The above cartoon is telling: school boards, particularly on the public level, have become the focus of much of the current cross fire in the culture wars. All of us have watched scenes from across the country, where open school board meetings have dissolved into shouting matches, implicit and explicit threats of harm, and, ultimately, chaos. It is a hazardous time to be a member of a public school board, to be sure. Attorney General Merrick Garland recently noted what he referred to as a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against teachers and school board members across the nation.” The threat, “We are coming after you” has become all-too common on social media and in the public square; now we are seeing it directed at school board members.
This is, of course, not the first time that school boards have been the targets of public ire. One only needs to look back at the 1920s, when parents rose up in protest against the teaching of evolution in the classroom. It is also understandable that school board meetings have the potential of being high-stakes experiences, given that it is our children whose welfare is at stake. Add to this mix the fact that the current trust level is very low in this country, particularly in civic institutions, and we are now managing a perfect storm of anger and invective.
Fortunately, Episcopal schools, and private and independent schools in general, have, for the most part, been spared some of the uglier aspects of the school board wars. That does not mean, however, that our school boards have not been subject to pressure, scrutiny, even abusive behavior. All of this in light of the current culture wars, much of which have been fueled by the mistrust and alienation arising from the pandemic. Many of our Episcopal schools have seen, for example, parents challenging the school’s DEIJ initiatives, and part of that challenge has been taking the case for their concerns directly to the school board. This challenge may appear more subtle, seemingly more civil, than the worst we have witnessed in the public sphere. Beneath the surface, however, the pressure is there, the anger is palpable, and many of our school boards are feeling it.
Given these circumstances, I would like to offer some observations that may be of help as school boards, and school administrators who work with them, consider their role amidst the parental and community pushback.
New initiatives need to be prefaced and bolstered with clear board support.
A somewhat familiar pattern can be seen in the case of many schools: endorsements have been given by school boards to what they have been informed of as new school initiatives, anything from important new strategies for making the school community a more inclusive place to safeguards for keeping the school community safe amidst a pandemic. Administrators then proceed with the assumed support of the board. When there is parental pushback, and the accompanying pressure on board members, support for these initiatives can soften on the board. Concerned parents are quite skilled at identifying where individual board members may be less enthusiastic about what the school is doing, and their method of lobbying of some board members is done in such a way to make governing bodies tire of the conflict and just want the whole thing to be over with as quickly as possible. The school board needs to be brought in early and there must be strong support for what school leaders are doing, if these initiatives are to go forward. That support, indeed the board’s voice, needs to be communicated broadly and presented as a unified, team response.
Grassroots or astroturf?
Many of the groups raising concerns about school initiatives present themselves as grassroots movements, emerging spontaneously from within the community itself. In some cases that is true; in other instances the grassroots theme is actually supported, behind the scenes, by larger organizations or donors with an eye to drumming up support for future political efforts. For the sake of knowing what a board is dealing with, it is worth the time to look at the key words and questions being used by parents—be they individual parents or groups—as many individual school groups appear to be operating from a common playbook. Here is where the experiences of other school leaders, in communicating with each other, can be very helpful, as one leader “compares notes” with the other. It is remarkable how often the language and the arguments are the same. As Jeffrey Henig, a professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, recently put it, “Outsiders are tapping into some genuine concerns, but the framing of the issues (is) largely regularized by national groups.”
Gender is often the hidden issue.
While many of the culture war issues presented to boards focus on race—with protests about Critical Race Theory and suspicions that the school’s DEIJ program is intent upon making white students feel uncomfortable—there is another issue, frequently unspoken, lying beneath the surface. That is transgender identity and expression. To be sure, while there is plenty to work on with regards to matters of race, the bottom line concern of some parents is the school’s position—real or potential—on the inclusion and acceptance of students who have or are considering transitioning to another gender. They wonder if the school’s focus on diversity and inclusion will ultimately land in this territory, and for many this is more terrifying than conversations on race. Their assumption may well be that race is not an issue to them (even though some of their behaviors betray that race is indeed an issue), but that inclusion of transgender students is a bridge too far. They recoil at appearing to be racist, but not so much on not allowing space for transgender students to belong in the community. Again, it is important for school boards to understand the fears of many parents—warranted or unwarranted—and to know something of what lies beneath the surface, not to mention what will ultimately need to be included in the school’s commitment to inclusion.
Listening, not tacit approval.
As with all groups that may be unhappy with board policies or decisions, there is the basic desire to be heard, and often parents want to be heard by members of the school board. It is a delicate situation that a board member faces when asked to listen to the concerns of a parent or group of parents. It is all too easy for those who are being heard to assume that the listener is, by virtue of giving time and hearing them out, communicating approval for what their concerns may be. A board member who is approached by parents needs to listen with courtesy and empathy, ask some questions which clarify and even challenge, and then re-direct the concern back to the school administration. Saying, “I will talk to the head of school about this” can all too easily be interpreted as the board member being an ally of those expressing concern. Parents should not be left with the impression that their issues are now in the board member’s hands; it is, rather, the parents’ responsibility to take the matter back to where it belongs—the head of school. In turn, the board member needs to give a timely “heads up” to the head of school and board chair about the conversation which took place and what may be the issues at stake.
All of this, of course, is in line with good governance practices. Given the current climate, it behooves boards to spend some time discussing what may be the hot-button issues with some parents and reiterate the process for respectful listening followed by re-direction.
The importance of focusing on board leadership.
Whether it be restaurant workers, teachers, or individuals evaluating their work-life balance, the pandemic has prompted a large-scale re-evaluation by many people of their priorities, levels of work satisfaction, and what they are willing to put up with, be it on the job or with volunteer commitments. I am beginning to see some of this re-evaluation going on with board leadership. A growing number of schools are facing the challenge of finding people who will lead their boards, as some good people or standing leaders of boards are concluding that they simply do not want to put in the time and, in some cases, deal with the hassles of what a board must face. This is causing a vacuum at the top, leaving some boards to go searching for people willing to serve at the leadership level, as opposed to drawing on board leadership from an intentional succession plan. It is important for boards to see the link between acting as a team on board decisions with the willingness of some people to step up to leadership positions on that board. The prospect of leading a board that follows best governance practices is much more appealing than inheriting the legacy of a divided, contentious board, one prone to giving in to parental pressure as opposed to supporting the work and commitments of the head of school.
As with all elements of life in Episcopal schools, the school board has a firm, long-standing, and theological foundation for promoting the dignity of every human being in the school community, as well as safeguarding the common good of each member of the community through protocols which seek to ensure the safety and health of all community members. In some cases, school boards can be the least versed on how Episcopal identity provides the springboard for inclusive communities seeking to build up the common good. Board time spent on understanding that important link will not only enhance the school’s traditional mission but help the board to hold to a common and firm commitment in a time of great polarization and its accompanying challenges to best practices on governance.