Harry Bloom (hbloom1@yu.edu) is Director of Planning and Performance Improvement at Yeshiva University’s Institute for University-School Partnership. Following a 25 year career in industry and consulting, he now helps Jewish day schools strengthen their governance and finances. He has an MBA from Columbia University and is a doctoral candidate at YU’s Azrieli Graduate School. In this article, Bloom explains the findings of his research on school boards, which claims that better functioning boards are associated with better education. The following article is abridged from a larger study, available at www.yu.edu/schoolpartnership. To read the accompanying sidebar, Jewish Day School (2009) Economics: FAQs, go here.

Introduction

Day school lay and professional leaders want a quality Jewish education for the students attending their schools. In these challenging economic times, however, school leaders might be tempted to focus solely on maintaining enrollment and raising funds to meet the rapidly growing demands for financial aid. In such times, the very idea of focusing on strengthening Board of Directors’ capabilities might seem like an unneeded “luxury.” However, our research suggests that it is appropriate, even necessary, to devote energies and attention to Board development now, because schools that do so are more likely to be stronger financially, faster growing, and to have higher quality educational programs.

Board Governance Practice

Boards of Directors of nonprofit organizations, including Jewish day schools, are a source of great value to these organizations, and, ultimately, the legally and financially accountable guardians of their future. Researchers have explicated the roles and responsibilities of, and recommended a relatively uniform set of practices for, nonprofit boards in general and independent schools in particular. In pursuit of good practice, there has, appropriately, been large scale investment in Board governance training for Boards of Jewish day schools by different day school organizations including Yeshiva University’s Institute for University-School Partnership, RAVSAK, the Solomon Schechter Day School Association, PARDeS, and PEJE. With such investment in Board Governance, documenting a baseline level of practices in this area became increasingly important. Thus, in the spring and summer of 2009, we conducted research to identify the strengths and weaknesses of day school Board Governance practices in seven key areas of practice: strategic and long range financial planning, organization of productive Board committee activity, Board education and self improvement, adherence to bylaws, fulfillment of fiduciary responsibilities, establishment of productive Board-Head of School relationships, and disciplined fundraising.

More than 100 Board Presidents self-assessed their Board’s functioning in these seven key areas of practice, revealing abilities and areas for improvement. There were 4 response choices per question, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1 point) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (4 points). The maximum possible score on the survey was 120 points. See Figure 1, below, for some of the results of the Board Presidents’ self-assessment on key practices.

The average score nationally was about 90, indicating that, on average, Board presidents reported that their schools are following accepted good practices. However, these results also point to specific areas for Board development and potential improvement.

Why Good Governance Matters

Recent research results suggest that there is a relationship between strong governance practices and strong financial and educational practices in schools. Specifically, in the aforementioned Board Practices survey, 70 school presidents provided information about their operational practices in addition to the general data on Board practices. Analyzing the top 30% and bottom 30% of schools in terms of their Board governance scores, we see a consistent pattern: schools with stronger governance have consistently stronger operating characteristics, including financial and educational processes.

Demographics and Finances

It is widely accepted that signs of a stable and healthy school include having experienced leadership and generating adequate tuition revenue net of financial aid to support quality programs. As can be seen in Figure 2, below, while both schools with stronger and those with weaker governance tend to have equivalent ages and Head of School tenures, schools with stronger governance are financially stronger, as indicated by their significantly higher ‘Net Tuition per Student’ and ‘Hard Income’ ratio (net tuition divided by operating expenses). These schools also spend more on education (‘Operating Expenses per Student’). In addition, they tend to be larger and faster growing.

Educational Practices

It is widely accepted that good educational practices in schools include providing constructive feedback to faculty throughout the year and summative feedback at year end, as well as codifying curricula (Judaic and General Studies, in the case of Jewish day schools). See Figure 3, below, which considers those day schools with stronger governance practices compared to those with weaker governance practices in light of these educational processes (using the 1-4 scale described above). Results show that schools with stronger governance practices tend to have better educational practices too. Once again, we see how good governance matters, relating to the most important functions of day schools.

Of note, when we consider the 70 day schools that reported operational information, there is additional reinforcement of the connections between good governance and strong educational practices:

• There is a statistically significant correlation between school strength on the practice of educating members, clarifying the Board’s role and improving Board capabilities and school performance on educational practices (all four of the educational practices combined).
• Schools that develop a comprehensive long range financial plan show a statistically significant correlation with general studies curriculum documentation and with the provision of regular constructive feedback and summative year end feedback to faculty and with all four of the educational practices combined (though not specifically with Judaic curriculum development).

Conclusions

While this analysis does not demonstrate a causative relationship between good governance practices and school success, and more research is necessary, it does present a consistent pattern of positive correlation. When added to the evidence in the published literature about the value of strong and enhanced governance, it represents a powerful case for action to improve governance for Jewish day schools.

What might be at work here? We hypothesize, based on our experience, that schools that invest time and effort in strategic and long range financial planning and Board education focus more on strategic priorities and on ensuring their schools have a solid financial foundation. They tend to select and empower effective Heads of School to focus on educational excellence. It is also potentially true that schools with strong educational programs give Boards the confidence that they can “let go” of the educational program and focus on the appropriate work of a Board. This is a healthy pattern that yields success.

Recommendations

Specific recommendations to schools include:

1. Developing up to date long term vision goals and related strategic and long range financial plans that enable economic stability – so that schools have the capacity to invest in strong educational programs.
2. Ensuring that annual plans and budgets reflect long range strategic and financial plans.
3. Investing in Board education, since this helps focus the Board on carrying out its critical planning and financial responsibilities, and not on operational matters best left to school professionals.
4. Developing systematic ways to track Board adherence to good governance practices and school-wide progress toward the achievement of long term vision goals.
5. Where they do not exist, planning to implement fundamental good educational practices including the documentation of Judaic and General studies curricula and the implementation of regular constructive feedback to faculty and summative year-end feedback to faculty.