Francis Howell R-III board holds MSBA training stressing governance questions and ‘stay in your lane’ approach

Francis Howell R-III board members attended a Missouri School Boards Association training where MSBA presenters urged the board to keep its work at a strategic level and avoid stepping into staff operations, saying the board’s primary role is to approve and monitor the district’s strategic plan rather than run day‑to‑day activities.

The training — led by Susan Goldhammer, MSBA chief of law and policy, and Lisa Nieder, MSBA director of board development — emphasized asking “governance‑level” questions that seek understanding of goals and processes rather than prescribing operational details. “Asking governance level questions makes you a good board member. Asking good governance level questions makes you a great board member,” a trainer said during the session.

Trainers presented a set of examples to distinguish governance questions from operational ones. For a proposed school calendar, a non‑governance question would be “Can we just get rid of these PD days?” while a governance question would be “How does the district decide how much professional development time is needed and how it is allocated?” For curriculum adoption, trainers said the board should ask how a proposed curriculum aligns with stated goals rather than demand specifics about instructional techniques.

Board members discussed discipline data as a governance example. Trainers said asking for the number of unique students receiving referrals — rather than only total referrals — can change how the board interprets whether a discipline pattern reflects a few students or many. “Those are two different problems,” a trainer said, explaining why that data can be relevant for deciding whether to approve a program.

The session used a real‑world scenario about a board president who pressed for a different track color during construction; trainers and board members said the episode showed how well‑intentioned involvement in operational details can create personnel problems and extra work. In the example, the board added the color decision to the agenda, a construction update and coach recommendation followed, and a last‑minute decision to change color created friction — the athletic director later resigned, trainers said.

Trainers urged board members to send data requests that require staff work in advance of meetings so administrators can prepare answers, and to route inquiries through agreed channels rather than contact contractors or building staff directly. “If you get a board question, staff tend to drop everything,” a trainer warned, and recommended agreed communication protocols and timing for board packet questions.

Board members in the session described strategies for staying at the governance level, including framing questions to “seek understanding,” tying questions back to strategic goals, and using work sessions for brainstorming so idea sharing is not mistaken for operational directives. Several board members also said building trust with administration makes it easier to ask questions openly without creating a “gotcha” dynamic.

The training ended with trainers promising deeper guidance on communication protocols and a follow‑up retreat with the full board to finalize decision rules and expectations.