Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
(USC Thesis Other)
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 1
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
AND THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE TRAINING
by
Sergio Alfredo Canal
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Sergio Alfredo Canal
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 2
Dedication
Este trabajo lo dedico a mi esposa, Alma, mi mejor amiga, por siempre estar
presente en mi vida. Su fuerza sutil es absolutamente asombrosa, su sentido de humor
contagioso, y su vulnerabilidad admirable. Doy gracias a Dios por bendecirme contigo y
valoro cada momento que compartimos juntos. Por todo lo que hemos compartido y por
todo lo que anticipamos juntos, estoy agradecido por tenerte. Gracias por ser tú y
permitirme ser yo.
También dedico este trabajo a mi madre, Candelaria Canal, mi padre Alfredo
Canal, y a mi hermana, Susana Canal, que han sido mi inspiración. Mi madre que me
enseñó a tener confianza en mí mismo, mi padre que me enseñó el valor de una educa-
ción y mi hermana, su disposición y bondad han sido una luz brillante. Continúan siendo
mi fuente de fuerza. Los adoro profundamente.
This work is dedicated to my wife, my best friend, Alma, for always being present
in my life. Her subtle strength is absolutely astounding, her sense of humor contagious,
and her vulnerability admirable. I thank God for blessing me with you and savor every
moment together. For all that we have shared and for all that we anticipate together, I am
grateful for you. Thank you for being you and allowing me to be me.
I also dedicate this work to my mother, Candelaria Canal; father, Alfredo Canal;
and sister, Susana Canal, who have been my inspiration. My mother taught me self-
worth, my father taught me the value of an education, and my sister’s disposition and
kindheartedness have been a shining light. They continue to be my source of strength. I
love them deeply.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 3
Acknowledgments
I am eternally grateful to all who have in one way or another encouraged, chal-
lenged, and supported me along my educational journey. It is because of this journey that
I have persevered. I am particularly thankful to Dr. Michael Escalante for guiding me
through this doctorate program and this dissertation process. His guidance and sug-
gestions ensured that I stayed the course and produced a study of which I am proud. I also
thank Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Cynthia Livingston for their guiding expertise and words
of encouragement. I also recognize my immediate Trojan Family, Thursday II night
cohort. Their friendships made this experience worthwhile. I will miss them but will
cherish the memories that were created and look forward to many more.
Finally, I acknowledge my family and friends, whose understanding allowed the
completion of this personal and professional goal. I am indebted for their understanding
and unconditional love. My success is a reflection of them and the sacrifices that we have
made. None of this would be possible without them.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 8
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations 16
Delimitations 17
Assumptions 17
Definition of Terms 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
History: Development of School Boards 21
Theoretical Framework 24
Changing Expectations and New Demands 29
Changing Expectations 30
New Demands 35
Summary of Changing Expectations and New Demands 38
Roles and Responsibilities 38
K–12 Governance 41
Leadership 47
Need for Training Programs 51
Chapter Summary 53
Chapter 3: Methodology 54
Research Design 55
Sample and Population 56
Instrumentation 58
Data Collection 60
Data Analysis 61
Chapter Summary 62
Chapter 4: Findings 63
Background Information of Sample and Population 64
Research Question 1: What Factors Impact the Decision of School Board
Members to Complete a School Board MIG Training Program? 66
Effective Training Program 66
Expenditure as a Factor in Attending the MIG Training Program 68
Online MIG Certification 69
Conclusions 72
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 5
Research Question 2: Does MIG Training Encourage and Equip School
Board Members to Exhibit the Behaviors of Effective Governance? 72
Governance 72
Roles and Responsibilities 76
Conclusion 79
Research Question 3: In What Ways Could Mandating MIG Training
Affect School Board Governance? 79
Chapter Summary 84
Chapter 5: Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations 86
Summary of Findings 88
Research Question 1: What Factors Impact the Decision of School
Board Members to Complete a School Board MIG Training
Program? 89
Research Question 2: Does MIG Training Encourage and Equip
School Board Members to Exhibit the Behaviors of Effective
Governance? 91
Research Question 3: In What Ways Could Mandating MIG
Training Impact School Board Governance? 93
Conclusions 94
Implications for Practice 95
School Board Member Responsibilities and Practices 95
Superintendents 97
Professional Organizations That Promote Development for
School Board Members 98
Recommendations for Future Research 99
References 100
Appendices
Appendix A: Board Member Survey 109
Appendix B: Superintendent Survey 112
Appendix C: Recruitment Letters 115
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form 117
Appendix E: MIG Observation Protocol 119
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 6
List of Tables
Table 1: County and District Selection Criteria for Survey 58
Table 2: Comparative Views: Masters in Governance Training as Professional
Development 67
Table 3: Diverse Views on Expenditure and Increasing School Board Members’
Attendance in Masters in Governance Training Program 68
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 7
Abstract
The California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Professional Governance
Standards, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s framework for leadership and management,
and the Lighthouse Inquiry of the Iowa Association of School Boards provided the
framework to understand the impact of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training
provided by the CSBA on school board leadership and practice. The purpose of the study
was to determine whether the MIG training affects a board’s ability to adhere to best
practices for effective governance. A central component of the study was to determine
what characteristics effective school boards exemplify. Only public elementary, unified,
and union school districts in six counties in southern California (average daily attendance
2,000–50,000) with a demonstrated minimum 21-point growth in the Academic
Performance Index (API) over a 3-year span or 800 API in the previous and who had at
least one school board member who had participated in MIG training were considered.
Surveys and structured interviews of school board members and superintendents, the
MIG Observation Protocol, and research data regarding school district characteristics and
performance assisted in triangulating the data. Findings indicated that the MIG training
provides school board members with best practices for effective governance. School
board members who received MIG training exhibited a greater awareness of their roles
and responsibilities, increased focus on student achievement, and alignment of decision-
making processes to the district’s vision and goals. This study highlights the significance
of professional development for the local schoolhouse governing board and the
characteristics of effective school board governance.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 8
Chapter 1
Introduction to the Study
In a recent Gallup poll, Americans continued to express near record-low confi-
dence in U.S. public schools (Gallup Poll, 2011). As dissatisfaction sentiments with
public education continue, so do the problems that public education faces. A declining
economy, changing state and federal accountability standards and assessments, disagree-
ments on teacher evaluations, the charter school movement, and national debates of
school district and national rankings are placing unprecedented pressure on K–12 educa-
tion. These broad national issues have a direct impact on local school districts and conse-
quently the schools that districts represent. As challenges for public education have
increased, so have the responsibilities and the roles for local school boards. Governance
in K–12 education has become more complex for school districts and their school boards.
As K–12 governance has become more complex, the school board’s ability to navigate
through challenges of the 21st century influence and determine policy while assessing
constituent demands for student achievement are in question.
First, a declining economy and changing state and federal accountability
standards and assessments, as they relate to California, are addressed in this study to
provide an overview of issues that need to be examined by local school boards. These
two broad issues encompass a broad range of implications that affect a variety of day-to-
day operations at school sites and lead to the statement of the problem. Then, the purpose
of this study is examined, followed by the importance of the study. Finally, limitations
and operation definitions close the chapter.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 9
Education is by far the largest component of state budgets. Some 46% of all state
general fund expenditures are devoted to elementary, secondary, and higher education
(Johnson, Koulish, & Oliff, 2009). Led by their school governing boards, districts have
been eliminating school programs while trying to improve student achievement. In Cali-
fornia, with tax revenue continuing to decline as a result of the recession and budget
reserves largely drained, funding for programs and services for high-needs students has
been cut (Johnson, Oliff, & Williams, 2011). The task of effective school district gov-
ernance has become increasingly difficult as school boards continue to contend with a
struggling economy while balancing their budgets. School districts with high concentra-
tions of children in poverty must deal with larger deficits as states typically distribute
general education aid through formulas that target additional funds to school districts
with larger share of low-income and other high-need children (Oliff & Leachman, 2011).
State-level cuts indicate local school districts have to decide which educational
services to cut back and which to provide. California has reduced per-student funding to
K–12 education by more than 20% (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). California’s reduction in
education funding is having a detrimental impact on current education reforms. Secretary
of Education Arne Duncan expressed his distress precisely about the impact funding
would have on education reform efforts: “We are gravely concerned that the kind of state
and local budget threats our schools face today will put our hard-earned reforms at risk.
Every day brings media reports of layoffs, program cuts, class time reductions and class
size increases” (Duncan, 2010, n.p.). Oliff and Leachman (2011) echoed this sentiment:
“State education cuts are counteracting and sometimes undermining reform initiatives
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 10
that many states are undertaking with the federal government’s encouragement, such as
supporting professional development to improve teacher quality, improving interventions
for young children” (p. 11).
The declining economy has created a fiscal crisis for school districts as state
funding for public education has decreased. As school governing boards balance their
budgets by reducing or eliminating stated-funded programs and services, they do so by
eliminating student intervention programs. As school boards contend with layoffs of per-
sonnel, negotiations and bargaining agreements are affected as the ratio of students per
teacher changes. As professional development is eliminated, so are the opportunities to
enhance teacher quality. Decrease in funding has direct consequences on the day-to-day
aspects of school district management that school boards cannot escape. As school boards
consider the implications of eliminating programs and services to the neediest students
and the impact on student achievement, they must do so with their constituents in mind.
After nearly 15 years toward a standards-driven instruction movement, school
boards must discern the changes to state and federal accountability and assessments to
which districts will be held accountable. State-led efforts coordinated by the National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO) worked to develop common standards across all states
(National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010). The initial motivation for the development of the common core
state standards was part of the American Diploma Project (ADP; Achieve Inc., 2011). In
lieu of the current California state standards, California has adopted the new common
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 11
core state standards. The adoption of new common core state standards means that there
will be a new accountability system for K–12 education. Consequently, students will
have new assessments to measure their academic achievement related to these new
common core state standards. Changes to the California’s accountability and assessments
add to the confusion that local school boards face regarding the current standard-driven
instruction and, to some extent, undermines local control.
As local school boards in K–12 education struggle to get a grasp on current state
and federal accountability and assessments in California, California is in the midst of a
shift from standards-based reform efforts to common core standards. Local school boards
in California were to navigate through state accountability and assessments brought on by
the passage of the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) in spring 1999 and federal
accountability and assessments as a consequence of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in
2001. Each accountability system would produce different consequences for schools and
school districts that failed to meet performance requirements. The two accountability
systems are fundamentally different in the way in which they define school success. Cali-
fornia’s system uses a growth model for accountability, rewarding schools that show
meaningful progress, regardless of their starting point. The federal system gives little
credit for growth. Instead, it uses a “status model” that focuses on whether a specified
percentage of students have attained proficiency in mathematics and reading in a given
year (EdSource, 2005). In reference to the two competing accountability systems, the
California Department of Education (CDE) was quoted in the EdSource article as
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 12
“confusing and frustrating situation where one day a school is lauded for its performance
gains and then on the next day condemned as a failure” (EdSource, 2005, para. 4).
Part of the problem with earlier standards-based reform efforts was lack of clear
expectations, fragmented education policy system, and lack of capacity at the school sites
(EdSource, 2005; O’Day & Smith, 1993; Polikoff, Porter, & Smithson, 2011). The new
common core state standards attempt to mend some of the cited mistakes.
However, the fragmented and incoherent nature of education policy continues.
There will be two distinct approaches for assessing the new common core state standards,
depending on the consortium to which a state belongs; states can have up to 15% of their
standards different from those of other states within the same consortium. Two consorti-
ums were awarded approximately $330 million; the Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). These two consortiums are
responsible for creating common core state standards and for developing new assess-
ments that states will use to assess student achievement. Although the new common core
state standards are touted as state generated, it is through competition in the common core
state standards that federal funds will make their way to states. Race To The Top federal
funds were awarded to two consortiums: PARCC and SBAC (U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, 2010).
In terms of local implementation, common core state standards are low to moder-
ately aligned to California state standards (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011).
The common core state standards represent considerable change from what states
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 13
currently call for in their standards and in what they assess. Consequently, this will affect
what and how classroom teachers are currently teaching. Considerable changes in class-
room instruction indicate that professional development will be needed to build teacher
capacity to support intended student outcomes (Sztajn, Marrongelle, & Smith, 2012).
In summary, school boards must contend with the changing landscape of account-
ability and assessments as they design district plans for student achievement. Decisions
must be made as to how school districts will provide structures to support staff in terms
of curriculum and instruction, professional development, allocation of resources, and
local assessments. As California enters a transition period in how government entities
evaluate student achievement, local districts must once again learn to navigate and
implement a strategic plan to address new accountability and assessments.
National education concerns have direct influence on local school districts and
consequently on their governing boards. School boards must understand how current state
and federal policies and legislation affect the sites that they represent. A declining econ-
omy and changing state and federal accountability measurement tools have a direct
impact on student achievement and how teachers teach in the classroom. Public school
boards must learn to address a new accountability system that has changed expectations
and the new demands placed on them through local needs, state and federal mandates,
new curriculum, and policy initiatives. Effective leadership will be a determining factor
in the interpretation of policy, the allocation of resources, adoption of curriculum and
instruction practices, the alignment of local benchmarks, and professional development to
common core state standards. Effective school board leadership will allow individual
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 14
school board members to understand their roles and responsibilities and use effective
governance practices.
Statement of the Problem
In the highly complex and rapidly changing world of public education, never
before has quality school board leadership been more necessary. With increased public
scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and advancements in technology, school
board members must understand their roles and responsibilities to create an effective
district environment. School board members must demonstrate professionalism and be
knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding student achievement,
finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of school board lead-
ership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board
professional growth are vital characteristics for success.
Currently, board members are asked to serve on committees to address budget and
finance, buildings and construction, policy, technology, negotiations, and personnel.
There is an increasing role for school board members to participate in the design of
district policy that will improve student achievement. To this end, school board members
work with superintendents and cabinet members (such as assistant superintendents, senior
directors, and directors) to find solutions to the problems that school districts currently
face. Some school board members must perform their tasks without training and/or expe-
rience to deal with multimillion-dollar districts or to make curriculum decisions without
knowledge of curriculum or instruction. It is not known whether school board training
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 15
has a mitigating impact on how school boards govern and consequently how effective
they are.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the California School Boards
Association (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to
adhere to best practices for effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising
demands of accountability, and advancements in technology, school board members must
understand their roles and responsibilities to create an effective district environment.
School board members must demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make
informed policy decisions regarding student achievement, finance, litigation, human
resources, and facilities. Since the duties of school board leadership are so diverse, col-
laboration, communication, and ongoing school board professional growth are vital
characteristics for success. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating MIG training impact school board governance?
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study is to contribute to the professional knowledge and
understanding about the impact of school board training on effective district governance
practices, particularly, how MIG training in California affects governance practices by
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 16
school board members and school boards collectively. These findings will benefit school
board members who strive to improve conditions that lead to effective governance. This
research will be valuable to those who participate in the MIG training, as well as those
responsible for creating the MIG modules.
This study will be of significance to state policy makers in California as consider-
ation may be given to enact school board training mandatory as in other states. Some
critics contend that school boards are composed of unskilled and unprepared people
elected by a small voter turnout. Recent news headlines in California address ill-prepared
school board members whose actions are counterproductive to districts’ mission of
helping students. This research contributes to policy, practice, and a better understanding
of boardsmanship.
This study contributes to the literature by addressing how effective school board
governance affects student achievement. It is challenging to link effective school board
governance with positive student achievement. With myriad interventions implemented
by school districts, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to isolate one program,
intervention strategy, or practice as the trigger for positive student achievement. How-
ever, this research is a small piece of the puzzle to understanding what effective school
boards in effective school districts do in an effort to produce positive student achieve-
ment outcomes.
Limitations
Responses were subjective and reflect personal viewpoints. In addition, view-
points may not represent all school board and superintendents. Research was limited to
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 17
the time allotted for completion of the survey and interview. Data collected from school
board members were limited to participant’s recollections of their experiences during
training. Results of the study are limited to the participants in the study.
Delimitations
This research was delimited to school boards in six counties (Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura) that govern school districts in
K–12 education.
Districts between 2,000 and 50,000 Average Daily Attendance (ADA) that had
grown at least 21 points as measured by the Academic Performance Index (API) over a
3-year span were selected for this study. Only school board members and superintendents
who had participated in the MIG training provided by the CSBA were considered. No
consideration was given to socioeconomic status. Only public elementary, secondary, and
unified school districts were isolated.
Assumptions
It was assumed that a qualitative approach was appropriate for this study. The
chosen procedures and methods were appropriate for this study. It was also assumed that
the instruments chose were valid and reliable. It was assumed that the six counties sur-
veyed provided a comprehensive collection of data. It was assumed that participants pro-
vided honest and credible responses to all survey and/or interview questions and that
information provided by CSBA in terms of participants and training was accurate.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as applied in this study.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 18
Accountability assessments: The state API, California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE), and the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and Program Improvement
(PI).
Effective board leadership: Leadership exercised by school boards that do not
interfere with the superintendent’s obligations to manage the school system and conduct
day-to-day affairs by avoiding micromanaging of the superintendent (Campbell &
Greene, 1994; Grissom, 2007; WestEd, 2001; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Masters in Governance (MIG) training: Nine separate modules of training pro-
vided by the CSBA aimed at school board members to provide necessary knowledge and
skills to support an effective governance structure (CSBA, 2006).
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens who live in the corresponding
school district’s boundaries, elected to a school governing board only by residents of that
area to represent their interests (CSBA, 2006).
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 19
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The call for greater accountability has brought a great deal of attention to the K–
12 public education system. The development and revision of policies governing
accountability measures have had an impact in almost every aspect of the K–12 education
system, with the goal of improving student achievement (Timar, 2003). None has been
more evident than school governance, as school board members attempt to navigate and
understand their roles and responsibilities, interpret state and federal mandates, and
govern multimillion-dollar school districts. Legislators have guided the national agenda
and educational policy initiatives at the state and federal levels, fundamentally affecting
school districts and school sites (Dahlkemper, 2005; Danzberger et al., 1987).
The President’s and governors’ educational goals reflect the central role of
assessment in education reform. A prominent view is that changes in assessment, using
more complex, meaningful, and integrative performance tasks, will improve education
(Baker, E. L., O’Neil, & Linn, 1993). The role of the federal government in local school
houses has pushed this policy to the dinner table of citizens around the country. The
introduction of federal incentives and the passing of Senate bills solidify the involvement
of the legislative and executive branches as policy participants.
The movement to link student achievement, as measured by accountability
assessments, to school districts can be traced back to Goals 2000. Goals 2000: Educate
America Act (P.L. 103-227), signed into law in 1994, allowed a new role for the federal
government to encourage state and local agencies to develop, integrate, and implement
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 20
federal education programs that would measure the outputs of the educational system
(Baker, B. D., & Green, 2009; Earley, 1994). Hence, there was a change in what states
would measure. States would begin “voluntarily” to develop standards and assessments
that would measure student performance by addressing what occurred in the classroom
(H.R. 1804 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Title 1 section 2 & Title III, Part A,
section 2). NCLB of 2001 continued where Goals 2000 left off. NCLB describes per-
formance in terms of annual measurable objectives (AMO), indicating the minimum
percentage of students who must meet the proficiency level of performance on reading
and mathematics assessments, and defines subgroups such as economically disadvan-
taged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities,
and students with limited English proficiency (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). Goals 2000 and
NCLB provided the foundation for current discussions, such as Race To The Top, that
deal with policy design related to student achievement and what happens in the class-
room.
Simply put, federal and state governments have mandated policies that leave
school districts and school sites with responsibility for implementation. Policy makers did
not take into account significant barriers to effective local policy implementation. For the
most part, school boards were bypassed and only peripherally involved in education
reform (Danzberger et al., 1987). School boards are now faced with the daunting tasks of
implementing state and federal mandates that they do not fully understand, leaving little
time to address local concerns affecting school governance and the direction of school
districts (Danzberger et al., 1987; Lake & Hill, 2009).
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 21
The purpose of this literature review is first to outline the history and develop-
ment of school boards in the United States. Second, the review considers appropriate the-
oretical frameworks—Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008), The
Lighthouse Inquiry by Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB; 2000), and the CSBA
Effective Governance System (CSBA, 2007b)—to be used to address school governance
and structures between school board members and district leadership. Third, the review
addresses the changing expectations and new demands that have emerged within the new
accountability context. Fourth, the review assesses current roles and responsibilities of
school board members within a complex K–12 governance structure. Fifth, the review
critically evaluates the K–12 governance process between school board and district lead-
ership. Sixth, the review addresses leadership within the school governance system.
Based on the literature review the need for training programs for school board members
is evaluated.
History: Development of School Boards
The governance structure of school boards began to develop more than 200 years
ago (Campbell & Greene, 1994). The structure for managing schools prior to the devel-
opment of local school boards was to place education under the control of municipal gov-
ernment. Local men who were elected leaders of the town determined that managing both
towns and schools in expanding communities was too great an administrative burden and
separated the functions by creating city school boards (Feuerstein, 2002). In the late 19th
century city school boards, controlled by the political ward system, were generally
corrupt. This corruption led in the first two decades of the 20th century to a major
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 22
movement to reform school governance (Danzberger, 1994; Feuerstein, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). The governance structure was revised so that school boards would be small,
elected at large, and purged of all connections to political parties and officials of general
government, such as mayors and councilmen (Kirst, 1994; Joint Committee on Educa-
tion, 2009). Historical key points that are herein highlighted are the evolution of school
boards governance, their organizational structure, and characteristics of California school
board members.
The first state board of education and the office of State Superintendent were
established in 1837 in Massachusetts (Danzberger, 1994). Feuerstein (2002) provided
insight into the evolution of school boards from the early 20th century leading into the
21st century by tracing democratic practices in city governance and school board gov-
ernance structure. The change to two separate elections, municipal and school boards,
was intended to bring change to the integrity and focus of school boards. School boards
were to be involved in all areas of local school operation and respond efficiently to com-
munity concerns (Kirst, 1994). With this change in governance structure, school boards
carry out the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government (Kirst, 1994;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Today, school boards are nonpartisan. Most elections are held in November. The
three most common formats for electing board members are at large (a board member can
live anywhere in the district and is elected by all voters in the district), trustee area (board
members have specific geographic trustee areas in which they must live and are elected
only by the residents of those areas), and trustee area at large (board members must live
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 23
in particular geographic areas but are elected “at large” by all voters in the district;
CSBA, 2007b). School boards are generally comprised of three, five, or seven members.
In California, someone may be elected or appointed to a governing board of a school
district if he or she is 18 years of age or older, a U.S. citizen, a registered voter, and not
disqualified by the Constitution or laws of the state from holding a civil office (CSBA,
2006).
In order to understand who is serving on California school boards, Grissom
(2007) conducted a stratified random sample survey of California school board members
to describe their demographic characteristics, education levels, ideology, and experiences
in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. He gathered board member characteristics,
attitudes, training, and elections, as well as board procedures and decision-making
processes. According to Grissom (2007), the typical California school board member is a
wealthier, better educated, 55-year-old male (although women constitute 47% of the
board members in the state). While Whites constitute 61% of California’s adult popula-
tion in 2005, they constitute 77% of school board members; in contrast, Latinos consti-
tute 35.5% of California’s adult population but only 12% of school board members.
Grissom’s study highlights a greater disparity between demographics of school board
members and the students whom they serve. Based on the 2005-2006 estimates from the
CDE, Latino students represent 47.6% of the student population. Considering the number
of Latino school board members, there is an underrepresentation of 35.6% between
Latino school board members and Latino students. Unfortunately, the data were limited
in providing a rationale for the disparity in representation among Latino board members.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 24
All school board respondents had a high school diploma and 69% reportedly had com-
pleted a Bachelor’s degree. This compared to 80% of Californians over age 25 who had a
high school diploma and 29.5% who held a Bachelor’s degree. California school board
members were more likely to work in business and commerce, followed by education and
professional services. The median household income of school board members was
$112,500, compared to the median annual California household income of $53,629.
Forty-four percent of board members reported affiliation with the Democratic party and
44% with the Republican party. In terms of school governance, board members indicated
that state policy makers exercised too much policy input in their districts.
Theoretical Framework
Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008), The Lighthouse Inquiry
(IASB, 2000) and CSBA Effective Governance System (CSBA, 2007b) provides context
to the processes school boards encounter as they govern school districts. These frame-
works provide a lens in which to look at the roles and responsibilities, the setting, gov-
ernance authority, and leadership capacity of school boards and its members. In addition,
each theory provides circumstances in which school boards excel.
Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership by Bolman and Deal
(2008) provides a framework for leadership and management through four frames:
structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. The authors noted that no one deci-
sion ever impacts only one frame; rather, decisions impact multiple frames. Conse-
quently, all leadership and management decisions should be reframed accordingly.
According to Bolman and Deal, framing lenses are cognitive lenses; that is,
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 25
organizational issues (e.g., problems, tasks, barriers) are framed as they are perceived.
Consequently, the ability to “frame” organizational issues cognitively is key in leadership
and management. Through this framework, leadership and management are equally
important. The challenges of modern organizations require people to be able to do both,
depending on the given task. The four frames are applied to organizations and small
groups.
Bolman and Deal (2008) described the structural frame, in part, as a team’s ability
to become cohesive, reach consensus, set strategies, and become well defined, with clear-
cut responsibilities. Performance by a small group depends heavily on structure. Looking
at school boards through the structure frame lens, the school board’s ability to adapt its
organizational structure would help to set direction for a district, clarify vision, and set
strategic goals that would allow for accountability and efficiency. Consequently, as new
school boards are created through elections, it is important that everyone understand the
school board structure (i.e., well-defined responsibilities).
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the human resource frame dictates that
groups in organizations have four central issues in the group process: informal roles,
informal norms, interpersonal conflict, and leadership and decision making. Informal
roles allow for members of a group to choose a role with which they are most comfort-
able, as these roles complement one another. Informal norms evolve and set the tone for
the group’s expectations. A group’s tasks link them to become an informal social
network, thereby creating informal bonds among members. Inevitably, this can create
interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict is one of the first things the public notices in
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 26
school board meetings. Leadership helps groups to develop a shared sense of direction
and commitment and manages external constituents. In this context, a school board must
be able to manage its processes to be effective.
Bolman and Deal (2008) stated that organizations that operate in a complex
system with competing interest and external pressures are affected by the political frame.
Looking at school boards through this lens, school board members have constituents who
elected them and whose expectation and demands must be heard. School boards must
deal with union representatives (e.g., when they approve the budget or calendar, adopt or
modify policy, negotiate bargaining agreements, and hire a superintendent). In addition,
school boards are dependent on accurate information from district administration in
developing and approving school board policies and administrative regulations. The allo-
cation of information is a source of power and consequently relates to the political frame.
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the symbolic frame captures and filters
ideas via the decisions that an organization makes, the values it projects, and the visions
and symbols that it shares. As school board members carry out legislative, executive, and
judicial functions of government, their decisions in effect become part of the symbolic
frame. A vote for renewing a superintendent contract symbolizes trust, a vote to keep
music in the secondary symbolizes support for the arts, and a vote for a new bargaining
agreement symbolizes collaboration. Thus, the school board itself serves as a symbol of
something—local democracy, citizen control, accountability, or a governance structure.
The four frames of leadership and management provide lenses by which to look at
organizations and small groups, such as school boards, to provide a contextual
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 27
understanding of the elements within the group. Key frame processes inform group
members to think about which frame is the origin of the issue, which in turn provides
insight regarding solutions. The ability to view or shift between frames allows people to
solve leadership and managerial problems efficiently.
The Lighthouse Inquiry: School Board/Superintendent Team Behaviors in School
Districts With Extreme Differences in Student Achievement by IASB (2000) “indicates
that school boards in high-achieving districts are significantly different in their
knowledge and beliefs than school boards in low-achieving districts” (p. 4). IASB (2000)
used a database established by the Council for School Performance in a Georgia study to
identify high-achieving and low-achieving districts. Initially, six school districts agreed to
participate, with a guarantee of anonymity. The districts were selected because they con-
tained one or more schools that had ranked very high or very low for three academic
years: 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, and had maintained the same ranking for the years
mentioned. Achievement indicators included the percentage of students meeting the pro-
ficiency standard on statewide curriculum-based assessments, the Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills, and the high school exit examination. The districts were relatively similar in
enrollment, with districts containing one or two towns. According to the study, high-
achieving schools accomplished more than schools serving similar populations and than
schools in the state as a whole. The IASB’s five-member research team and a consultant
conducted more than 159 individual interviews during site visits to six districts: three
high-achieving and three low-achieving districts (IASB, 2000). The research team did not
know which districts were the high- or low-achieving districts when they conducted the
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 28
interviews, posing 25 questions. The research team and consultant analyzed the results of
the interviews to identify patterns and themes. Their findings identified seven conditions
for productive governance change: (a) emphasis on building a human organizational
system, (b) ability to create and sustain initiatives, (c) supportive workplace for staff,
(d) staff development, (e) support for school sites through data and information,
(f) community involvement, and (g) integrated leadership. The Lighthouse Inquiry
(IASB, 2000) showed that the understating and beliefs of school boards in high-achieving
districts and the presence of the seven conditions for productive change were markedly
different from those of boards in low-achieving districts. Essentially, the board’s ability
to “ensure the presence of specific conditions within the system appeared to be part of a
district-wide culture focused on improvement in student learning” (IASB, 2000, p. 14).
The CSBA (2006) developed the Effective Governance System, which illustrates
CSBA’s insights into effective governance. Since its inception, the system has been
revised to the following job areas: (a) setting the district’s direction, (b) student learning
and achievement, (c) finance and facilities, (d) human resources, (e) policy and judicial
review, (f) collective bargaining, and (g) community relations and advocacy. The CSBA
recommends that school boards focus on these job areas for effective district governance.
The latest revision of the effective governance system reflects the CSBA Professional
Governance Standards, new thinking by the Governance Institute “that all efforts are
directed toward improved student learning and achievement which takes place against a
backdrop of current trends and issues” (CSBA, 2006, para. 5).
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 29
In summary, Bolman and Deal (2008), IASB (2000), and CSBA (2007a) all
provide a framework by which to look at the issue of school governance and school board
members. Each framework provides unique perspectives and assists in defining effective
school board governance. Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008) speaks
to governance authority and leadership capacity, The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000)
identifies seven conditions for productive governance change, and the Effective Govern-
ance System (CSBA, 2007a) addresses the roles, responsibilities, and setting of the
school board.
Changing Expectations and New Demands
Changing expectations and new demands have emerged within a new account-
ability context for school boards and local education agencies. It is important to highlight
and understand how changes in expectations and new demands have given way to a
system of state control (Timar, 2003). The new accountability framework provides
context to changing expectations and new demands school boards and districts highlight
the loss of local control. Under changing expectations, the loss of local control through
state and national policy initiatives, current regulatory policies on present accountability
measures, and three studies with implications for California will be discussed. The first
study examines concerns by school board members regarding the changing expectations
and new demands, the second study examines the changing governance structure, and the
third study investigates the degree to which various characteristics of the environment in
which the board operates predict how often the board experiences division. In terms of
new demands, with increased attention given to global rankings, the U.S. education
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 30
system is compared to education systems in the other Group of Eight (G-8) countries and
the disparity between labor force and what the U.S. education system is producing is
addressed.
Changing Expectations
Traditionally, the development of school boards has stemmed from the desire to
control local policy, management, and finances; however, the public has largely been
unaware that local control by school boards and district administrative leadership over
matters such as policy, management, finances, and curriculum has been weakened by
state and federal mandates (Timar, 2003; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). One example of weaken-
ing local control, as mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, has been the shift in the
national agenda on education and educational policy initiatives. The state and federal
governments have shifted the focus on how school districts measure education from
inputs to outputs. Standards-based reforms and educational policy initiatives that pre-
ceded NCLB demonstrated an evolving theory of action that culminated with NCLB.
NCLB as a federal policy has specific policy instruments to which school districts must
adhere. The federal policy outlines rewards and sanctions that particular schools and
districts will face due to failure to meet AYP. The state sets standards and the proficiency
targets for meeting AYP but does so within the policies outlined in NCLB. Consequently,
expectations have changed for school boards. One of the most important features of the
new accountability is that it shifts governance from a system of local political account-
ability to state administrative accountability with the purpose of reorienting public edu-
cation toward results rather than resources, holding schools accountable for students’
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 31
achievement (Timar, 2003). School boards in the 21st century must learn to navigate state
and federal accountability measures in which they had no voice in creating, which they
do not understand, and over which they have no control.
The strongest reward and sanction that the state and federal governments have on
local school districts is that of funding. Each year, the legislature and governor can
express their priorities for K–12 education by directing dollars to specific categories of
children, to a particular activity or educational program, or for a special purpose
(EdSource, 1997). The federal NCLB Act puts school boards under further pressure as it
threatens to withhold funds from districts that continue to assign students to low-
performing schools (Lake & Hill, 2009). This occurs when categorical funds provide a
significant part of the budget for most school districts and have a major impact on local
expenditure decisions. In most other states, public schools receive the largest portion of
their funds from local tax dollars, often allocated by school boards. However, in Califor-
nia’s state-controlled school finance system, schools receive most of their money from
the state (EdSource, 2010).
In one of the largest self-assessment data-collected studies, Danzberger et al.
(1987) conducted a national study of nine geographical and demographically diverse
communities. They mailed a survey questionnaire to 450 board chairpersons in large
cities where the case study communities were located and conducted interviews in all of
the nine case study districts with present and past school board members, superinten-
dents, district administrators, and union leaders. In addition, 50 board chairpersons in
rural districts in three additional states received questionnaires. All responses were
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 32
compared to a 1985 national survey of school board members conducted by the American
School Board Journal and the Virginia Institute of Technology and a 1986 national study
of school boards by the Institute for Educational Leadership that assessed boards’
strengths and weaknesses.
Danzberger et al. (1987) documented concerns by school board members regard-
ing a change in the current structure of school governance, given the new expectations
and demands, indicating a growing sense of alarm about state intrusion and state control,
with an increased influence in curriculum, teacher evaluation, and state-mandated testing.
State involvement has had direct implications for local school boards. According to
Danzberger et al. (1987), in California the board’s ability to respond to local conditions
has deteriorated, a trend that has produced many more major agenda items and has less-
ened the role in policy making for school boards compared to 20 years ago. Specifically,
board members generally agreed that they lacked preparation for board service and many
felt unprepared for their new responsibilities.
In a separate comprehensive study, Brewer and Smith (2007) conducted inter-
views with leading academics across the nation, analyzed the work of past scholars, and
interviewed key stakeholders in California at all levels of the education system regarding
the key features of K–12 school governance. They analyzed various aspects of Califor-
nia’s educational governance system from public documents, such as the California Edu-
cation Code, collective bargaining agreements from a sample of school districts, and a
comprehensive review of the research literature on educational governance, including an
overview of systems in other states. Their study described how California’s educational
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 33
governance structure affects decision making. They examined whether the existing gov-
ernance structure works well in California. Interviewees reported that in California policy
changes in student assessment and curriculum increase frustration and mistrust. They
noted that the amount of legislation has increased and is more prescriptive, that the lines
of authority in California are unclear, due in part to fragmentation of the system. They
also noted a lack of alignment between state and federal outcome expectations. There was
a widespread perception among interviewees that California’s system is overly complex
and fragmented and that policy is often incoherent. The interviewees emphasized that
complying with the state’s regulations was burdensome and inefficient. The authors noted
that the state’s role in educational governance has become predominant:
It was noted that California has overlaid outcomes-based accountability upon
an educational governance system that was built on input-based regulatory com-
pliance. In the process, the state has not given lower-level institutions the ability
to fully manipulate resources to attain the outcomes the state expects of them.
(Brewer & Smith, 2007, p. 5)
In addition, district leaders reported that they did not have contact with personnel at the
state level, including the Governor, Legislature, the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
or the Secretary of Education.
Grissom (2009) used survey data from more than 700 school board members in
California to investigate the degree to which various characteristics of the environment in
which the board operates, processes the board implements and traits of board members
themselves predicted how often the board experienced division among members and how
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 34
well its members reported being able to work together. Grissom’s goal was to identify
both extrinsic and intrinsic factors that lead public boards to experience higher degrees of
contentious decision making. Grissom’s findings indicated that external characteristics
played a large role in prediction of intraboard conflict. It was noted that boards must
contend with more difficult decisions and greater uncertainty about policy decisions.
School boards that face greater uncertainty about policy decisions are more likely to
experience disagreement over a course of action. In addition, school boards operate
within school district contexts that provide layers to the complexity of the school board’s
tasks. School boards must address an uncertain external set of problems that lead to inter-
nal board conflict. Grissom did not expand on the external policy decisions nor on the
uncertain external set of problems that he mentioned in his study. Rather, he focused on
structural characteristics and budget resources as external factors that affect public
boards.
The new accountability framework has changed expectations for school boards
and local education agencies and has caused a loss of local control while increasing local
accountability. Current regulatory policies highlight how the state has used funding as a
policy instrument. the three cited studies drew attention to the changing landscape for
school boards in California. There is now a need to consider how national and global
competition, coupled with labor demands, will shape local school board governing deci-
sions.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 35
New Demands
Previously, school board members had a different focus, as did schools; the focus
was not on student achievement but rather on local issues such as protecting taxpayer
dollars (e.g., budgets, buses, buildings; Dahlkemper, 2005). There was not an expectation
that all students would be educated. Currently, the need for a knowledge-based work
force, standards and assessments in the 1990s, accountability measures such as NCLB,
and efforts to close the achievement gap have refocused the nation and its school boards
(Dahlkemper, 2005; Friedman, 2005). School boards face new demands in educating
today’s students, with increased attention given to global rankings in education and to
creating a knowledge-based work force.
There is growing concern that the United States has lost its global competitive
footing in education. This concern is not new. The report A Nation at Risk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) indicated that the United States was
being surpassed in student achievement, commerce, science, and technological innova-
tion by other nations. Twenty-six years later, Miller and Warren (2009) used comparative
indicators of education to describe how the U.S. education system compares with educa-
tion systems in the other G-8 countries (Japan, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation,
England, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France). According to that report, about one
quarter of 15-year-old students in the United States scored at or below the lowest profi-
ciency level on the science literacy scale of the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) in 2006. Six percent of U.S. eighth-grade students reached the
advanced benchmark on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 36
(TIMSS) in 2007, whereas 26% of Japan eighth graders achieved that benchmark.
McKinsey & Company (2009) documented that the U.S. overall ranking in 2006 was
25th of 30 nations on the PISA mathematics assessment and 24th of 30 on the PISA
science assessment, further highlighting the achievement gap between the United States
and other nations. When looking at the financial and human resources invested in educa-
tion, the United States consistently spends more dollars per student and in proportion to
national wealth than the nations who performed better for the same years (Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010). Regrettably, what this report does
not indicate is how countries that spend considerably less on education than the United
States have attained higher levels of achievement as indicated by the TIMSS assessments.
Global competition has shaped education and the new demands that will be in
place for future labor force and workplace. The pace of technology change, the future
reach of economic globalization, rapid technological changes, and increased international
competition “will demand highly skilled workers who can develop the new technologies
and bring them to market and who can exploit the new technologies in the production of
goods and service” (Karoly & Panis, 2004, p. xviii). A well-educated labor force is criti-
cal for a nation to compete in an increasingly global economy that rewards knowledge
and skills (Brewer, Hentschke, Eide, Kuzin, & Nayfack, 2008; Timar, 2003). Salamon
(1991) clearly outlined the mismatch between the labor force that the nation needs and
the labor force that educational institutions are making available, asserting that progress
in upgrading public education in the United States in response to new demands has been
limited.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 37
School board members must contend with global competition so U.S. children can
compete for coveted spots in higher education admissions. School board members must
continue to address longstanding local needs: adopt budgets, pass regulations, set poli-
cies, approve expenditures, contract services, negotiate labor contracts with unions, adopt
new curriculum, and meet the new demands of the 21st century. The lack of student
achievement on state assessments has led to a call to question what is happening with
district leadership, including school boards. The evolution of accountability has created a
shift from focusing on inputs (per-pupil spending, funding allocation) to outputs (student
achievement; Baker, B. D., & Green, 2009; Earley, 1994; EdSource, 2009; Kim &
Sunderman, 2005; Saatcioglu, Moore, Sargut, & Bajaj, 2011). This shift has created
additional problems in understanding school board roles and responsibilities, as well as
school governance structure and leadership.
This suggests that the new demands placed on school boards and districts require
them to deliberate on how their students compare to students abroad. The need is under-
scored when students in the United States compete with foreign students for admission to
universities. New demands in the labor force further demonstrate a need for school
boards and districts to understand the global economy. School board members must learn
to address new demands placed on them through local needs, state and federal mandates,
and new curriculum and policy initiatives while keeping an eye on new demands in the
horizon. Do school board members possess the necessary aptitude to govern through
these expectations and new demands? Can school board members discern the best course
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 38
of action to these given challenges without formal training? This research explores these
questions.
Summary of Changing Expectations and New Demands
School boards and local education agencies must navigate a new accountability
framework that has changed their expectations and placed new demands on them. School
boards have experienced an influx of state control, with layers of bureaucracies that have
made it more difficult for them to operate. New demands lend urgency to the challenge to
school board members and local education agencies to find was to work together to
produce a labor force to meet the needs of a 21st-century global society. School boards
must understand how current and changing state and federal policies and legislation
affect the sites that they represent. A declining economy and changing state and federal
accountability measurement tools have a direct impact on student achievement and how
teachers teach in the classroom. Effective school board leadership will be a determining
factor in the interpretation of policy, allocation of resources, adoption of curriculum and
instructional practices, alignment of local benchmarks, and professional development to
changing expectations and new demands.
Roles and Responsibilities
In addition to the changing expectations and demands cited herein, school board
members must contend with ill-defined roles. The changing role of today’s school board
members has grown more complex and has left individual members with little back-
ground in education. School board members have limited or no training to handle highly
public and complicated issues, as many ran for office as single-issue candidates and later
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 39
found themselves working in teams on multiple issues for the first time (Dahlkemper,
2005; Danzberger et al., 1987). Examining the roles and responsibilities of school board
members will provide insight regarding the governing process and consequently to the
effectiveness of school boards.
School boards have generally been described as the makers of school policy and
the superintendent and his team as the administrators of that policy, with a clear separa-
tion of function (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). However, even after more than 200 years, specific
elements of a local governing board’s role have not been clearly defined. Other than sim-
plistic references to “policy” versus “administration,” no consensus exists (Campbell &
Greene, 1994). The CSBA is working to develop a clear definition of the governance
responsibilities of school boards and to use the definition as the basis for a compre-
hensive curriculum for training school board members.
The division of policy and administration has been identified in several qualitative
education studies as an important one in predicting board effectiveness. Effective boards
avoid micromanagement of the superintendent and focus their efforts on broad policy
decisions rather than on day-to-day administration (Grissom, 2007; WestEd, 2001). The
most essential characteristic of local education policy boards is a focus on policy making
and oversight, without involvement in daily administration. Local education policy
boards are primarily responsible for hiring the superintendent, setting an overall vision
for education in their districts, and, in alignment with this vision, establishing short- and
long-term goals, approving funding, identifying school performance indicators, and
assessing the overall progress of students (Campbell & Green, 1994; Land, 2002;
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 40
WestEd, 2001). In contrast, California board members reported spending slightly more
time on administrative duties than on policy setting (44.0% to 39.5%). Of the policy areas
on which they spent their time, the district budget received the most attention at 31%
(Grissom, 2007).
As part of the curriculum for training school board members to define their roles
in school governance and articulate how a board governs, emphasis is beginning to be
placed on accountability, budget adoption, and fiscal accountability (Campbell & Greene,
1994). School boards also have ongoing responsibilities for fiscal oversight. The board’s
part in holding the district staff accountable for achieving fiscal goals is currently ill
defined and one in which role confusion is likely to occur (Campbell & Greene, 1994).
Reporting on findings from a survey of board members in 2,000 school districts, Hess
(2002) cited funding and student achievement as the most universal notable concerns for
school board members. Part of the confusion and concern on the part of school board
members is that, while the superintendent and administrative team put together a plan for
the district, board members must consider and evaluate how the plan supports student
achievement.
Schooling is by nature a political process. Multiple actors influence the process
and design of the school system, many with competing interests and goals. As districts
search for ways to meet the needs of their community, the role of the school board and
that of the superintendent and his management team are at crossroads. As the superinten-
dent and his management team consider ways to raise student achievement while man-
aging a multimillion-dollar district, they must do so with the school board’s executive
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 41
role in mind. The inability to sort out gray areas between a board’s policy-making
responsibilities and the superintendent’s administrative responsibilities affects the man-
agement of the school system and the relations of the board with district staff members
(Danzberger et al., 1987).
The changing role of today’s school board members leads them to find ways to
define their roles. The curriculum for training school board members must include
defining roles and responsibilities. The literature recommends that effective boards avoid
micromanagement of the superintendent and focus their efforts on broad policy decisions.
It is necessary for school boards and superintendents to work through their roles and
responsibilities to ensure that the political process does not negatively impact the man-
agement of the school system.
K –12 Governance
Public K–12 education organizational structure is multidimensional, characterized
by bodies that have overlapping responsibilities across executive, legislative, and judicial
jurisdictions (Brewer & Smith, 2007). The overlapping structure of California’s govern-
ance adds to the complexities across local educational agencies. The web of agencies
involved includes the County Board of Education, County Office Education,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, CDE, local boards of education, local district
superintendent, and Secretary of Education, in addition to other agencies such as unions
and other county and city agencies. Research is needed, particularly to address the effec-
tiveness of these agencies in working collaboratively to improve student performance.
Brewer and Smith (2007) concluded that the system of educational governance in
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 42
California has evolved over time without a clear redefinition of the roles and responsibil-
ities of all involved institutions. This section explores the governance structure of a K–12
district, the school board, motives for governance reforms, the types of governance
reforms, and characteristics for effective school board governance, focusing on three
studies reported in the literature.
A school district governance team usually includes the school board (a three- to
seven-member board, usually elected at large), the superintendent’s management team,
(usually one superintendent, one associate superintendent, one to three assistant superin-
tendents, and a three- to six-member cabinet), union representatives, site administrators,
and community stakeholders. All of these participants have competing interests and
struggle to exert influence and find balance in an overlapping governance structure. With
so many players exercising some element of control over education, it is difficult to
imagine what a state governance “system” is, much less what a “good” system of govern-
ance might be (Timar, 2003). The struggle to find balance, arguably, is an effort to gain
control over local decision making. This decision-making process and its effects on
students, schools, structure and practice should be closely examined.
School boards members’ ability to work and function together has increasingly
received attention, given the important legislative, executive, and judicial roles of the
school board. Survey data from more than 700 school board members in California
(Grissom, 2009) identified active interest groups as one external characteristic that played
a large role in predicting intraboard conflict. Saatcioglu et al. (2011) addressed the role of
social capital within the board governance structure, finding that school board social
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 43
capital played an important role in improving financial and academic outcomes. The
researchers defined social capital by determining bonding—the degree of cohesiveness,
trust, and cooperation—and bridging—the variety and frequency of members’ ties to
outside actors that increase the group’s resources, creativity and capability.
Rationales for educational governance reform vary according to systemic barriers,
lack of student achievement, lack of voter turnout (which leads to mobilized constituen-
cies by special interest groups), lack of resources such as municipal department ties, local
culture, and lack of board capacity (Grissom, 2009; Hess, 2010; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
According to Lake and Hill (2009), few districts (or states) have the capacity to perform
in-depth complex data analysis of their district performance because of political interfer-
ence from board members or district officials who want to block disclosure of troubling
results. School boards today govern a system that has increasingly higher expectations, a
diversity of student needs, and more internal challenges and outside stressors, coupled
with more legislation and less control, all of which make governance difficult (Campbell
& Green, 1994; Dahlkemper, 2005; Lake & Hill, 2009; Land, 2002).
In response to public pressure, educational governance reform efforts have been
launched across the country. Efforts toward mayoral control of schools and development
of vouchers and charters have created new opportunities for new institutions. Chub and
Moe (1990) explained that the private school sector has two important institutional
features: Society does not control them directly through democratic politics and society
does control them, indirectly, through the marketplace. The authors used the public and
private sectors to compare education in governance to highlight the need for change in
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 44
public school governance: authority and decision making, constituents and consumers,
bureaucracy and autonomy, organization of schools, personnel, and goals. Essentially,
students and parents have the right to seek the best type of education and to control the
market by exercising their right to choose the school that they want their child to attend
(i.e., if parents are not satisfied with the level of education that their children receive,
they can move to another school). This argument follows the same line of reasoning
behind the shift in governance structure (i.e., mayoral control, state intervention, market-
driven models, charter schools, vouchers, contracting for services). That is, autonomy and
market forces lead to more innovation and higher quality of curriculum and instruction,
teacher quality and school governance structure (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003; Feuerstein,
2002; Kirst, 2002). However, Wirt and Kirst (2005) warned that it is difficult to link these
governance shifts to improved instructional practices or outcomes.
The literature identifies characteristics or descriptors of effective district govern-
ance. For example, in Texas the Leadership Research Council commissioned the Institute
for Policy and Economic development at the University of Texas to conduct a review of
best practices for school boards and to evaluate whether best practices from the corporate
and nonprofit sectors might be applicable to governance of school districts in Texas. The
study, conducted by Brenner, Sullivan, and Dalton (2002) and encompassing individual
states and case studies, revealed a significant body of information on effective school
board governance in general: (a) Superintendent selection is vital to the district’s success,
(b) board-superintendent relations are critical, (c) role clarification is needed, (d) board
members need training, (e) it is important to monitor student achievement, and (c)
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 45
strategic planning is needed to increase student achievement. Although the authors con-
cluded that these governance practices assisted school boards and by their nature enabled
them to keep student learning goals at the top of board agendas, they acknowledged that
there is very little empirical evidence linking school board governance practices directly
with high levels of student achievement.
IASB (2000) identified seven conditions that must exist in the school board,
district office, and school sites for productive governance change: (a) emphasis on
building a human organizational system, (b) ability to create and sustain initiatives,
(c) supportive workplace for staff (d) staff development, (e) support for school sites
through data and information, (f) community involvement, and (g) integrated leadership.
School districts that exhibited these seven conditions were found to have student
achievement that was moving forward or was above the norm. The seven characteristics
were found in high-achieving school districts. The authors asserted that governance
processes are effective only when they affect the conditions for change at the site level.
Therefore, the school board’s ability to ensure that these seven characteristics are found
in schools by those closest to the classrooms is critical to generate productive change.
Recognizing the importance of effective governance by district school boards and
leadership, the Effective Governance System stated that CSBA’s insight into effective
governance, as defined by CSBA, “was updated to reflect the CSBA Professional Gov-
ernance Standards and new thinking by the Governance Institute’s staff and faculty”
(CSBA, 2012). The Effective Governance System illustrates CSBA’s insights into effec-
tive governance. It has been revised since its inception to the include following job areas:
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 46
(a) setting the district’s direction, (b) student learning and achievement, (c) finance and
facilities, (d) human resources, (e) policy and judicial review, (f) collective bargaining,
and community relations and advocacy.
According to the CSBA Leadership Development brochure (CSBA, 2012), strong
governance teams are made up of knowledgeable, equipped, and inspired board members
and superintendents who take on the intricacies of school governance and thrive. As part
of the governance process, the CSBA provides its members or trustees with guides
addressing individual attitude, structure, process, and board responsibilities. All of these
characteristics combine to become part of the Effective Governance System that the
CSBA promotes to support student learning and achievement.
The overlapping structure of California’s governance adds to the difficulties in
defining roles and responsibilities. With so many competing interests, there is a growing
need to examine governance structure and its effects on schools closely. External and
internal characteristics such as those outlined by Grissom (2009) and Saatcioglu et al.
(2011) have a strong influence on the overall governance structure of school boards in
ways that can assist or hinder district governance. The need for change in public school
governance is stressed with the emergence of mayoral control, state intervention, market-
driven models, charter schools, and vouchers. Brenner et al. (2002), IASB (2000), and
CSBA (2006) have identified key characteristics for effective district governance. These
characteristics and/or descriptors coincide and contribute to a strong argument to deter-
mine effective elements of school board governance. There is a need to explore whether
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 47
school boards trained using the MIG training modules lead to development of the cited
CSBA characteristics.
Leadership
Effective board leadership has been defined as not interfering with the superin-
tendent’s obligations to manage the school system and conduct day-to-day affairs by
avoiding micromanaging of the superintendent (Campbell & Green, 1994; Grissom,
2007; WestEd, 2001; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). School board members who understand their
role and responsibilities (i.e., separate policy roles and management roles of district
senior administration employees) contribute to effective school boards that operate effec-
tively and demonstrate leadership. School boards are generally defined as effective when
districts as a whole comparatively demonstrate growth on state assessments (as defined
by API or AYP), similar school rankings, CAHSEE passage rates, graduating rates, and
bond passage rates. Characteristics of effective board leadership, individual personality
traits in leadership, team leadership, and enhancing team leadership effectiveness are
reviewed in this section.
Literature discussing school board effectiveness delineates characteristics, traits,
and/or specific functions that are fundamental for effective school board leadership. For
example, Campbell and Green (1994) identified categories of effective board leadership:
(a) setting the vision of the district and creating a climate for excellence, (b) appointing
and evaluating the superintendent, (c) adopting the budget and ensuring fiscal account-
ability, (d) developing curriculum standards and ensuring program accountability, (e)
governing through policy, and (f) collective bargaining and advocacy. Land (2002)
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 48
posited characteristics that are essential for school board effectiveness: (a) attention to
policy; (b) good relations with the superintendent, among board members, with other
local agencies, and with the public and state; and (c) effective performance in the areas of
policymaking, leadership, budgeting, adequate evaluation, and training. However, Land
presented two cautions: (a) The majority of findings show that many school boards do not
embody the characteristics that are described in the literature as essential for school board
effectiveness, and (b) there is little research to substantiate that these characteristics are
indeed essential for students’ academic achievement.
Research and studies on school board member roles and effectiveness constitute
literature on leadership. In a qualitative and meta-analysis review of personality and trait
perspectives in leadership research, Judge, Ilies, Bono, and Gerhardt (2002) examined
leader emergence and leadership effectiveness using a five-factor model of personality as
an organizing framework to estimate relations between personality and leadership.
Despite uncovering some traits that appeared to be related to leadership emergence or
effectiveness, their results were overall mixed and inconsistent. This does not fare well
for scholars who address leadership in schools and attempt to link school board member
characteristics and effective leadership. The implication can be striking in research
addressing a school board’s cohesiveness, trust, and cooperation (Saatcioglu et al., 2011),
internal board conflict (Grissom, 2009), or the inability to sort out gray areas between a
board’s policy-making responsibilities and the superintendent’s administrative responsi-
bilities (Danzberger et al., 1987).
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 49
Just as important as individual characteristics of leadership is the study of team
leadership. Individual members collectively constitute the public school board and learn
that they exercise authority by casting a vote. Since many members run for school board
office as single-issue candidates, many are unprepared to work in teams on multiple
issues (Danzberger et al., 1987). Bell and Kozlowski (2010) described work teams as
composed of two or more individuals who (a) perform organizationally relevant tasks,
(b) share one or more common goals, (c) interact socially, (d) exhibit interdependencies
in task workflows, (e) manage and maintain group boundaries, and (f) are embedded in a
broader organizational context that constrains the team and influences exchanges with
other units in the organization. This definition describes the role of school board
members as a group or team. A school board is responsible for establishing the mission
and vision of the district, hiring a school district superintendent, establishing policy, and
ensuring that the district remains fiscally sound while meeting the district’s educational
mission (Campbell & Green, 1994; Land, 2002; WestEd, 2001). School boards can
accomplish these tasks as a team. Consequently, understanding how a team works effec-
tively is important.
Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) focused on processes that contribute to team effec-
tiveness and identified leverage points that can be used to make teams more effective.
The authors built on the framework of input-process-output by theorizing that the team is
embedded in a multilevel system with individual, team, and organizational level features.
The team task determines two critical issues: (a) It sets the minimum requirement for the
resource pool (i.e., the team-member individual differences and abilities that are available
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 50
across team members), and (b) the primary focus of team member activities. Team
learning, training, leadership, and alignment are among the identified effective leverages
that teams must implement to be effective.
School boards are successful to the extent that they are limited to the knowledge,
skills, and abilities that members bring to the board to negotiate bargaining agreements,
evaluate federal and state policies, understand the balance sheet of a multimillion-dollar
organization, and apply curriculum and best instructional practices. In order to support
school board members, training that incorporates team learning (shared knowledge and
collaboration), team cohesion (task commitment), and structural (changing environment)
and team adaptation (individual and team goals) will make the school board more effec-
tive (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
With so many layers and participants involved in the governance of K–12 educa-
tion, it is difficult to know who is responsible for the failure or success of K–12 educa-
tion. The argument has been made that the involvement of state and federal legislature
are signs that leadership in local school boards is nonexistent. Arguably, educational
reform efforts are attempting to close the gaps where school boards are falling short.
Unclear roles and responsibilities, a complex governing structure, and a need for
leadership have left school boards without the capacity to implement new solutions.
In summary, in order to for school boards to exhibit effective board leadership,
board members must be able to separate policy roles versus management roles of district
senior administration employees. Campbell and Green (1994) and Land (2002) presented
overlapping views on characteristics of effective school board leadership, including
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 51
governing through policy, setting a vision that produces effective performance, creating a
climate of good relationships in and outside the school district, ensuring a program of
accountability, maintaining an effective relationship with the superintendent, and
training. Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) addressed the concept of leadership in terms of
teams: To support school board members (team), training that incorporates team learning
(shared knowledge and collaboration), team cohesion (task commitment), and structural
(changing environment) and team adaptation (individual and team goals) will make the
school board more effective leaders.
Need for Training Programs
Scholars have documented the need to train school board members by recom-
mending training programs that clearly address and define roles and responsibilities for
school board members, build board-superintendent leadership team relationships, and
enhance content knowledge of school finance, collective bargaining agreement, policy,
human resource, and governance (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007b; Danzberger
et al., 1987; Hess, 2002; WestEd, 2001). School board professional growth has also been
identified by school board members as an area of need. According to Danzberger et al.
(1987), board members generally agreed that they lacked preparation for board service as
they felt unprepared for their new responsibilities and lacking in the ability to build lead-
ership by consensus. The rationale for school board training is discussed in this section.
School board members are reportedly incompletely trained in the areas of com-
munication, budgeting, student achievement, and board accountability (Hess, 2002).
According to Campbell and Greene (1994), board member training must focus not only
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 52
focus on the content of school board’s various roles but also on how a board governs.
Boardsmanship, or how a board governs, addresses the board’s ability to reach consensus
and to establish a positive climate and its credibility. School board associations in most
states sponsor training for members, but only 17 states require training (Bianchi, 2003;
Petronis, Hall, & Pearson, 1996). Bianchi (2003) presented two examples in which
knowledge gained via school board member training was associated with improved
student achievement. Roberts and Sampson (2011) also drew a link between school board
training and positive effects on student achievement.
Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) indicated that team learning, training, leadership, and
alignment were among the identified effective leverages that teams should implement to
become more effective. Team training would address the problems with overlapping gov-
ernance structure documented in California (Brewer & Smith, 2007; Campbell & Green,
1994). Land (2002) also included training as an essential ingredient for school board
effectiveness.
School board training is not mandatory in California. With research that indicates
a need for training and a positive effect of effective school board management on student
achievement, there is a need to determine the percentage of school board members being
trained in California, draw a link between school board training and student achievement
and superintendent relationships, and consider making school board training mandatory
in California.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 53
Chapter Summary
Given the school board’s important legislative, executive, and judicial roles in K–
12 education, it is imperative that school board members have the capacity and
knowledge to govern. School districts are facing many challenges due to changing state
and federal accountability and assessments, changing expectations, and new demands.
Effective school board leadership will be a determining factor in interpretation of policy,
allocation of resources, adoption of curriculum and instructional practices, and alignment
of professional development. There is a need to evaluate the necessity for training
programs for school board members.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 54
Chapter 3
Methodology
Changing expectations and new demands have emerged within a new account-
ability context for school boards and local education agencies. A common theme
throughout the literature has been the need for school board training in roles and respon-
sibilities, K–12 governance, and school board leadership. The literature also underscores
the significant impact that school boards have on the governance of their school districts.
The literature provides characteristics or descriptors of school boards for effective district
governance. A feature in effective district governance is governance training for school
board members. In California, the CSBA provides governance education for school board
members and superintendents. Governance education is provided through a MIG leader-
ship program in which participants study each of the nine modules that define the roles
and responsibilities of school governance teams and provide tools to keep efforts focused
on student learning (CSBA, 2006).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training impacts the
board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective governance. This chapter describes
the research design, including sampling, selection process, instrumentation, and data col-
lection, and the plan to link the data to a useful analysis. Three research questions guided
this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 55
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating MIG training impact school board governance?
Research Design
A qualitative descriptive approach was selected to address the three research
questions. The advantage of a qualitative descriptive approach is that it uses data to add
depth, detail, and nuance to the research (Patton, 2002). As part of the data collection,
school boards and superintendents completed separate surveys that presented fixed-
choice questions. Data from structured interviews added to the descriptiveness of the
methodology. In addition, researchers attended MIG training modules. An MIG Obser-
vation Protocol was used to document data. Surveys of school boards and superinten-
dents, MIG Observation Protocol, structured interviews of school boards and
superintendents, and research data regarding school district characteristics and per-
formance assisted in triangulating the data. Qualitative research looks for involvement of
participants in data collection and seeks to build rapport and credibility with participants
(Creswell, 2003). To this end, the two instruments were used to enlist the participation
and self-reflective perspectives of school board members and superintendents as part of
the qualitative inquiry.
Two surveys (one for school board members and one for superintendents) with
fixed-choice questions were delivered to all school board members and superintendents
in six southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura. The survey questions for board members and superintendents were
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 56
similar but addressed their perspectives to the topic of research. For example, school
board members were asked to respond to the statement “After participating in California
School Board Association training, I am better prepared for my roles and responsibilities
as a school board member” and superintendents were asked to respond to the statement
“After participating in California School Board Association training, my school board
member is better prepared for their roles and responsibilities.” Survey data allowed for
presentation of the findings in aggregate form. As part of the qualitative descriptive
design, structured interviews were developed with the intent to understand the training
program, its processes, and outcomes. School board members and superintendents of two
districts surveyed participated in follow-up structured interviews. Data collected through
the interviews provided an understating of the impact of governance training on school
board members and superintendents.
Sample and Population
CSBA has provided, in spreadsheet format, a list of participants in their MIG
training program who successfully completed or are in progress of receiving the MIG
certificate. Purposeful sampling was used in selecting the counties and consequently the
school boards and superintendents to participate in the study. Purposeful sampling
focuses on selecting information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions
under study (Patton, 2002). The list of participants in the MIG training provided the
sample population for this study. The participants, diversity, and density of the districts in
the six selected counties provided information-rich cases. In addition, the selection of
counties provided for probability-based random sampling. The six counties chosen
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 57
contained potential participants who accounted for a segment of the population that was
either school board members or superintendents and have experienced MIG training. The
purpose of probability-based random sampling is generalization from the sample to a
population (Patton, 2002).
Only public elementary, unified, and union school districts within the six target
counties with ADA of 2,000–50,000 that had demonstrated a minimum 21-point growth
in API over a 3-year span or had reached 800 API last year with at least one school board
member who had participated in MIG training were considered (Table 1).
The primary criteria for selecting the six counties in California for surveys were
based on the number of school districts and diversity and the types of school districts
encompassed, which provided a larger sampling. Eighty-seven elementary school
districts, 115 unified school districts, and 17 union high school districts in six counties
were considered for the survey. Districts were further analyzed to identify those that met
the selection criteria for school board members who had participated in the MIG training
provided by the CSBA and had made the necessary API gains or reached the 800 mark.
Charter school districts or other districts (e.g., County Offices of Education) were
not selected to participate in the survey because these sites do not have public school
boards. However, it is important to note that some charter schools, when approved by
public school boards, in essence become part of the public school district. Consequently,
public school districts with school boards surveyed may have charter schools within their
boundaries of governing and are governed to the extent that public school boards approve
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 58
Table 1
County and District Selection Criteria for Survey
County Type of district Number of districts
Los Angeles Elementary 28
Unified 47
Union High 5
Charter or other 12
Orange Elementary 12
Unified 12
Union High 3
Charter or other 1
Riverside Elementary 2
Unified 18
Union High 2
Charter or other 18
San Diego Elementary 24
Unified 12
Union High 2
Charter or other 6
San Bernardino Elementary 11
Unified 16
Union High 2
Charter or other 6
Ventura Elementary 10
Unified 6
Union High 3
Charter or other 3
charter petitions, duration of charter, and criteria for revoking a charter. School districts
were accessed through DataQuest from the CDE website.
Instrumentation
The research tools used in this study were developed by a research team of doc-
toral students in a cohort led by the principal investigator. The survey and interview pro-
tocols were developed based on collaborative discussions with current and formal school
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 59
board members and current and former CSBA representatives and officers. Interviews
were structured according to the protocol, which was designed to identify current and
past approaches to school board membership, school governance, roles and responsibili-
ties, leadership, and CSBA training information.
The research team developed two surveys that contained similar questions for
school board members and superintendents. For example, school board members were
asked “To what extent has the Masters in Governance helped you become a more effec-
tive school board member?” and superintendents were asked “To what extent has the
Masters in Governance helped your school board become more effective?” These
questions allowed for comparison of responses and improved reliability. In addition, each
question on either survey was linked to a framework and research question(s) to allow
alignment of analysis. To ensure content validity, the survey instruments were reviewed
by a professor of Clinical Education and a CSBA representative. Recommendations and
feedback were received and used to revise the survey to ensure content validity. Once the
revisions were completed, the updated survey was submitted to the dissertation commit-
tee for final approval.
The structured interview protocol was developed to gain understanding of the
effect of MIG training on the governance of a district. Interview questions were formu-
lated to minimize variation in the questions posed to interviewees, and a standardized
open-ended interview approach will be used (Patton, 2002). Standardized open-ended
interview consists of a set of questions carefully worded and arranged with the intention
of taking each respondent through the same sequence and asking each respondent the
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 60
same questions with essentially the same words (Patton, 2002). The open-ended struc-
tured interview is an effective instrument for qualitative measurements because the exact
instrument used in the evaluation is available for inspection by those who will use the
findings of the study. Variation among interviewers is minimized, the interview is highly
focused, and analysis is facilitated by making responses easy to find and compare
(Patton, 2002).
The MIG Observation Protocol was aligned to the three research questions of the
study and the CSBA (2007b) framework. In addition, specific attention was placed to
ensure that a rationale was provided for each assessment of the framework and an area
for evidence and notes. Various MIG training modules were attended by researchers.
To ensure validity of the interview protocols, model interviews were conducted to
review language, content, and alignment of each item question. Feedback and suggestions
were received and used to revise the structured interview protocol. Once the revisions
were completed, the updated open-ended structured interview instrument was approved
by the dissertation committee.
Data Collection
The data collection process for the quantitative section began in summer 2012,
using surveys for school board members (Appendix A) and superintendents (Appendix
B). A recruitment letter for each group (Appendix C) and the informed consent form
(Appendix D) were included with the survey instrument to provide an explanation of the
research and to elicit participation by school board members and superintendents. The
CSBA assisted in distribution of the survey by providing names and districts of school
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 61
board members who had been trained in the MIG program provided by the CSBA. The
survey was mailed to all of the districts in the counties that met participation criteria.
Based on survey responses, two groups were formed: (a) full-training group: par-
ticipation defined as having at least one school board member having received MIG
training, and (b) partial-training group: participation defined as not having any school
board member trained in the MIG modules. The latter group was excluded from analysis.
Once the data gathering was complete, the analysis focused solely on school districts that
encompassed a full-training group and that met the established criteria. Follow-up inter-
views were scheduled with two superintendents and two board members from separate
school boards to learn how the MIG training had impacted school board governance.
Interviewees were contacted via e-mail to arrange date and time of interviews and to
establish the duration and location of the interviews. Interviews were held in district
offices. Interviewees were notified of the purpose of the study before the interviews
began.
Data Analysis
Survey items were precoded to ensure that the items aligned to the framework(s)
and to the three research questions. A spreadsheet was designed to document the relation-
ships between survey items, research questions, and frameworks. In addition, response
codes set numerical values to assist with the data analysis.
Qualitative data collected through structured interviews were analyzed to identify
common themes and anomalies. Since the purpose of this study was to determine whether
CSBA MIG training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 62
governance, data were examined to identify characteristics of effective governance as
identified by participants. The challenge of qualitative analysis lies in making sense of
massive amounts of data while acknowledging that there is no formula for doing so
(Patton, 2002). Patton noted the need to analyze and report on the procedures. Creswell
(2003) outlined six steps for analyzing data from a qualitative instrument: (a) organize
and prepare data for analysis, (b) read through all of the data, (c) begin detailed analysis
with a coding process, (d) use a coding process to generate a description of themes for
analysis, (e) describe how themes will be represented in the qualitative narrative, and
(f) interpret the data.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the purpose and research questions for the study. Research
design, sampling and population, instrumentation, and data collection and data analysis
procedures were described. The surveys were designed to enable cross-referencing of
data between school boards and superintendents, while interviews allowed for triangula-
tion. Interviews provided narrative information for context. The design of the study was a
nonexperimental descriptive survey to identify insights related to attending the MIG
training program from the perspectives of California public school board members in six
counties. All data collection methods were approved by the Institutional Review Board of
the University of Southern California.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 63
Chapter 4
Findings
This chapter presents the findings from a qualitative descriptive study of effective
public school district governance through governance training for school board members,
in particular, MIG training provided by CSBA in California. The purpose of this study
was to determine whether the MIG training impacted the board’s ability to adhere to best
practices for effective governance. A central component to the study was to determine
what characteristics effective school boards exemplify. To this end, the literature review
was considered, school board members were surveyed and interviewed, MIG modules
were attended, and an MIG Observation Protocol was used. To assist in triangulating
data, superintendents were surveyed and interviewed.
This chapter presents and examines the findings of the study in reference to the
research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating MIG training impact school board governance?
Using qualitative methods, this study aimed to investigate whether the MIG
training provided by CSBA provided participants with best practices for effective gov-
ernance. Three instruments, described in Chapter 3, were used in the collection of the
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 64
data: (a) Board Member Survey (Appendix A), (b) Superintendent Survey (Appendix B),
and (c) MIG Observation Protocol (Appendix E).
Background Information of Sample and Population
Of the possible 219 school districts in six counties, 100 districts were determined
to meet the criteria set forth in Chapter 3. Only public elementary, unified, and union
school districts within the six target counties with ADA of 2,000–50,000 that had demon-
strated a minimum 21-point growth in API over a 3-year span or had reached 800 API
with the past year with at least one school board member who had participated in MIG
training were considered. Consequently, 100 superintendents and 216 school board
members were surveyed. Limited responses to the initial mailing resulted in subsequent
e-mailing and telephone calls to superintendents who had already responded to the initial
mailings. The data collected in this study ultimately consisted of 61 survey response sets
provided by superintendents and 86 survey response sets from six counties in southern
California. Two superintendents and corresponding school board members were chosen
for follow-up structured interviews. Structured interviews were conducted to provide a
richer description of the practices and were used to triangulate data provided from their
corresponding school board members through surveys and interviews.
Two school districts were chosen for follow-up interviews. Both school districts
were located in Los Angeles County, approximately 15 miles from downtown Los
Angeles in the San Gabriel Valley. The first superintendent and school board member
whose district was selected for a follow-up interview was an elementary school district
(District A). The superintendent and all of the district’s school board members had
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 65
received MIG training. The school district reported 2,918 students enrolled, 116.7 full-
time equivalent teachers, four elementary schools and one middle school in the 2010-
2011 school year (Education Data Partnership, 2012). Two school board members vol-
unteered for follow-up interviews. The first school board member (School Board Member
A1) was currently serving in the role of president and had been on the current school
board for 12 years. The second school board member (School Board Member A2) had
been a school board member for more than 9 years. He had an education degree and had
been retired for several years.
The second superintendent and school board member selected for a follow up-
interview were in a unified school district (District B). The superintendent had attended
CSBA conferences yearly but was not MIG trained; two school board members had par-
ticipated in MIG training. The school district reported 19,923 students enrolled, 894.6
full-time equivalent teachers, 13 elementary schools, four middle schools, and three high
schools in the 2010-2011 school year (Education Data Partnership, 2012). Two school
board members volunteered for follow-up interviews. The first school board member
(School Board Member B1) had worked as a classified employee for district B for 10
years. Upon leaving the district, the employee had become a school board member and
had continued to work in education at a different location. The second school board
member (School Board Member B2) had been a school board member for 9 years.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 66
Research Question 1: What Factors Impact the Decision of School Board
Members to Complete a School Board MIG Training Program?
Effective Training Program
The MIG training provided by the CSBA is generally seen as an effective training
program for school board members. All but one of the school board members who
responded to surveys encouraged fellow school board members to participate in the MIG
training as a means of professional development. In fact, when school board members
were surveyed as to whether they would strongly recommend the MIG training to fellow
school board members, all respondents chose strongly agree/agree; there were no dissen-
sions. The interview with School Board Member A2 supports the survey findings empha-
sizing that training is not only an expectation but a requirement for new school board
members in District A.
If all the other board members say, “Yeah, you have to take it [MIG training
program], if a new trustee comes in, when I used to interview, I didn’t say that,
“We would like you to,” I’d say, “It’s a district policy that you take it [MIG
training].”
An analysis of superintendent survey results supported school board member
survey results. In all, 57 superintendents reported encouraging school board members to
participate in the MIG training as a means of professional development. When asked
whether they strongly recommended the MIG training to their school board members, 58
superintendents responded strongly agree/agree (Table 2). The superintendent from
District A highlighted that school board members from District A hold each other
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 67
Table 2
Comparative Views: Masters in Governance Training as Professional Development
School board Superin-
Item Response choice members tendents
7. I encourage (fellow) school board
members to participate in the MIG
training as a means of professional
development.
Strongly Agree 63 38
Agree 20 19
Disagree 1 4
Strongly Disagree 0 0
19. I would strongly recommend the
MIG training to (fellow/my) school
board members.
Strongly Agree 65 41
Agree 18 17
Disagree 0 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0
accountable for their own professional development. Further corroborating and under-
scoring survey results, school board members strongly recommended MIG training
program and supporting the assertion made by School Board Member A2:
So the candidates have some expectation of what they would be expected to do
and that this [MIG] training would be part of that . . . the expectation would be
that everyone gets trained, so when a new board member comes in, whoever is the
president at that time will bring in that person. We do an interview before to let
them know that that’s [MIG training] our professional standard.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 68
Expenditure as a Factor in Attending the MIG Training Program
Participants were asked in the survey whether, if the cost of the MIG training
program were subsidized or free, more school board members would participate; 61
school board members responded strongly agree/agree, compared to 43 superintendents,
and 18 school board members and 17 superintendents responded strongly disagree/
disagree (Table 3). An interview with School Board Member B2 provided context:
Table 3
Diverse Views on Expenditure and Increasing School Board Members’ Attendance in
Masters in Governance Training Program
School board Superin-
Item Response choice members tendents
23. If the cost of the MIG training program
was subsidized or free, more school
board members would participate.
Strongly Agree 28 15
Agree 33 28
Disagree 15 15
Strongly Disagree 3 2
I think the money—especially in the last 5 years—where the money has been
short, very short. Me, personally I don’t want to put that kind of expense on the
district. If the cost was not a factor, I think more people would be interested in
taking the training. . . . Six years ago it wouldn’t have been an issue, but because
of the budget situation and being faced with laying people off, I think our consti-
tuency would question how valuable is spending x amount of money on a training
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 69
versus trying to keep a teacher. Even though not going to these won’t keep the
teacher, but in the mind, I think perception would be hard to overcome. They
would say, “Why are you going to this when we’re laying off teachers?” So
politically and just the constituency wouldn’t agree, if you’re laying teachers off.
But my hope is that we’re done with that fiscal situation and I think that, if there
was a mandate and we did have the money, it would be supported by the stake-
holders. So again, it goes back to money.
Although Superintendents A and B agreed that the current cost of the MIG
training program may prevent some school board members from participating, they did
not consider this to be a true representation for their own district. Both superintendents
declared that the expense of MIG professional development training is a cost that they are
willing to support and make available for school board members in their district. They
agreed that the benefits outweigh the cost of attending but noted that a school board
member’s attendance is essentially based on self-determination.
Online MIG Certification
The question whether online MIG certification would encourage more school
board members to participate in MIG training produced mixed results. An examination of
survey data revealed that 58.5% of responding school board members responded strongly
agree/agree that an online certification program would encourage more school board
member to participate in MIG training. Follow-up interviews with school board members
provided insight into the reasons that the MIG certification program was not seen as
appealing to 23.5% of the responding school board members. School Board Member A1
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 70
identified a lack of interaction with other school board members that would be missing in
an online course.
I’m up in the air about the online [modules]. I know it’s more economical but you
don’t get that feedback from other school board members from different areas. I
know I could be online and going back and forth and listening to the program but
that doesn’t do any good . . . but if I want to get experience from other people,
that’s not going to help; for this, you need collaboration from other people.
Interview data from School Board Member 2B supported this position:
To be honest, the interaction with the other board members. I find more value in a
discussion. . . . Making those connections and listening to what they say helps me
prevent or at least look at the issues that they were going through and look to see
if there are similarities here and try to prevent any ramification for our district. So
it’s the connections and the discussions from other board members and their expe-
riences that help me become a better board member.
While not directly answering the question about an online MIG certification
program, the superintendent from District A commended the structure of MIG training,
emphasizing what would not occur in an online setting:
There [is] cohesiveness with the board members learning side by side . . . and
learning from others. We ended up having a group from [District 1] and a group
from [District 2], . . . but we were in the same session, and it was really great to be
able to share stories. . . . So it’s a great learning experience, but almost, I want to
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 71
say, a therapy session because you really get to hear about other situations and it
gets us out beyond our own confines of our walls.
School board member interaction during MIG training modules was clearly doc-
umented an essential element using the MIG Observation Protocol. Researchers attending
the various MIG training modules unanimously strongly agreed that school board
members were engaged and focused on presentations, activities, and discussions. The
school board members shared difficulties and experiences during breakout groups, group
discussions, and whole-class instruction. Based on discussions with various attending
school board members, it was apparent that these interactions were an essential part of
their learning experience and development.
Surveys and interviews from the superintendent in District A and School Board
Members A1 and A2 showed agreement that MIG training was valued and an expectation
in their district. This expectation concurs with the literature on governance authority and
leadership capacity, particularly Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008).
Bolman and Deal (2008) described the structural frame, in part, as a team’s ability to
become cohesive, reach consensus, set strategies, and become well defined, with clear-
cut responsibilities. This is particularly true as new school boards are created through
elections. It is important that everyone understand the school board structure and expec-
tations (i.e., well-defined responsibilities). In addition, survey results and interviews were
in agreement with the literature (Bolman & Deal, 2008) that performance by a small
group depends heavily on structure and group process. School board participants were
placed in several groups during training sessions so they could develop informal social
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 72
network, thereby creating informal bonds among members, which resulted in a shared
sense of direction and commitment.
Conclusion
School board members and superintendents have placed value on professional
development to ensure that school board members are prepared to be effective, spe-
cifically, MIG professional development provided by CSBA. Effective training program,
cost of the training program, and collegial connection emerged as reasons school board
members decided to participate in a school board training program. The findings corrobo-
rate the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 in the section, Governance Authority and Lead-
ership Capacity (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Research Question 2: Does MIG Training Encourage and Equip School
Board Members to Exhibit the Behaviors of Effective Governance?
Governance
An examination of the school board member survey data revealed that all
responding school board members agreed that the MIG training had positively affected
their ability to govern effectively. A follow-up survey question asked school board
members whether the MIG training had allowed them to contribute to the effectiveness of
their school board meetings.
All but one of the responding school board members attributed their effectiveness
to the MIG training governance. Survey responses by superintendents supported the
responses made by school board members. When the superintendents were asked whether
the MIG training had positively affected their school board’s ability to govern effectively,
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 73
51 responded strongly agree/agree, 7 responded strongly disagree/disagree, and 3
responded unable to determine. In terms of improving the effectiveness of board
meetings, 48 superintendents responded strongly agree/agree, 6 disagree and 5 unable to
determine.
Superintendents from Districts A and B rated Governing Within Policies as a high
characteristic for effective governance. These two superintendents responded strongly
agree/agree to five of the first six questions that addressed the MIG training and its posi-
tive impact on school board governance. They agreed that school board members who are
MIG trained: (a) demonstrate an increased focus on student achievement during school
board meetings, (b) encourage their fellow school board members to consistently use data
to make informed decisions regarding student achievement, (c) understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and goals,
(d) develop a more collaborative relationship with their fellow school board members,
and (e) accept the majority decision of the school board even if they hold the minority
view. Ranking the nine MIG modules in order of relevance to their school board’s role in
governance, these two superintendents ranked Setting Direction, Foundations of Effective
Governance, and Governance Integration first through third among the modules.
Survey Questions 10 through 14 specifically addressed research question 2: MIG
training encourages/prepares board members to govern effectively. Superintendent A, all
of whose school board members had been trained, rated these items strongly agree. Data
collected in the follow-up interview with Superintendent A supported findings from the
school board member surveys.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 74
So when there was this turnover and I became superintendent, it was really appar-
ent to me that we needed to do something that everyone was on board at the same
level and the same way. So we started with Masters of Governance. I think we
started with two board members who wanted to go and there was a big contro-
versy about it. . . . So we went as a team and then that team built from two to three
to four to five. Our board has been pretty stable. Rarely is there an opposing vote;
it’s usually pretty much a 5–0 vote. I really attribute a lot of it to working together
through the Masters of Governance program. I think it really gave us professional
standards that we need to have as an operating unit.
The interview with School Board Member A1 supported these assertions:
The foundation that they gave us was good. Because it showed us what we needed
to learn, how we needed to act, and if we had any questions and best practices. . . .
It helped us to work together on issues.
These finding were further supported by School Board Member B2:
I feel that the people that have attended [MIG training] have gotten something out
of it. I think the collaboration has been better. We understand each other a little
bit better. We understand our goals a little bit better, but for those that have
attended, and I say that because some people have not attended, so it does.
Using the MIG Observation Protocol, researchers documented that MIG module
presenters were actively implementing strategies to develop team governance structures.
All researchers using the MIG observation Protocol recorded strongly agree/agree that
presenters were teaching school board members the importance of taking collective
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 75
responsibility for their performance, teaching strategies to develop and/or keep focus on
common vision, teaching governance teams to govern in a dignified and professional
manner, and treating everyone with civility and respect. School board members were
active participants in modeling and discussing behaviors of effective governance such as
planning future staff development with board members, discussing strategies for sustain-
ing reform efforts, and exploring how to integrate district leadership.
As part of effective governance, The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000) identified
seven conditions for productive governance change and the Effective Governance
System: (a) emphasis on building a human organizational system, (b) ability to create and
sustain initiatives, (c) supportive workplace for staff, (d) staff development, (e) support
for school sites through data and information, (f) community involvement, and
(g) integrated leadership. The survey, interviews, and MIG protocol results substantiated
this framework. School board members addressed the majority of these conditions when
they recorded strongly agree/agree that, as a result of the MIG training, (a) they under-
stood the importance of aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and
goals (Question 4), (b) they had developed a more collaborative relationship with fellow
school board members (Question 5), and (c) their ability to accept constructively the
majority decision, even if they hold the minority view, had increased (Question 6). The
school board members also responded that the MIG training had positively affected their
ability to govern effectively (Question 12) and had allowed them to contribute to the
effectiveness of their school board meetings (Question 13).
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 76
In conclusion, school board members who had received MIG professional devel-
opment training agreed that the training had been an invaluable experience that had
assisted them with the governance of their team. The interviews with school board
members provided insight into the behavior that had been affected and the MIG Obser-
vation Protocol provided an understanding of the process. Superintendent surveys and
interviews supported these findings.
Roles and Responsibilities
It is important to highlight that school board members who were interviewed
attributed effective governance to school board members learning and understanding their
roles and responsibilities through the MIG training. When these school board members
were asked whether the MIG training had clarified the differences between their roles and
responsibilities as a school board member and those of the superintendent, 83 responded
strongly agree/agree; no school board member disagreed. In addition, 79 school board
members responded strongly agree/agree that, as a result of the MIG training, they
understood the importance of aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision
and goals; 3 disagreed.
Data collected from superintendent surveys revealed similar findings: 58 super-
intendents responded strongly agree/agree that MIG training had helped school board
members to differentiate between policy and management leadership, with one superin-
tendent disagreeing. The superintendent from District A addressed the importance of
school board members understanding their roles and responsibilities versus those of a
superintendent.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 77
I think it [MIG] really strengthened the communication but also the expectation
and defining the role of what a board does or doesn’t do, because I think that’s
huge. It helped me, too, because I’m learning with them. Every time we’ve sent
someone, I’ve gone with them on training so that if there’s any questions, we can
talk, collaborate, but also be able to understand, translate how CSBA will say,
“This is how it’s done” and then how we do it locally.
Regarding roles and responsibilities, the literature that was reviewed in Chapter 2
addressed school board members running on one-issue platforms that would have lead to
difficulty in collaborating, understanding that one individual does not constitute a school
board, and understanding the give-and-take of ideas in governance. When MIG-trained
school board members were asked whether their training had helped them to develop a
more collaborative relationship with fellow school board members, 77 responded
strongly agree/agree, 5 responded disagree, and 1 responded strongly disagree. When
surveyed about their ability to accept constructively the majority decision even if they
held the minority view, 74 school board members responded strongly agree/agree. In
addressing roles and responsibilities, School Board Member B1 indicated the following:
It helped me visualize what the role was, it helped me understand a little clearly
about what I’m supposed to do. It helped me with expectations. . . . Coming in,
you make a lot of mistakes, you don’t know what it’s like until you’re there sitting
at the table. A lot of us come in with misconceptions of what we think it’s going
to be, what we think it’s supposed to look like, what we think our job is. The MIG
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 78
clearly, very clearly, shows you what your job is. It was very frustrating some-
times because you realize, “That wasn’t my job and I stuck my foot in it.”
The results of the superintendent surveys supported these findings. When asked
whether the MIG training had positively affected their school board’s ability to govern
effectively, 51 superintendents responded strongly agree/agree, 5 disagree, 2 strongly
disagree, and 3 unable to determine. When the superintendents were asked specifically
about the improvement of their board meetings due to the MIG training, 48 responded
strongly agree/agree, 6 disagree, and 5 unable to determine.
Using the MIG Observation Protocol, it was documented that the concept of roles
and responsibilities was a point of emphasis in several of the modules. For example, in
the Human Resource module, presenters provided information that addressed history,
relevant court cases, framework for personnel, district organization, and processes within
the human resources arena, within the context of the role of a school board member and a
superintendent. One of the most valuable tools that was shared by presenters teaching
attending school board members how to discern information and ask correct questions.
The presenters illustrated via diagrams, discussions, pair share, and group work where the
role and responsibilities of school board members began and ended; the same was done
for superintendents. This format was repeated in all of the modules but within the scope
of the particular field of study.
These findings align with the CSBA (2007a) framework reviewed in Chapter 2.
The CSBA recommends that school boards focus on the following job areas for effective
district governance: (a) setting the district’s direction, (b) student learning and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 79
achievement, (c) finance and facilities, (d) human resources, (e) policy and judicial
review, (f) collective bargaining, and (g) community relations and advocacy. The
program consists of 60 hours of instruction and participation. School board members
enroll one time and are eligible to participate in nine 1-day MIG learning modules
(CSBA, 2007b). With this in mind, there is a module for each of the focus areas for
effective district governance, with two exceptions. The Foundations of Effective Govern-
ance module is recommended by CSBA to be taken first, as it highlights roles and
responsibilities of the governance team, and the Governance Integration module is rec-
ommended to be taken last, as it integrates the concepts of trusteeship and the governance
team with the jobs of the board.
In summary, school board surveys and follow-up interviews attributed their grasp
of the governance role to the Foundations of Effective Governance module, which
addresses the roles and responsibilities of school board members and superintendents.
Superintendent surveys and interviews supported the findings from school board
members. The MIG Observation Protocol documented how other modules infused the
role and responsibility into all modules.
Conclusion
School board surveys and interviews, along with corroborating evidence from
superintendents and the MIG Observation Protocol, confirmed that MIG training encour-
ages and equips school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective governance. A
theme that emerged from the data was the importance of school board members and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 80
superintendents having clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, a precursor
for effective governance.
Research Question 3: In What Ways Could Mandating
MIG Training Affect School Board Governance?
While all school board members responded strongly agree/agree to the survey
item that all school board members would benefit from completing the MIG training, the
idea of mandating such training was received with some mixed results. The school board
members were informed that 20 states mandate school board training, while California
does not. Regarding the survey item “The MIG training should be mandated in Califor-
nia,” 59 school board members responded strongly agree/agree and 23 responded
strongly disagree/disagree. In their interviews, school board members were asked
whether there were any potential conflicts with such a mandate. According to School
Board Member A2:
So many things are mandated. I don’t like that. So no, I don’t think we should be
required ever to do things. It’s up to us. It’s just like saying to the school board
members, “You have to attend all the community functions.” Then that is not fun.
You’re going to do it if you want to do it. . . . I don’t want to be told what to do.
. . . I’m just that way. So if you tell me that I have to, I’m going to prove to you
that I don’t have to.
School Board Member B2 commented:
Six years ago it wouldn’t have been an issue, but because of the budget situation
and being faced with laying people off, I think our constituency would question
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 81
how valuable is spending x amount of money on a training versus trying to keep a
teacher. Even though not going to these won’t keep the teacher, but in the mind, I
think perception would be hard to overcome. They would say, “Why are you
going to this when we’re laying off teachers?” So politically, the constituency
wouldn’t agree, if you’re laying teachers off. But my hope is that we’re done with
that fiscal situation and I think that, if there was a mandate and we did have the
money, I think it would be supported by the stakeholders. So again, it goes back
to money.
These two data points demonstrate the complexity of the question in hand. While one
board member had a negative reaction to a mandate, a second board member addressed
the financial impact of a mandate on the school district. In addition, School Board
Member B2 addressed possible collateral damage from such a mandate: the public per-
ception of funds being spent on school board training versus the current layoff of teachers
and the potential political implications.
With this in mind, school board members were asked two subsequent survey
questions. The first question asked school board members whether the current cost of the
MIG training program impeded school board members from participating; 37 responded
strongly agree/agree and 40 responded strongly disagree/disagree. The second question
asked whether, if the cost of the MIG training program were subsidized or free, more
school board members would participate; 61 responded strongly agree/agree and 18
responded strongly disagree/disagree. School Board Member B1 commented on these
questions:
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 82
Financially, right away people are going to have issues. There are many districts
that are struggling. . . . I honestly think that most people use the financial base as
their excuse. . . . Even my completing it [MIG certification], I would get sideways
looks like, “Who do you think you are, spending that money? Our kids need it!” I
know, but if I’m not effective, it’s not gonna matter that I’m here. . . . There has to
be [professional development], just as like with our teachers. . . . because educa-
tion changes, rules, laws change. How you interact changes. It comes to “this is
how we used to do it, and the new law says you have to do it this way.” If you’re
not constantly learning and understanding the parameters we have to work with,
you’re going to make errors that are going to be costly for the district. That is
critical. It was a huge piece of MIG that helps you understand what you can and
cannot do, what is and what is not legal.
School Board Member B1 emphasized that finance should not be used as a crutch; rather,
the focus should be on the valuable service that MIG training provides. This school board
member provided examples of being a better informed board member that allows for effi-
ciency and the awareness of avoiding behavior that may cause litigation.
The superintendent surveys revealed similar complexities regarding the same
survey questions. For example, when the superintendents were asked whether they agreed
with the statement that MIG training should be mandated in California, 49 responded
strongly agree/agree and 11 responded strongly disagree/disagree. When they were
asked whether the current cost of the MIG training program impedes school board
members from participating, 29 responded strongly agree/agree and 32 responded
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 83
strongly disagree/disagree. Probing, the survey questioned whether subsidized or no cost
for MIG training would encourage more school board members to participate, 43 super-
intendents responded strongly agree/agree and 17 responded strongly disagree/ disagree.
However, interviews with superintendents supported the idea of mandating training for
school board members, although Superintendent A1 made a brief mention of fiscal
impact.
I know that we have had board members in the past be concerned about the cost
and how much that costs and what would be the value of it. I’ve seen every board
member who has gone through that really get so much out of it. I think the dollar
amount becomes secondary to, “Oh gosh, I didn’t know all this!” In terms of the
expenditure being supported by the stakeholders, . . . I think it would be some-
thing they would support because just the way they operate as a board is rather
amazing. I think because they’ve been stable, I’ve been stable, and we’ve all been
through the training, it just brings so much more to the community and the dis-
trict. . . . I think it’s tremendously worth it.
The superintendent from District B remarked,
It [the cost] is probably negligible, especially when you consider that the training
would probably help them be a good board member, which would be very valu-
able to the whole fiscal picture when you get down to what the big money things
are with unions and finance and contracts and everything else. That could actually
save you money in the long run. But when everybody’s taking furlough days and
nobody’s had a raise, and you start sending board members to training, even if it’s
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 84
mandated, people start saying “Well, how come they get to do this?” . . . Yeah, I
think there could be some fiscal impact, but certainly not enough to make it not
worth doing.
Survey responses provided a split view on the question of mandating professional
development to school board members. Follow-up interviews also produced divided
results. While School Board Members A2 and B2 were skeptical of mandating training
for school board members, School Board Member B1 and Superintendents A and B were
supportive of the idea.
While all school board members surveyed asserted that the MIG training had pos-
itively affected their ability to govern effectively, they expressed mixed feelings about
mandating such training.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the finding based on the data collected through a qualita-
tive descriptive study and a detailed analysis of how the findings related to the research
questions and the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. This chapter identified three themes
that emerged from the findings as very important for effective public school district gov-
ernance: (a) Effective training program, cost of the training program, and collegial con-
nection emerged as reasons school board members decide to participate in a school board
training program; (b) the importance of school board members and superintendents
having clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities is a precursor for effective
governance; and (c) while all school board members surveyed asserted that the MIG
training had positively affected their ability to govern effectively, they expressed mixed
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 85
feelings about mandating such training. Data received from school board surveys and
interviews were triangulated with superintendent surveys and interviews, research litera-
ture, and the MIG Observation Protocol. These multiple data sources served to strengthen
validity of the finding that the MIG training positively influences the board’s ability to
adhere to best practices for effective governance. In addition, the data revealed the char-
acteristics needed by school board members for effective governance: taking collective
responsibility for their performance, developing and keeping focus on common vision,
differentiating between policy and management leadership, contributing to the effective-
ness of school board meetings, and understanding roles and responsibilities. The data
supported that MIG training had assisted school board members in governing effectively
and all school board members agreed that their colleagues would benefit from completing
the MIG training. Nevertheless, school board members and superintendents generally
agreed that mandating such professional development could be premature and could
result in a negative reaction.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 86
Chapter 5
Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
The current political, social, and financial health of the U.S. education system has
garnered much attention, given the dire needs of the states. The federal government’s role
has gradually grown more involved with state and local school districts than ever before
through legislation initiatives, changes to state and federal accountability measures,
assessments, and changes to federal funding. Public confidence continues to decline as
reports document that student achievement in the United States continues to fall behind
that of other countries. A declining economy has also placed greater demands on an
already strained educational funding. These broad issues provide a paradigm with which
local school boards must contend and for which they may not be prepared. Consequently,
school board members must understand how to navigate the growing complexities of the
job, along with new challenges never before seen.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether MIG training provided by the
CSBA impacted the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective governance.
With increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and advancements in
technology, school board members must understand their roles and responsibilities to
create an effective district environment. School board members must demonstrate profes-
sionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding student
achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 87
school board professional growth are vital characteristics for success. Three research
questions guided this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating MIG training impact school board governance?
The study warranted a qualitative descriptive approach to address the three
research questions. The advantage of a qualitative descriptive approach is that it uses data
to add depth, detail, and nuance to the research (Patton, 2002). As part of the data collec-
tion, school boards and superintendents completed separate surveys that presented fixed-
choice questions. Data from structured interviews with superintendents and school board
members from two districts added to the descriptiveness of the methodology. In addition,
members of the research cohort attended MIG training modules. The MIG Observation
Protocol was developed and used to document observations by the researchers. Surveys
and structured interviews with superintendents, research literature, and research data
regarding school district characteristics and performance assisted in triangulating data.
Qualitative tools were used to look for involvement of participants in data collection and
seek to build rapport and credibility with participants (Creswell, 2003). To this end, the
two instruments used in this study enlisted participation and self-reflective perspectives
of school board members and superintendents as part of the qualitative inquiry.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 88
All school board members and superintendents in public school districts in six
southern California counties were considered for participation: Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Only public elementary, unified, and
union school districts within the six target counties with ADA of 2,000–50,000 and with
a minimum 21-point growth in API over a 3-year span or that had reached 800 API
within the previous year and at least one school board member who had participated in
MIG training were selected. CSBA provided, in spreadsheet format, a list of participants
in their MIG training programs who had completed or were in progress of receiving the
MIG certificate. Purposeful sampling was used in selecting the counties and consequently
the school boards and superintendents to participate in the study. Purposeful sampling
focuses on selecting information-rich cases whose examination will illuminate the
questions under study (Patton, 2002). Using the list of participants in the MIG training
provided the sample population for this study. The participants, diversity, and density of
the districts in the six selected counties provided information-rich cases. In addition, the
selection of counties provided for probability-based random sampling. The six counties
contained potential participants who accounted for a segment of the population that was
either school board members or superintendents who had experienced MIG training. The
purpose of probability-based random sampling is generalization from the sample to a
population (Patton, 2002).
Summary of Findings
The study used the School Board Member Survey, Superintendent Survey, School
Board Member Structured Interview Protocol, Superintendent Structured Interview
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 89
Protocol, and the MIG Observation Protocol to collect data relevant to the three research
questions. This section summarizes the significant findings of the study.
Research Question 1: What Factors Impact the Decision of School Board Members
to Complete a School Board MIG Training Program?
This section addresses the reasons school board members decided to complete a
school board training program. School board members and superintendents placed value
on professional development that is needed to ensure that school board members are
prepared to be effective, specifically, MIG professional development provided by CSBA.
An effective training program, cost of the training program, and collegial connection
emerged as reasons school board members decided to participate in a school board
training program.
School board survey data indicated that these school board members viewed MIG
training provided by the CSBA as an effective training program for school board
members. In fact, during the interviews, the school board members and superintendents
encouraged other school board members to participate in the MIG training modules. The
school board members reported feeling better prepared for their job as a school board
member, attributing that preparation to the MIG modules; the superintendents reported an
improvement in the overall governance structure of their boards. For some school
districts, attending MIG professional development modules has become embedded in the
school board culture, and new school board members are informed that MIG training is
an expectation of all members.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 90
While school board members and superintendents reported encouraging other
school board members to participate in the MIG training modules, the cost of profes-
sional development has become relevant when deciding whether to attend MIG modules.
School board members indicated that the current economic crisis influenced their public
school district’s funding negatively related to decisions to participate in the MIG training
modules. Some school board members expressed concern about the impression held by
their constituents, related to paying for professional development during a time in which
school districts are laying off staff. Equally important were school board members and
superintendents who indicated that the benefits of the MIG program were greater than the
cost.
Learning from other school board members during MIG training modules was a
motivating factor that school board members cited repeatedly during interviews. They
reported that they benefited from the group discussions, one-on-one, pair share, collegi-
ality, and relationships that were developed between school board members and superin-
tendents. For these reasons, online courses were not as appealing or seen as a motivating
factor to get more school board members to participate in MIG training.
School board members’ ability to embed the expectations of MIG professional
development within a school board describes the structural frame by Bolman and Deal
(2008) discussed in Chapter 2. Bolman and Deal (2008) described the structural frame, in
part, as a team’s ability to become cohesive, reach consensus, set strategies, and become
well defined, with clear-cut responsibilities. This is particularly true as new school boards
are created through elections; it is important that everyone understand the school board
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 91
structure and expectations (i.e., well-defined responsibilities). In addition, survey results
and interviews supported the literature (Bolman & Deal, 2008) that performance by a
small group depends heavily on structure and group process. In the training sessions,
school board participants are placed in several groups where they develop informal social
network, thereby creating informal bonds among members. This in turn grows into
cohesive groups with defined roles.
Research Question 2: Does MIG Training Encourage and Equip School Board
Members to Exhibit the Behaviors of Effective Governance?
School board member surveys and interviews, along with corroborating evidence
by superintendents and the MIG Observation Protocol, confirmed that MIG training
encourages and equips school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective govern-
ance. A theme that surfaced from the data was the importance of school board members
and superintendents having clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Under-
standing roles and responsibility is a precursor to effective governance.
An examination of the school board member survey data revealed that all
responding school board members agreed that the MIG training had positively impacted
their ability to govern effectively. A follow-up survey question asked school board
members whether the MIG training had allowed them to contribute to the effectiveness of
their school board meetings. All but one of the responding school board members
attributed their effectiveness in governance to the MIG training. In addition, both super-
intendents responded strongly agree/agree to five of the first six questions that addressed
the MIG training and its positive impact on school board governance. Both
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 92
superintendents agreed that school board members who are MIG trained demonstrate an
increased focus on student achievement during school board meetings, encourage their
fellow school board members to consistently use data to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement, understand the importance of aligning the decision-
making process to the district’s vision and goals, develop a more collaborative
relationship with their fellow school board members, and accept the majority decision of
the school board even if they hold the minority view.
School board members recognizing their roles and responsibilities was considered
critical in effective school governance. School board members and superintendents who
were interviewed identified the module that addresses roles and responsibilities as the
first MIG training module in which any school board member should enroll. This MIG
module assists school board members to set clear expectations for their job as a school
board member, set boundaries between board members and superintendents, clear mis-
conception of roles, and facilitate school board discussions.
School board member survey responses indicated alignment between the condi-
tions identified by The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000) in Chapter 2 for effective gov-
ernance and what board members had learned in MIG training modules. School board
members their ability to build an organizational system, participate in staff development,
provide support for school sites through data and information, and integrate leadership to
the MIG training. School board surveys and interviews reflected school board members’
understanding of the conditions for effective governance after they were MIG trained.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 93
Research Question 3: In What Ways Could Mandating MIG Training Impact
School Board Governance?
School board member and superintendent surveys and interview data substanti-
ated that MIG training had assisted school board members to govern effectively. School
board members gave credit to the MIG training modules for assisting them in learning
their roles and responsibilities and teaching them how to govern effectively. However,
school board member and superintendent surveys and interviews revealed that mandating
the MIG professional development may be met with a negative reaction.
One school board member rebuffed the idea of a mandate; another school board
member cited the financial impact that this type of mandate would have on local school
districts. One school board member commented on the current political implications that
this type of mandate would bring, given the current financial crisis faced by school
districts in California. Some school board members questioned the idea of using public
funds for professional development while school districts draft plans to lay off staff and
take on furlough days.
However, other school board members and superintendents considered profes-
sional development, as provided by the MIG training, to be beneficial and worth the
expenditure, even in this economic climate. The school board members and
superintendents agreed that the knowledge gained from the MIG training, regarding
finance, human resources, and governance, prepares school board members to be more
effective. Participating in training, in turn, saves districts in finances and resources as
better decisions are made. These school board members and superintendents agreed that
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 94
the cost of the training alone was not enough to discourage or keep school board
members from participating. Rather, they expressed that school board members’ own
determination in desiring to be trained was all that was needed.
The CSBA (2007) framework for Effective Governance supports the findings for
Research Question 3. The CSBA advocates that school board members concentrate on
their job areas and provides professional governance standards. The CSBA professional
standards are aligned to the various job areas of school board members to assist them
with daily tasks of school governance. School board members learn about roles and
responsibilities, finance and facilities, human resources, and setting district’s direction—
all job functions of school board members.
Conclusions
The findings of this study bring to light factors that influence school board
members to complete a school board training program. Participating school board
members and superintendents placed value on professional development. The findings
support that the MIG training provides support and skills for school board members to
demonstrate effective governance behavior. Effective training program, cost of the
training program and collegial connection emerged as reasons school board members had
decided to participate in the MIG school board training program. Understanding roles and
responsibility surfaced as a precursor of effective school board governance. Data under-
scored the importance of school board members and superintendents having clear under-
standing of their roles and responsibilities. School board member and superintendent
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 95
surveys revealed that mandating professional development, such as MIG training, may be
premature and may produce a negative reaction.
The findings verify that the MIG training provides characteristics needed by
school board members for effective governance: taking collective responsibility for their
performance, developing and/or keeping focus on common vision, differentiating
between policy and management leadership, contributing to the effectiveness of school
board meetings, and understanding roles and responsibilities.
Implications for Practice
The finding and conclusions presented in this study may provide awareness and
guidance to school board members and superintendents who are entrusted with the
responsibility of leading local school districts to increase student achievement while
contending with various difficult challenges. This study cites specific research-based
responsibilities and characteristics in defining effective school board governance.
School Board Member Responsibilities and Practices
Individual school board members should recognize their position within the board
and understand that the individual alone does not constitute a school board. Rather, the
collective group can effect change. This means that there is a need to collaborate and
share a sense of norms, values, and beliefs to develop and promote common goals.
School board members should take collective responsibility for their performance. The
four frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008) can assist school board members to
view or shift between frames, allowing them to solve policy leadership problems effi-
ciently.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 96
It is necessary for school board members and superintendents to work together to
develop a common vision for effective governance. School board members must ensure
that they identify and possess conditions for effective governance within their board, such
as (a) aligning the decision-making process to the district’s vision and goals,
(b) developing a more collaborative relationship with fellow school board members,
(c) constructively accepting the majority decision even if they hold the minority view,
(d) contributing to the effectiveness of their school board meetings, and (e) participating
in ongoing professional development. These conditions are parallel to the conditions out-
lined by The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000) for effective governance change:
(a) emphasis on building a human organizational system, (b) ability to create and sustain
initiatives, (c) staff development, and (d) support for school sites through data and infor-
mation.
School board members need to know the context in which they serve. Board
members must be able to understand their capacity, as school board members, and their
functionality. Essentially, school board members must be able to differentiate between
policy and management leadership. The CSBA (2007a) developed an Effective Govern-
ance System that illustrates CSBA’s insights into effective governance: (a) setting the
district’s direction, (b) student learning and achievement, (c) finance and facilities,
(d) human resources, (e) policy and judicial review, (f) collective bargaining, and
(g) community relations and advocacy. School boards focus on these job areas for effec-
tive district governance.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 97
School board members can contribute to the effectiveness of school board
meetings only if they fully understand their roles and responsibilities. CSBA (2007b)
developed basic professional governance standards, including understanding distinctions
between board and staff roles, refraining from performing management functions that are
the responsibility of the superintendent and staff, and understanding that authority rests
with the board as a whole and not with individuals. The roles and responsibility standard
surfaced as the initial and foremost criterion for effective governance.
Superintendents
Superintendents will develop an effective governance structure if they participate
in professional development alongside their school board members. This will assist in
developing a relationship between school board members and superintendent and lead to
clarification of questions during training. In addition, it is important to consider senior
cabinet staff to participate in the same professional development to assist in collaboration
and communication.
It is important for superintendents to facilitate school board training. School board
members identified superintendent referrals and school board culture as the primary
reasons for attending professional development. Consequently, superintendents should set
clear expectations and encourage and organize school board members to participate in
professional development. This can be accomplished through modeling. Superintendents
can build leadership capacity, model characteristics of shared beliefs and vision, demon-
strate a commitment to professional development, and facilitate development of district
culture.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 98
Professional Organizations That Promote Development for School Board Members
It is important to note that school board members and superintendents agreed that
professional development training for school board members is more meaningful in
person than in online courses. This information can serve the professional community as
they embark on developing professional development programs that target district leader-
ship. In-person professional development structure that includes collaboration, pair-share
discussions, and group projects embedded in the training is preferred. Reportedly, online
courses diminish the collaborative process, the development of relationships, and learning
from one another.
There were mixed opinions among participants regarding whether cost should be
a determining factor in professional development of school board members. There may
be a concern, on behalf of school board members, that their constituents may see the
expense of such professional development training as unreasonable, given the fiscal crisis
that many school districts are experiencing. Consequently, professional development
designers may be interested in providing an incentive, such as college credit, for profes-
sional development to induce more participants.
It is evident that the strongest advocacy for participating in school board profes-
sional development comes from other school board members and superintendents. Pro-
fessional organizations should continue to provide effective professional development
and be responsive to recommendations made by their consumers. Initiating and sustaining
school board training during a fiscal crisis is dependent on consumers of their product.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 99
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study contribute to the literature on public school board
training and effective school governance. With the exception of a few key research
studies, research in this area is limited and fragmented. Despite the limitations of the
current study, this research contributes to the understanding of public school board
governance. The findings also indicated areas for future research:
1. A study could investigate the effect of states that have made the transition from
not mandating school board training to mandating school board training. A study could
examine data regarding governance effectiveness between school board and superinten-
dent before and after the mandate.
2. Future research could focus on the effectiveness of the MIG training between
governing boards that have some of their school board members trained, compared to
governing boards that have all of their school board members trained. This research could
determine whether there is a difference in how school board members and superinten-
dents identify the effectiveness of their boards.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 100
References
Achieve Inc. (2011). Closing the expectations gap 2011: Sixth annual 50-state progress
report. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2011
Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. (2009). Conceptions, measurement, and application of edu-
cational adequacy and equal educational opportunity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider,
D. N. Plank, & T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp.
438-452). New York, NY: Routledge.
Baker, E. L., O’Neil, H. F., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for
performance-based assessment. American Psychologist, 48, 1210-1218.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1210
Bell, S. B., & Kozlowski, W. J. S. (2010). Work teams. Retrieved from http://
digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/434
Bianchi, B. A. (2003, October). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Fore-
cast, 1(3), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/
forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. Washington,
DC: Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 101
Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., Eide, R. E., Kuzin, A., & Nayfack, B. M. (2008). The
role of economics in education policy research. In H. F. Ladd & E. B. Fiske
(Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 23-41). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Brewer, D. J., & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the “crazy quilt”: Educational governance
in California. Sacramento, CA: Institute of Research on Education Policy &
Practice.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice.
Educational Policy, 17, 317-342. doi:10.1177/0895904803017003002
California School Board Association. (2006). CSBA effective governance system.
Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/link.aspx?_id=
B3C618F11F6843CC87EC37097292A8E1&_z=z
California School Board Association. (2007a). CSBA Program Information. Retrieved
from http://www.csba.org/~/link.aspx?_id=5DED5209D0524D97
ACF9531457C352DA&_z=z
California School Board Association. (2007b). School board leadership: The role and
function of California’s school boards. Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/
media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx
California School Board Association. (2012). CSBA leadership development 2012
[brochure]. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Campbell, W. D., & Green, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in
the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391-395.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 102
Chub, E. J., & Moe, M. T. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Creswell, W. J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n02/school-
board.html
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 67-73.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, N. L., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, W. M., McCloud, A. B., &
Usdan, D. M. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team.
Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 53-59.
Duncan. A. (2010, April 14). Testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
regarding the FY 2011 education budget. Retrieved from http://www.ed gov/
news/speeches/secretary-arne-duncans-testimony-senate-appropriations-
subcommittee
Earley, P. M. (1994). Goals 2000 Educate America Act: Implications for teacher edu-
cators. New York, NY: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
EdSource. (1997). Categorical aid: Special dollars for special purposes. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_categorical.html
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 103
EdSource. (2005). School accountability under NCLB: Ambitious goals and competing
systems. Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_NCLB8-05.html
EdSource. (2009). The new federal education policies: California’s challenge. Retrieved
from http://www.edsource.org/pub_new-fed-policies.html
EdSource. (2010). California K–12 education system: Schools, districts, and the state.
Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/sys_edsystem.html
Education Data Partnership (2012). District Reports, District B. Retrieved from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#
!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?tab=0&level=06&ReportNumber=1
6&County=19&fyr=1011&District=64287
Feuerstein, A. (2002). Elections, voting, and democracy in local district governance.
Educational Policy, 16(1), 15-36. doi:10.1177/0895904802016001002
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Gallup Poll. (2011). Near record-low confidence in U.S. public schools. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148724/Near-Record-Low-Confidence-Public-
Schools.aspx
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Sacramento, CA: Insti-
tute for Research on Education Policy & Practice.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public
organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Admin-
istration Research, 20, 601-627. doi:10.1093/jopart/mup043
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 104
Hess, M. F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century. Washington, DC:
National School Boards Association.
Hess, M. F. (2010). Weighing the case for school boards: Today and tomorrow. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 91(6), 15-19.
H.R. 1804. Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000, April). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School
boards/superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences
in student achievement. zpaper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.
Johnson, N., Koulish, J., & Oliff, P. (2009). Most states are cutting education. Retrieved
from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2220
Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Williams, E. (2011). An update on state budget cuts: At least 46
states have imposed cuts that hurt vulnerable residents and the economy. Re-
trieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214
Joint Committee on Education. (2009). A study of urban school governance: A report
prepared for the General Assembly. Retrieved from http://www.senate.mo.gov/
jced/Urban%20School%20Governance%20Report%202009.pdf
Judge, A. T., Ilies, R., Bono, E. J., & Gerhardt, W. M. (2002). Personality and leadership:
A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-
780. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 105
Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2004). The 21st century at work: Forces shaping the
future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No
Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Re-
searcher, 34(8), 3-13.
Kirst, A. M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan,
75, 378-381.
Kirst, A. M. (2002). Mayoral influence, new regimes, and public school governance. Re-
trieved from http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rr49.pdf
Kozlowski, W. J. S., & Ilgen, R. D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups
and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Lake, R., & Hill, P. (2009). Performance management in portfolio school districts. Re-
trieved from http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/
pub_dscr_portfperf_aug09.pdf
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their Role and effectiveness in rela-
tion to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research 72, 229-
278.
McKinsey & Company. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in Amer-
ica’s schools. Retrieved from http://www.partnersinschools.org/resources/
McKinsey%20&%20Co.%20Report.pdf
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 106
Miller, D. A., & Warren, L. K. (2009). Comparative indicators of education in the United
States and other G-8 Countries: 2009. Washington, DC.: Institute of Education
Sciences.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Findings and
recommendations. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index
.html
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author.
O’Day, J., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S.
Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp.
250-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Oliff, P., & Leachman, M. (2011). New school year brings steep cuts in state funding for
schools. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3569
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Education at a
glance 2010: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/
52/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petronis, J., Hall, R., & Pierson, M. (1996). Mandatory school board training: An idea
whose time has come? Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019 b/80/14/bf/a3.pdf. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED400625)
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 107
Polikoff, M. S., Porter, C. A., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assess-
ments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational
Research Journal, 48, 965-995. doi:10.3102/0002831211410684
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The
new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
doi:10.3102/0013189X11405038
Roberts, L. K., & Sampson, M. P. (2011). School board member professional develop-
ment and effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational
Management, 25, 701-713.
Saatcioglu, A., Moore, S., Sargut, G., & Bajaj, A. (2011). The role of school board social
capital in district governance: Effects on financial and academic outcomes. Lead-
ership and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 1-42.
Salamon, L. M. (1991). Overview: Why human capital? Why now? In D. Hornbeck &
L. M. Salamon (Eds.), Human capital and America’s future (pp. 1-28). Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sztajn, P., Marrongelle, K., & Smith, P. (2012). Supporting implementation of the
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Recommendations for profes-
sional development. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, College of
Education.
Timar, B. T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Pea-
body Journal of Education, 78, 177-200.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 108
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan announces
winners of competition to improve student assessments. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-duncan-announces-
winners-competition-improve-student-asse
WestEd. (2001). Leading in difficult times: Are urban school boards up to the task? Re-
trieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/pt-03-01.pdf
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 109
Appendix A
Board Member Survey
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 110
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 111
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 112
APPENDIX B
Superintendent Survey
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 113
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 114
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 115
Appendix C
Recruitment Letters
Date ____________________
Dear__________________________,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet. You
have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact the Masters
in Governance training has on the ability of school board members to exhibit characteristics associated with
effective board governance. This study may serve as a source for best practices for superintendents who
strive to strengthen the effective governance of their board members through training designed to further
support their understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
My name is ___________________________, and I am part of a thematic research team under the direc-
tion and guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. Your district has been identified as a successful district in which at least one board
member has completed the Masters in Governance training offered by the California School Boards Asso-
ciation. Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the superintendent survey and return
it in the self- addressed stamped envelope. We would also appreciate your assistance in facilitating the
process of your board members in completing the survey. A copy of the school board survey is enclosed for
your review.
Your participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance,
for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Sergio Canal Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
[phone number] (818) 802-4769
I have read this recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to
my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.
________________________________________________________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 116
Date________________
Dear_______________________________,
I would like to congratulate your school district for being identified as a successful district in which at least
one board member has completed the Masters in Governance training program offered by the California
School Boards Association. My name is __________________, and I am a doctoral student from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California conducting a research study under the
guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact the
Masters in Governance training has on the ability of school board members to exhibit characteristics asso-
ciated with effective board governance. It is my hope that this study will serve as a resource of best prac-
tices for school board members who strive to govern effectively. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time
out of your busy schedule to review and complete the information enclosed in this packet.
Your participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance,
for your time and assistance.
Respectfully,
Sergio Canal Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
[phone number] (818) 802-4769
I have read this board member recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask ques-
tions. I consent to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits
______________________________________________________________________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 117
Appendix D
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE ON
SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at the Uni-
versity of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one of the six south-
ern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in
completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. It is recommended
that you read the information below prior to consenting to participate in this study.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association (CSBA)-
Masters in Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and
advancements in technology, school board members need to understand their roles and responsi-
bilities in order to create an effective district environment. School board members must
demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board
professional growth are vital characteristics for success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists
of 21 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance.
You may be asked to participate in a 30- to 60-minute interview at a time and place convenient to
you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission and include
questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the interview without
audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.
POTENTIAL RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts that you
may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the question.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 118
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participation may
add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG training on effec-
tive governance practices. These findings will benefit school board members who strive to
improve conditions that lead to effective governance.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and confidential-
ity. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only the researcher and
the dissertation committee members will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored in a secure location in the investigator’s office and a password protected com-
puter.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern Califor-
nia’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any time
without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want
to answer and still remain in the study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Univer-
sity Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272 or uprib@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Sergio Canal
at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at mescalan@usc.edu.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 119
Appendix E
MIG Observation Protocol
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 120
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 121
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS: MIG TRAINING 122
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The California School Board Association’s (CSBA) Professional Governance Standards, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s framework for leadership and management, and the Lighthouse Inquiry of the Iowa Association of School Boards provided the framework to understand the impact of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training provided by the CSBA on school board leadership and practice. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the MIG training affects a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective governance. A central component of the study was to determine what characteristics effective school boards exemplify. Only public elementary, unified, and union school districts in six counties in southern California (average daily attendance 2,000–50,000) with a demonstrated minimum 21-point growth in the Academic Performance Index (API) over a 3-year span or 800 API in the previous and who had at least one school board member who had participated in MIG training were considered. Surveys and structured interviews of school board members and superintendents, the MIG Observation Protocol, and research data regarding school district characteristics and performance assisted in triangulating the data. Findings indicated that the MIG training provides school board members with best practices for effective governance. School board members who received MIG training exhibited a greater awareness of their roles and responsibilities, increased focus on student achievement, and alignment of decision-making processes to the district’s vision and goals. This study highlights the significance of professional development for the local schoolhouse governing board and the characteristics of effective school board governance.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership
PDF
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
School board training: impact on governance and achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Canal, Sergio Alfredo
(author)
Core Title
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/05/2013
Defense Date
02/22/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
California school boards,CSBA,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Livingston, Cynthia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sacanal190@bpusd.net,sergiocanal@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-223196
Unique identifier
UC11293540
Identifier
usctheses-c3-223196 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CanalSergi-1458.pdf
Dmrecord
223196
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Canal, Sergio Alfredo
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
California school boards
CSBA
Masters in governance
professional development
Training