Parents who are board members

Many boards I work with include members who are parents of current students in the school.  Other boards specifically exclude current parents becoming board members.  A few schools I work with make being a current parent a requirement to serve on the board.  28 of the 38 OECD countries have laws requiring parental participation on the boards of public (government-run) and government-dependent private schools, although independent schools and international schools are usually free either to include or not to include parents as board members.

As with many facets of schools, there are sound arguments both for and against parental involvement on school boards – remembering, of course, that obeying the law is always a persuasive argument!

On the positive side, current parents (almost by definition) are always intensely interested in every broad aspect of the school – its safety, its curriculum, the quality of its teaching and care, its facilities, its cost-effectiveness, even down to congestion in the car park and the cleanliness of the toilets.  Current parents are usually therefore very generous with their time and energy, and their expectations and aspirations are high.

On the negative side, parents are clients of the school, and conflicts of interest can arise between the role of governance (representing ownership) and the role of client.  For example, every year when the school board considers the level of tuition fees for the coming year, parents have a conflict of interest by simple definition of their role.  Moreover, boards may struggle to secure the collective skills they require if (for example) all board members or a majority of board members must be current parents – at the very least it will reduce the diversity of ages and institutional memory on the board.

One danger that parent-heavy boards often experience is that parents can become excessively focussed on the needs of their own child or the children of their close friends, bringing their operational frustrations to a board meeting where the focus should be on governance, not operations.  This invariably undermines the Principal’s capacity to address situations in the school in a balanced manner as certain issues become amplified in what often becomes a divisive and emotional board meeting where “the squeaky wheels demand the most oil”.  As I sometimes comment when I conduct board workshops – parents may want to focus on their own children’s needs, but boards have a duty to focus on the needs of the future children which the current children in the school will have one day.

Despite the challenges, I have seen boards that include members who are current parents function very effectively.  A key to this effectiveness is board members understanding their role and, to draw on imagery developed by Edward de Bono, knowing which ‘hat’ to wear at different times – their “parent hat” or their “board member hat”.

A composite photo-sketch that uses the metaphor of walking on a tightrope to an ascending set of stairs to illustrate the concept of developing antifragility.  The image was inspired by an image at https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5612AQEM8MPLV30Pow/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1681705407422?e=1742428800&v=beta&t=gAA28rIW21seAYWcscewul-P_qu5H_wRGaNpGBcMIxE

The key to getting this right is remembering that board power is a collective authority.  In other words, when the board is not meeting, each parent board member has no more – and no less – power than any other parent.  Therefore, like any other parent who has a concern about their child, a parent board member can (and should) approach the teacher or the Principal to address their concern.  When they do so, they have no more or less authority than any other parent in the school (despite any sense of intimidation the teacher might wrongly feel).  It is at these times that the parent board member should explicitly wear their “parent hat” – and do so with humility.

On the other hand, when the board is in session and meeting formally, the “parent hat” must come off and be replaced with the “board member hat”.  Like every member in a board meeting, a parent board member’s prime loyalty MUST always be to what is best for the institution, not to any outside group or to oneself, which would be a conflict of interest.  Furthermore, as the board’s function is governance, not school operations, raising matters that are rightly the domain of management (especially ones that affect individual students or staff) should be ruled as ‘out of order’ by the Board Chair.

Understanding when to wear the “parent hat” or the “board member hat” should be an important element of the orientation (onboarding) process for every new board member, whether parent or not.  Every board member must understand the boundaries within which they and every fellow board member must operate.  All board members (whether parents or not) have no say as board members in timetabling, teacher allocations, discipline, admissions, tidiness of the playground, or any other aspect of day-to-day operations.  Board members are responsible for governance, which means they focus on quite different ‘big picture’ matters like setting policy, overseeing the school’s actions and outcomes to ensure they align with its mission and strategic plan, ensuring the school is financially stable, legally compliant and maintaining accreditation standards, and appointing and then supporting the board’s one employee, who is the Principal.

Problems arise when these principles are neglected or forgotten.  When I conduct workshops with school boards, I often introduce several hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the grey, messy ways in which problems can escalate.  Let’s look briefly at two simple scenarios (that I don’t use in workshops) as examples.

An issue has arisen that affects a board member’s own child

A board member’s son is struggling academically in a particular class.  The parent suspects it may be related to bullying that the boy has just admitted is also happening, so the parent reaches out to the teacher wearing his “parent hat”.  It looks as though this process may take a few weeks to understand and then resolve, but throughout this process, the board member must keep the “parent hat” on so his actions are not considered an abuse of power. This means that like every other parent in the school, he should not cut corners and go straight to the Principal, he should not exert pressure for a teacher or another child to be reprimanded, and he must never call upon his role on the board as justification to be heard.  The school’s normal protocols for communication must be followed.  If the issue remains unresolved with the teacher, then the parent may contact the relevant middle manager (such as department or division co-ordinator), still assiduously wearing the “parent hat”.  In the unlikely event that the issues remain unresolved, then like any other parent, he may escalate the issue to the Principal.  At every step of the process, it is important for the parent board member to acknowledge the “elephant in the room” – to be transparent and acknowledge “I know I’m a board member, but I’m speaking to you strictly as the parent of my son”.  Note that this matter should never be brought to a board meeting, because the Board has no authority to intervene in an operational matter such as this.  If the board member did raise the matter of his own son’s situation at a board meeting, the Board Chair would have a duty to dismiss it without hesitation. 

What is being taught seems incongruent or incompatible with the school’s enduring purpose (mission)

A new way of teaching language has been introduced, and a parent board member thinks it is out of step with the school’s mission as defined in the strategic plan.  Should the parent board member deal with the concern wearing the “parent hat” or the “board member hat”?

Wearing her “parent hat”, she can share her concerns with the Languages Co-ordinator.  However, in doing so, she should emphasise she is speaking as a parent, not as a board member.

Because the concern extends to alignment with the school’s mission, which is the domain of governance, she can also put on her “board member hat” and present her concern privately to the Board Chair (or to the Chair of the Board’s Education Committee if it has one).  Although board members do not have a role in implementing curriculum, they are expected to oversee quality, ensure policies are being followed, and support the school’s Mission.  If the Board Chair agrees that there may be some misalignment with the Mission, then the matter of possible school mission misalignment can be placed with due notice on the agenda of a forthcoming board meeting.  In such a case, the next step would be for the Board Chair to explore the matter with the Principal before the board meeting to ensure the discussion is well-informed and conducted in a “no surprises” context.  In the end, however, the Principal will have the final say on the new languages program as there may be regulatory, accreditation or other reasons that need to be taken into account.  Nonetheless, a wise Principal would make such a decision with the full support of the board!


When I conduct board training, I am sometimes asked whether I think parents should be banned from being board members.

I understand the perceived conflict of interest that being a parent AND a board member can generate, especially when tuition fees are being discussed or when a board member’s child has just been disciplined, but these situations can be handled with a sound conflicts of interest policy.

I appreciate the risk of partisanship when parents might focus excessively on their own child’s needs or situations, but this can be handled by a solid onboarding program, understanding when to wear different “hats”, and ongoing professional development in governance.

I can see the limitations upon diversity and skills imposed by parent-only boards, and in such situations the board might consider a constitutional change (if possible) to allow the addition of non-parent members or observers.

At the end of the day, I think asking whether or not to ban parents from board membership is the wrong question because it starts from a conclusion and works backwards in search of reasons.  On the contrary the right questions to ask, irrespective of whether or not board members are parents, are:

- Dr Stephen Codrington



We offer support for school leaders and board members in many areas that can help with the issues raised in this article, including workshops on board recruitment and practice, crisis resolution, and board performance reviews.

Further information on this and many other facets of best practice in school leadership and governance is provided in the books “Optimal School Governance", and “Insights into School Leadership and Board Governance”, which can be ordered directly through Pronins.

You may also be interested in previous articles which are archived at https://optimalschool.com/articles.html. You can subscribe to receive future articles by e-mail using the red button below.