Working template
Board-Head Working Agreement
Making authority, challenge and support explicit
About this agreement
This agreement is the outcome of a joint workshop. It makes explicit how the board and Head intend to work together, based on the scenarios and discussions that took place.
It does not replace the school's constitution, bylaws, policies or formal delegations. It translates them into behaviours that can guide the relationship when real situations arise.
Review it after the first 90 days, after any significant governance disagreement, and whenever the Chair or Head changes.
1. Our shared purpose
What is this relationship intended to protect and enable?
A strong Board-Head relationship combines meaningful scrutiny with clear executive authority. It allows the board to govern collectively, the Head to lead effectively, and both to remain accountable for the school's long-term interests.
The board and Head will work together to:
What must remain true?
Identify three non-negotiable conditions. For example: the board can exercise meaningful oversight; the Head has the authority necessary to lead; difficult information can be raised without damaging trust; stakeholders encounter one coherent system of authority.
2. Our five questions
These are our shared lens for distinguishing board work from executive work whenever we encounter a governance dilemma.
- What would normally happen here?
- What should happen?
- Who has authority to act?
- What is the board's legitimate question?
- What precedent might our response create?
3. Our commitments
Each commitment responds to a specific pull: an instinct that can lead trustees or the Head astray. Record the wording agreed during the workshop.
Commitments from our scenarios
| Scenario | The pull we recognised | Our commitment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. The parent concern | Listening versus acting | |
| 2. The repeated signal | When individual concerns become collective evidence | |
| 3. The expert trustee | Expertise versus authority | |
| 4. The unpopular decision | Collective authority versus individual conscience | |
| 5. The operational disagreement | Disagreement without mobilisation |
Additional commitments we have chosen
| Commitment | Why it matters to us |
|---|---|
Our four to six core commitments
4. Our shared routine
If we can identify a question about strategy, policy, risk, accountability or organisational assurance, the board may have legitimate work to do.
If we can identify only the action we want management to take, the discussion has probably crossed into executive territory.
5. How we will know it is working
We should be able to see that:
- individual concerns consistently enter the appropriate school process;
- trustees raise patterns without taking over casework;
- board papers support scrutiny without inviting operational management;
- disagreement is addressed directly rather than through private lobbying;
- the Head shares difficult information before it becomes a crisis;
- the board's collective decisions are respected outside the boardroom;
- both the Chair and Head can challenge boundary drift safely.
Review questions
- Where has the agreement helped us?
- Where has practice differed from what we agreed?
- What has become clearer?
- What remains ambiguous or difficult?
- What should we retain, revise or practise?
Review triggers
- after the first 90 days;
- following the first substantial test of the relationship;
- annually;
- when the Chair or Head changes;
- when either party believes expectations have become unclear.
Agreement
We agree to use this document as a practical guide to our working relationship and to review it in light of experience.