Omitting my own education and experience, the other six board members have a Ph.D. in education, an M.D., three law degrees, and master's degrees in industrial engineering and administrative medicine.

Experience in training teachers, family law, pediatrics, special education, college teaching and business. A rich variety of public service, including a former District Parent Organization president, and member of a Governor’s Commission of Persons with Disabilities.

More than 21 years school board service.

Lots of parenting experience raising children and dealing with schools.

One could question the basic intelligence of anyone foolish enough to get on a school board. A job that pays nothing, can easily take 30 hours a week, and goes nowhere professionally or politically.

But most school board members are dedicated to what each thinks is best for kids. Each gives as much time as they can.

Few school boards could beat, even match, our credentials.

But credentials are nothing more than great potential. They can’t turn outstanding individuals into a fully functioning school board – or any other kind of board.

As I write this I am in Washington, D.C., participating in a meeting of one of the non-profit boards on which I serve. Like our school board, this multimillion-dollar global organization is also searching for a replacement for its CEO. And struggling with many of the same issues.

At one point the CEO said to the board members, “I have no problem following the board’s policy. My difficulty is determining what policy the board wants me to follow.” (Not incidentally, the most cited reason for superintendent resignations.)

The organization’s chair, like many board members, formerly headed one of the world’s largest corporations. He’s dealt with boards as an executive, and served on too many to count. He’s well educated. He’s read hundreds of books about effective CEOs.

But when I asked him about John Carver’s book, Boards That Make A Difference, he’d never heard of it – or any other book dealing with the role of boards.

Until Lolly Eggers lent me the book I was equally unaware. I had boards as a CEO of non-profits. I’d served as a member of numerous boards. But like a fish oblivious to the sea, I’d never thought much about board governance.

This widespread oversight is being corrected – especially for school boards.

When Dr. Pete Wallace returned from a national conference of school administrators, he told us about a workshop he’d attended on this very subject.

The presenters acknowledged many of their ideas came from Carver’s book. Board focus on goals and a few, clear policy statements. Unambiguous expectations and delegation to a superintendent. Evaluation based on district performance. Neither “rubber stamp” nor “micro-manager.”

Some school boards are so dysfunctional they are being abolished. The city council has taken over Detroit’s schools. The Washington, D.C., school board has been stripped of power. Hawaii has no school boards.

There are Twentieth Century Fund, Institute for Educational Leadership, and other studies of board governance. The Education Commission of the States just created a commission.

The National School Boards Foundation thinks the problem so serious it’s done a yearlong study and just issued its report, Leadership Matters.

It says “a growing body of research on governance indicates that improving the effectiveness of boards can have a beneficial effect on public education.” It calls for the “school board self-reflection that leads to changes in the way school boards operate.” Changes that “can dramatically improve the academic achievement of students.”

The current Iowa Association of School Boards’ newsletter urges us to “maintain an open environment conducive to suggestions” and “allow time for a real dialogue on important issues.”

As Carver notes, “The board must value, even crave disagreement. Strategic leadership is big enough to embrace diversity and wise enough to be enriched by it.”

The Iowa open meetings law concurs with Carver. Openness, candor and diversity make for both wiser decisions and greater public acceptance.

Efforts to build a majority in one-on-one discussions before a meeting don’t violate the letter of that law. But they’re certainly contrary to the spirit.

Governance. As a proponent of innovation I can’t complain about our new district “CEO”: the “troika plus two.” (No acting superintendent. Three mid-level administrators. Two board members.) If districts can abolish school boards why not superintendents?

The concept caused my Washington board chair’s eyes to roll. But what’s he know?

Maybe it’s just what the National School Boards Foundation meant by “changes in the way school boards operate.”

Nicholas Johnson is a member of the Iowa City School Board.