Loom Governance Guides
Practical reflection on board governance — articles that name familiar pain points, and scenarios that invite boards to examine their own practice.
Board Transition
When a board member leaves, what they take with them is rarely on any handover list.
Read →
Board Culture
The most important governance failures are not the ones that were debated. They are the ones that were never raised.
Read →
Accreditation
The policies exist. The meetings were held. But the question inspectors ask is not whether you have the documents. It is whether you can show the trail.
Read →
Board Culture
Sixty-seven pages go out on Wednesday. The meeting is Friday. Nobody knows whether the board is arriving prepared or arriving cold.
Read →
Policy
The website says one thing. The board pack said another. Both look authoritative. Neither can prove it.
Read →
Strategy
The board approves a strategic plan with real conviction. Six months later, the progress report is about activity. The outcomes have quietly shifted.
Read →
Decisions
A committee does careful work and produces a clear recommendation. Then it sits in a gap no one is watching.
Read →
Decisions
A policy needs approval before the next meeting. The email thread produces replies, silence, and something the chair has to interpret as agreement.
Read →
Board Culture
Individual meetings look fine. But add them up over a year and the pattern of where the board's attention actually goes is rarely what anyone intended.
Read →
Accreditation
Most boards think accreditation is about the school. The visiting team thinks it is about the board.
Read →
Accreditation
The reaccreditation cycle is designed as a strategic tool. Most schools treat it as a compliance deadline.
Read →
Head & Board
The governance-management boundary is always in the wrong place. The question is whether anyone has agreed where it should be.
Read →
Board Culture
No government oversight. Expatriate trustees who may leave mid-term. Cultural norms about authority that nobody discusses. International governance starts from a different place.
Read →
Accreditation
The self-study describes what the board does. The visiting team is looking at how the board behaves.
Read →
Board Culture
Some boards meet once a term. Some meet once a year. Governance does not stop between meetings. But in practice, it often does.
Read →
Comparison
Most school boards still run on email, spreadsheets, and shared folders. Here's what that choice actually costs — in time, risk, and governance quality.
Read →
Comparison
Board portals store meeting materials. Governance platforms connect decisions, policies, and institutional memory. The distinction matters more than most boards realise.
Read →
Situations drawn from board life. Read. Reflect. Explore the considerations when you're ready.
Standard 1.1
The treasurer had one version. The chair had another. The head had a third. Somewhere in the finance committee's files, there was a fourth.
Read →
Standard 1.1
The board had approved $4.2 million. The chair heard a different number at a community event.
Read →
Standard 1.2
The visiting team had noted concerns about board oversight. The board hadn't expected that.
Read →
Standard 1.2
A safeguarding concern had been raised in October. The board heard about it in December. That gap is the governance issue.
Read →
Standard 2.1
The donation would solve the budget problem. The conditions attached to it would create a different one.
Read →
Standard 2.1
The online learning arm had started as a mission extension. Three years later, it was the most profitable part of the school.
Read →
Standard 2.2
The board had an excellent away day. Six months later, nobody could remember what had been decided.
Read →
Standard 2.2
The head had proposed something new. The board had asked for more evidence. Again.
Read →
Standard 3.1
The trustee declared his interest and stayed in the room. Everyone noted it. Nobody said anything.
Read →
Standard 3.1
The lawyers had confirmed the redundancy process was compliant. The board approved it. Something still felt wrong.
Read →
Standard 3.2
Meetings always finished early. Decisions were always reached. The head thought something was missing.
Read →
Standard 3.2
She raised a concern. The chair thanked her. The agenda moved on. She didn't raise another one.
Read →
Standard 4.1
The board pack was thorough. The board still felt like it didn't know what was going on.
Read →
Standard 4.1
The school had announced a restructuring. Three board members had described it three different ways to parents.
Read →
Standard 4.2
The board had set the five-year direction at a two-day retreat. The community heard about it four weeks later.
Read →
Standard 4.2
A long-standing community partnership had been quietly wound down. Parents heard about it from the partner organisation.
Read →
Standard 5.1
The dashboard showed all six strategic objectives at amber. The board was not sure what amber meant.
Read →
Standard 5.1
The annual report was thorough. The board had no way of knowing, mid-year, whether anything needed to change.
Read →
Standard 5.2
The head knew a great deal. The board knew a great deal. Neither was sure they knew the same things.
Read →
Standard 5.2
The most effective trustee on the board was leaving after two years. She had only just started to be genuinely useful.
Read →
Standard 6.1
The chair had started attending senior leadership team meetings. She said it was to offer support. The head wasn't sure.
Read →
Standard 6.1
The board had skills and wanted to use them. The head was spending more time managing trustees than leading the school.
Read →
Standard 6.2
The most experienced board member is leaving. She knows things nobody wrote down.
Read →
Standard 6.2
Five of the board's twelve trustees had been appointed in the same year. Their terms were ending at the same time.
Read →