance-enhancing substances in interscholastic athletics; eligibility policy; list of drugs to be provided by department of community health.
Transportation for pupils; requirements; payment.
Transportation for pupils; routes; rules; construction of section; vehicles.
Transportation of nonpublic school pupils to and from auxiliary service sites; payment of costs; applicability of subsection (1).
Transportation for pupils; contracts; price.
School district, intermediate school district, or consortium of districts contracting with other districts to provide transportation for pupils.
Repealed. 1990, Act 189, Eff. Aug. 15, 1990.
Transportation for pupils; nonmandatory and noncredit events; fees; rules; additional school buses; insurance.
Repealed. 2016, Act 532, Eff. Apr. 9, 2017.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Boarding schools; licensing and regulation.
Repealed. 1990, Act 189, Eff. Aug. 15, 1990.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
Repealed. 1990, Act 189, Eff. Aug. 15, 1990.
Repealed. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996.
United States flag; purchase or possession; size; appliances; display.
Pledge of allegiance; recitation; definition.
APPENDIX C
Excerpt From “The Many Failings of the Carver Board Governance Model”
By Tom Coyne
“The Carver approach has found few supporters on private sector boards (see, for example, “The Policy Governance Model: A Critical Examination” by Alan Hough).
More specifically, criticisms of the Carver model include:
(a) Its failure to drive organizational results unless the Board strictly monitors Ends achievement and Executive Limitation compliance, which many boards do not;
(b) Its tendency to create excessively powerful CEOs;
(c) Its overly rigid focus on the CEO being the board’s only employee. For example, audit firms report to the board; similarly, in the case of a proposed management buyout, whistleblower complaints, or other potential conflicts between the board and management, prudence, case law, and regulation, particularly in a post Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank environment, often requires boards to hire outside advisors;
(d) The limitations it imposes on a board’s ability to offset management’s natural tendencies towards overoptimism, overconfidence, confirmation bias, and conformity;
(e) Its tendency to weaken information flows to directors, and thus undermine their ability to perform their fiduciary duties;
(f) Its lack of transparency with respect to critical decisions, many of which are made by the CEO out of view of the board (and, in the case of school districts, out of view of the public as well);
(g) “The danger that the board and staff feel disconnected from each other. With the separation of roles, board members lose their understanding of programs because of a lack of program details. Staff may be resentful or dismissive of board decisions when they perceive the board as remote and without understanding of implementation realities. The staff may also feel disempowered to contribute to the direction of the organization”;
(h) Its denial of the benefits of director expertise to organizations (“Great demands are made on management, who require the necessary skills to implement the ends set by the board. Weaknesses and inadequacies on either side cannot be compensated for through mutual-help and team-like activities between staff and board, since it is thought that this would result in a confusion of roles”); and,
(i) Carver’s rigid and damaging separation of ends (determined by the board) from the means (i.e, strategy and budget) of achieving them (determined by management), which is particularly unrealistic in a complex, uncertain, and fast-changing environment.
In sum, John Carver is a psychologist who tried to design the perfect system of governance. Unfortunately, as has been true throughout history of other attempts to engineer a social utopia, this one too has fallen short when confronted with reality.
Carver’s approach to budgets is particularly problematic; as he notes, in a Policy Governance system, “typical budget approval [by the board] isn’t necessary”…”the board doesn’t do blanket approvals of budgets, program designs, or compensation plans.” These are all within the power of the CEO to determine, subject to the negative constraints set forth in the Executive Limitations. Rather, Carver apparently believes that having a board define an Executive Limitation that tells the CEO to “avoid financial jeopardy” should provide sufficient guidance for acceptable resource allocation.
Frankly, I would not have gone so deeply into the unique views of Carver on governance if there were any evidence that the use of his model produces superior performance compared to other governance approaches. But there is not. Hence, it has been critical to go into the shortcomings of the Carver/Policy Governance model in some detail, as they seem to be an important historical contributor to the mix of serious problems facing…schools today.”