What are Your Theories of Change and of Governance?

Every school has a theory of change, but in some cases it is more implicit than explicit and may even be invisible to some constituents. Fewer boards have either an explicit or implicit theory of governance, but, taken together, getting clear about both can go far toward keeping governance on the right track. This is not just an obtuse semantic issue, however much it may sound like one!Basically, a theory of change says that if the school does something (e.g., applies a progressive or IB or Montessori or whatever curriculum), then growth in the desired direction will occur in its students. Curricula, religious orientation, honor codes, service learning, international connections and more may factor into the theory of change. In our experience, explicit theories of change help to frame what is in and out of bounds as far as strategy and operations.An explicit theory of governance is much rarer. Yet, without such a model, boards have little in the way of a lodestar to guide them about what is within and outside bounds. John Carver's policy governance model contains a theory of governance, namely that governance and administration are, using Stephen Jay Gould's memorable term applied in a different context, "non-overlapping magisteria." The problem in many independent and international schools is that the two must overlap, at least to some degree. Many schools lack the resources necessary to fully separate the two. Board members simply must do work that would otherwise be done by administrators were the school able to afford to hire them.This and future posts on developing a theory of governance will describe a framework wherein a board can itself derive a model to follow by answering a series of questions. The first of these is, "for whom do you govern?" As governance expert Mary deKuyper once told me when we were both headlining an ISANNE meeting, there is a right answer, an almost-right answer, and a clearly wrong answer to this question, at least from within the classic institutional view. The right answer--to deKuyper and I concur--is that boards govern for future generations of students.But, this answer assumes that board members think of the school as an institution with an enduring purpose transcendent of the students and families of today. The polar opposite would be a parent cooperative, existing solely to serve the interests of parents, even if they don't actually do work in the school. A board position on where on the scale between institution and cooperative the school falls would be a first, and fundamental, step toward a theory of governance. You already know my position. More to follow.