University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

(USC Thesis Other)

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

School Board and Superintendent Relationships and How They Promote Student
Achievement in California’s Urban Districts

By

Mark Sims

______________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2016

1
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my family for their support and insistence over the
course of this dissertation. I also want to dedicate this to my mother who has been a constant
role model for me. Finally, my study and this dissertation is dedicated to my father who would
have been so proud but who is no longer with us.

2
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Rudy Castruita,
dissertation chair, Dr. Pedro Garcia, and Dr. John Roach for their unwavering patience, support,
understanding, and quiet encouragement through this process. Your words and actions have
been more valuable than you know.
I would also like to thank Ms. Connie Park, Ms. Lilian Torres, and Ms. Chrissy Yochum
for their role during the process. Thank you for creating time. I also wish to thank Dr. Kent
Bechler, Mrs. Lynn Carmen Day, Dr. Clay Hess, Dr. Greg Plutko, and Mr. Dave Walesiak for
their thoughts, feedback, and for providing an example from which to practice over the last
twenty-five years. Thank you to Mr. Michael LeDuc for being a father, friend, colleague, and
for knowing how to say what needs to be said.
Finally, thank you to all the superintendents I have served during my twenty-five years in
education. Each of you has been a part of this process. Thank you to the superintendents and
board members who participated in this study. Your wisdom will be of assistance to many in the
future.

3
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table of Contents

List of Tables 6
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 18
Research Questions 18
Importance of the Study 19
Limitations of the Study 19
Delimitations of the Study 20
Definition of Terms 20
Organization of the Study 22
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 24
Purpose of the Study 24
Conceptual Framework of the Study 24
Structural Frame 25
Human Resource Frame 27
Political Frame 28
The Historical Context of the Superintendent and School Board 30
Historical Context of the Superintendent 31
Historical Context of School Board 32
Urban School Districts 33
Characteristics of Urban Districts 34
Challenges of Urban Districts 34
Conflict 35
Theories of Conflict and Power 35
Managing Conflict and Power 37
Strategies and Structures of Communication 39
Strategies and Structures to Define Roles 41
Strategies and Structures to Establish Vision 42
Superintendent-School Board Interactions that Increase Student Achievement 43
Structures 45
Collaboration 46
Relationship Strategies that Work Towards Student Achievement 48
Evaluating Relationships 50
Limitations of the Research 51
Summary 53
Chapter Three: Methodology 56
Research Questions 56
Method of the Study 57
Sample and Population 59
Quantitative Data Collection Procedures 60
4
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Qualitative Data Collection Procedures 60
Process of Constructing the Interview Protocol 61
Interviews 61
Approach to Capturing Data for Interviews 62
Process for Gaining Consent 63
Validity and Reliability 63
Ethics 64
Summary 65
Chapter Four: Findings 66
Background 66
Demographics of Survey Participants 68
Age, Gender, Tenure of Survey Participants 68
Number of Districts Served 70
Grade Levels of District Served 71
Demographics of School Districts 71
Student Enrollment 73
District Academic Achievement 74
Significant Subgroups Academic Achievement 75
District Graduation Rates 75
District SAT and ACT Results 77
Demographics of Interview Participants 78
Demographics of Superintendents 78
Demographics of Board Members 78
Research Questions 78
Purpose of the Study 79
Coding of the Data 79
Findings 81
Research Question #1 81
Frequent Communication 81
No Surprises 85
Managing Conflict 88
Research Question #2 93
Strategic Planning Sessions 96
Creating a Culture of Success by Communicating a Vision 100
Establishing Trust Through Communication 103
Establishing the Role of the School Board 105
Research Question #3 108
Work to Know the School Board 108
Formalizing Protocols 111
Communication Strategies 114
Utilizing the Board President 118
Research Question #4 123
Formal Evaluation 124
Ongoing Feedback 126
Summary 127
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications 129
5
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Introduction 129
Purpose of the Study 130
Research Questions 130
Methodology 130
Results and Findings 131
Research Question #1 131
Frequent Communication 132
No Surprises 133
Managing Conflict 133
Research Question #2 134
Strategic Planning 134
Creating A Culture of Success by Communicating a Vision 134
Establishing Trust Through Communication 135
Establishing the Role of the Board 135
Research Question #3 136
Know the Board 136
Formalizing Protocols 137
Communication Strategies 137
Utilizing the Board President 138
Research Question #4 138
Formal Evaluation 138
Ongoing Feedback 139
Implications of the Study 139
Communication Strategies 139
Know the Board 140
Board Roles 141
Managing Conflict 141
Recommendations for Future Research 142
Concluding Remarks 143
References 145
Appendix A: Interview Cover Sheet 154
Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Superintendents 155
Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Board Members 156
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey 157

6
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

List of Tables
Table 1: Number of years serving as a superintendent 70
Table 2: Number of districts served 71
Table 3: Grade level of districts served 72
Table 4: Mean district enrollment and demographics 74
Table 5: Mean state enrollment demographics 74
Table 6: Mean API data 75
Table 7: Mean API for significant subgroups 76
Table 8: Mean graduation rates 76
Table 9: Mean SAT and ACT results 77
Table 10: Key characteristics for building relationships 83
Table 11: Experiences shaping a positive relationship 84
Table 12: Frequency of communication 86
Table 13: Most challenging experiences shaping a relationship 88
Table 14: How do you manage conflict 90
Table 15: The school board respects and values my position 95
Table 16: Study session focus on CCSS 97
Table 17: Using consultants for strategic planning 98
Table 18: Assisting in setting an instructional vision 99
Table 19: Conversations on common core (CCSS) 101
Table 20: Defining board roles 105
Table 21: Rank order of communication strategies 116
Table 22: Different relationship with the board president 119
7
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 23: Frequency of communication with board president 121
Table 24: How do you evaluate your relationship 125

8
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Abstract

The superintendency in urban districts remains a challenging leadership position. Data on the
tenure of superintendents in urban districts reflects the need to understand relationships with the
school board as urban superintendents serve less time in their position. The average length of
tenure, according to recent data from the Council of Great City Schools found the average length
of tenure for current superintendents in urban districts is 3.18 years, down from 3.64 years four
years ago (Freedburg, 2014). The purpose of this study was to identify strategies successful
superintendents use to build positive relationships with their board that in turn promote student
achievement. A mixed method approach was utilized for the study. Twenty-five
superintendents across California participated in the quantitative survey portion of the study,
with four superintendents and four board members participating in qualitative interviews. Board
members interviewed had either served as the Board President or as the longest tenured member
of the school board. A unique purposeful sampling method was applied to selecting qualitative
participants in order to gain insight from successful superintendents and school board members.
Findings from the study indicated successful superintendents employ strategies to develop
effective relationships with their school board and establish structures to guide relationships and
improve student achievement. This study helped further the research on strategies to build
successful relationships and create systems to assist superintendents in building relationships
with their school board.

9
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction

The relationship between the superintendent and the school board has been examined as
far back as 1941 with Heyman Allen’s article, “Board-Superintendent Relationships” (Allman,
1941). The role and relationship of superintendent to school board should be professional and
built on trust to best serve the common good of the community (Allman, 1941). For the last
thirty years, the role of the superintendent and the school board has evolved. What was once a
focus on managing operations and setting policy, has changed to a focus on instructional
outcomes. The superintendent’s role, as well as that of the board of education, has changed to
place an emphasis on teaching and learning (Moffett, 2011). In the changing era of
accountability, meeting targets for student achievement has become a focus for school boards
and superintendents. Ever since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, emphasis has been
placed on improving the effectiveness of the school and student achievement (Morgan &
Peterson, 2002).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, effectively changed the role of the
superintendent due to the accountability mandates associated with NCLB (Linn, 2003). The role
of the superintendent and school boards has become more complex with the advent of those
mandates including Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on the federal level and Academic
Performance Index (API) on the state level (California Department of Education, 2014). NCLB
required districts and schools to educate all students and ensure they are progressing towards
proficiency in English Language Arts and mathematics (California Department of Education,
2014). API requires California districts and schools to meet academic performance and growth
targets on state assessments as determined by the California Department of Education (California
10
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Department of Education, 2014). The bureaucratic accountability associated with NCLB
focused school achievement on student outcomes with pressure to meet federal and state
accountability measures or otherwise suffer sanctions as a district. Problems of NCLB will
become the problems of superintendents and those responsible for reaching accountability targets
(Elmore, 2003). It is the superintendent who must lead the challenges of raising student
achievement and meet the accountability targets.
Awareness of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the changes in assessment and
accountability are looming. The Council of Great City Schools suggests the need for
superintendent and school board leadership in their 2013 report. The nation’s large urban
districts must devise and execute a plan to strengthen public awareness and support for the
common core as well as the new assessments (Council of Great City Schools, 2013).
The work of raising student achievement in a district cannot be done in isolation. The
nature of the superintendent-school board relationship has changed. Working together is
increasingly important and the example for cooperation should come from the relationship of the
superintendent and the school board (Dawson & Quinn, 2000). Now more than ever, positive
relationships between the two parties are important as a changing testing and accountability
system based on the Common Core State Standards is approaching. Not only has the
superintendent’s role changed, so has the role of the school board. The school board has
transformed from relying on the professional superintendent for educational decisions and policy
making to a focus on improving academic achievement for all students (Land, 2002).
School boards have been part of the local educational system as far back as the 1800’s.
The role, in the more modern era, has been traditionally that of setting policy and working with
operational issues of the district (Education Writers Association Special Report, 2003). As with
11
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

superintendents, NCLB initially changed the superintendent’s role and now common core has
forced changes upon boards from policy making to instructional improvement. School boards
have traditionally been policy driven; however, for student achievement to improve, they must
be goal driven to improve student achievement (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). This shift requires
a changing role that the superintendent should communicate to the board. For positive
interactions to exist, relationships and effective communication skills must be developed by the
superintendent (Davis, 1998). Roles for the district must be clear and explicit, a challenge in the
urban setting. When school boards know their role, how they are to function, and the focus of
their duties, effective school board governance can be achieved (Eadie, 2003). In this case,
effective governance is at work for the district to increase student achievement.
As accountability and student achievement continue to be part of public education,
finding ways to embrace the accountability measures and increase superintendent and school
board collaboration towards student achievement becomes increasingly important. This is
particularly important in urban settings where positive relationships between school boards and
superintendents have traditionally been hard to flourish.
Urban districts have a number of differences from their suburban or rural counterparts.
One such difference is the size of the student population. Urban school districts are typically
defined as having student populations of over 25,000 students (Hess, 2002). They also serve
higher populations of students of poverty and learners of languages other than English. They are
larger and often contain political and advocacy groups that pull school goals in different
directions. Board membership in urban settings have created tensions as they are forced to serve
multiple individuals (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). School boards in urban districts may also have an
increased number of board members creating additional dynamics that occur in larger groups.
12
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

These larger numbers may lead to increased issues and problems with stability. Urban districts
with larger boards have greater conflicts, especially during election years, as challenges to
authority and the status quo occur (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Board instability then is a potential
problem within the urban district where changes to the school board can be frequent. This leads
to a greater importance of relationship building by the superintendent as the impact can manifest
in student achievement. The instability of the board brought on by micromanagement, political
agendas, and the inability to build relationships with the superintendent can lead to lower student
achievement (National School Boards Association, 1999).
The relationship of board members with one another also plays a key role in student
success. In a study of six urban school districts who implemented plans to increase board
member relationships, research found that student’s academic achievement had increased (Land,
2002). In concert with relationships, the school board should operate as a singular group.
Further, the board must function as an effective unit and partner in collaboration with the
superintendent to improve student academic achievement (Gomes, 2011). The combination of
relationships and unity may assist the board in helping a school district improve academic
achievement.
With increased positive relationships amongst board members, a strong united vision may
assist the board in maintaining student focus. The School Board’s behavior and actions should
reflect professional demeanor that models the district’s vision and mission for student
achievement (California School Boards Association, 2007). Given the diversity of the urban
population, responsibilities to that population may cause board members to act on their own
agenda, breaking down the district purpose rather than having one collective voice. A board of
one mind and unity assists districts in achieving their goals. Effective school boards understand
13
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

they have a role and they must behave in a manner that demonstrates leadership and cohesion
(Smoley, 1999).
The implications of school board and superintendents working together on positive
relationships has an impact on student achievement. Superintendents, when they work to create
positive relationships with school boards, may help improve student achievement (Estes, 1979).
Additionally, research indicates that school boards and superintendents play an important role in
increasing student academic achievement (Marzano & Waters, 2009). The superintendent as
instructional leader of the district and the school board as the group viewed as overseeing policy
must look to develop positive relationships in order to meet the achievement needs of students in
their district. Policies that focus on student achievement should be at the forefront. This is a
difficult task in urban districts. Maintaining student achievement in urban districts is primarily
achieved through the relationship of the school board and superintendent (Polacheck, 2006).
The superintendent is the leader of a school district. The superintendent must be an
educational leader as well as directly monitor instruction (Eadie, 2008). They create the vision
and lead the way for district improvement. Superintendents function as the visionaries, who
push for a greater focus on teaching and learning providing direct support for instructional
leadership (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The focus on teaching and learning must also occur
with the school board. The superintendent has the responsibility to build the capacity to guide
the school board’s thinking towards a focus on student achievement. Therefore, it is primarily
the responsibility of the superintendent to work to manage and build relationships with the
school board. This is stated in Standard Two developed by the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA). The superintendent should develop procedures for working with the
board and define their roles and relationships (American Association of School Administrators,
14
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

1993).
Research suggests school board and superintendent relationships may lead to increased
student achievement, a difficult task in urban districts. The literature, focused on district
leadership, indicates that the superintendent - school board relationship has a significant impact
on the student achievement (Peterson & Fusarelli, 2001). The building of positive relationships is
especially important in urban districts where a larger proportion of underserved students reside
and where student achievement is behind that of their suburban counterparts. In essence, for
effective district leadership, superintendents must work to build positive relationships with their
board (Watkins, 2003).
Developing positive relationships with board members fostered productive work leading
to increased organizational learning (Orr, 2006). Research suggests Board and Superintendent
relationships may lead to increases in student achievement. The work of the board as well as the
superintendent is vital to raising student achievement in urban districts. To build the needed
relationships to raise achievement, the superintendent should be cognizant of the necessary
leadership structures and demonstrate the characteristics necessary for the work to occur.
The role of superintendent requires a variety of leadership talents to manage district
responsibilities. In addition, strong leadership is necessary for making progress in raising
student achievement. For the instructional leaders of the district, creating a culture for
improvement is a necessary skill. The American Association of School Administrators identified
eight competencies of the superintendency including leadership and district culture (American
Association of School Administrators, 1993). This is supported by the work of Estes (1979),
who states there are qualities and characteristics that create positive superintendent and board
relationships.
15
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Given that leadership competencies are met, the superintendent may work on creating the
positive relationships necessary for student achievement. He or she must firmly establish the
role they serve in moving achievement forward and the structural frame of Bolman and Deal
(2008) may assist them in doing so. These frames will be discussed in later sections.
The role of the superintendent as the instructional leaders is a crucial factor in the success
of a district meeting student’s academic needs (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000). Improving
achievement may require a change in district practice. To create changes in practice and
message that change district-wide, positive relationships with the school board are required. A
superintendent’s success in implementing change is built on their ability to build and establish a
positive relationship with board members (Fusarelli, 2006). Superintendents, when they work to
create positive relationships with school boards, can help improve student achievement (Estes,
1979).
One could not expect a superintendent-school board relationship to be successful
immediately upon the superintendent assuming the district’s leadership role. As stated earlier,
leadership competencies must be understood and applying those competencies successfully must
occur. Positive relationships with school board members do not happen overnight; rather, they
are cultivated and developed over time (Carlson, 2010). For this to happen, superintendents
should look to skillfully work with their board. Finally, Carlson (2010) suggests three areas that
positively impact superintendent and board relationships: treating all board members equally,
allowing time for board members to discuss items, and frequent communication (Carlson, 2010).
The concepts stated by Carlson (2010) will be explored in greater detail in the study, primarily,
the strategies used to develop relationships and how effective superintendents cultivate these
relationships to increase student achievement.
16
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Statement of the Problem

The issue of accountability will remain a part of public education as districts look to
increase student achievement. In addition, parents and communities want to ensure their
children are prepared for college and career. The responsibility for ensuring students are
prepared for their future is placed first with the superintendent and then the school board
(Education Writers Association Special Report, 2003).
Research suggests that a poor or dysfunctional relationship between the school board and
superintendent may have a detrimental effect on school improvement. Poor relationships
between the school board and superintendent had an adverse effect on student achievement and
district improvement (Peterson & Fusarelli, 2001). In urban districts, this relationship is often
strained. This is a problem as urban districts have difficulties in meeting student achievement
targets set forth by accountability measures. Currently, there lacks an abundance of research on
superintendent-board relationships focusing on promoting student achievement. A problem also
exists as districts move to implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the
unknown accountability associated with student achievement in the CCSS era.
As districts look to implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), building a
foundation for successful implementation and student achievement is necessary. As California
works to adjust to a new and not yet fully understood system of accountability, superintendents
and school boards might look to find ways to ensure productive relationships in order to promote
student achievement. Given the inherent politics within urban districts, a positive relationship
between superintendent and school board is needed to effectively implement an accountability
system that works to accurately measure student achievement.
17
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

There is relatively little attention directed towards the superintendent-school board
relationship (Tallerico, 1989). Increasing the body of research leading to the study of
relationships between school boards and the impact superintendent and board relationships have
on student achievement may enable future study in developing successful relationships and, in
turn, raise student achievement in urban settings.
The urban district may therefore look at the structures present in the board-superintendent
relationship. This study will utilize the conceptual framework from the research of Bolman and
Deal (2008) to frame the relationship-building and leadership practices to produce positive
relationships with the school board. The three frames utilized in the study are the political frame,
human resource frame, and the structural frame.
The political frame emphasizes the power and conflicts that arise within an organization
as well as the organizational politics therein (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Here, special attention will
be paid to how positive relationships are designed given the political landscape of the district.
Also, attention will be paid to how superintendents respond to the relational challenges of the
power base within the school board. The challenge for the leaders within this frame is to develop
the appropriate agenda and power base to move the organization forward (Bolman & Deal,
2003).
The second conceptual framework is that of the human resource frame. This frame
places an emphasis on the people within the organization and the relationships that occur as a
result of the attention given to individuals. Interpersonal relationships, communication, and
motivation are all a focus of the leader’s work in the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). For
the purpose of this study, the interpersonal relationships and the strategies used to develop those
relationships will be of particular interest.
18
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

The final conceptual framework is the structural frame of Bolman & Deal (2008). The
structural frame stresses the roles, goals and policies of an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Applying this theoretical framework, the study will place an emphasis on how the superintendent
builds relationships to better clarify the goals of board members and shape the policies that lead
to increases in student achievement. The structural frame assists in defining goals for the
organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The format used for this study will focus on four urban school districts in California and
examine the relationship between the school board and superintendent within those districts.
The districts were selected based on student achievement as measured by the state accountability
system currently in place as well as additional measures that will be identified further later in the
study. The study seeks to closely examine the interactions between the superintendent and
school board that may have contributed to student achievement.
Purpose of the Study

This study seeks to identify strategies that lead to building relationships amongst
superintendents and their boards that promote student achievement. This study will evaluate
how leadership behaviors transfer into building positive relationships that enable school districts
to raise student achievement in urban districts.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide the examination of superintendent-school
board relationships and how they lead to increases in student achievement.
1. What strategies or behaviors do successful urban superintendents use to build positive
relationships with school board members?
19
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

2. How do positive interactions of superintendents and school boards increase student
achievement?
3. What leadership strategies promote positive relationships between the superintendent
and school board?
4. How do superintendents and school boards evaluate the effectiveness of their
relationships in regards to increasing student achievement?
Importance of the Study
This study seeks to add to the body of research to assist superintendents and school
boards in building relationships that will help promote growth in student achievement. This
study will serve to inform practice for superintendents and school boards in order to improve
relationships and increase student achievement in urban school districts. The study also serves to
expand the existing literature on superintendent – school board relationships and how positive
relationships lead to student achievement. Finally, the findings of the study may lead to
identifying successful structures and evaluation tools used by superintendents that promote
successful relationships with his or her school board.

Limitations of the Study

The study includes the following limitations:

1. Validity of the data will be contingent upon how the data is measured.
2. Seeking to isolate the strategies utilized by superintendents to develop positive
relationships and how they impact student achievement.
3. The willingness of superintendents to provide honest and accurate responses.
4. The assumption that positive superintendent – school board relationships lead
to increases in student achievement.
20
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

5. Tenure of school board members and their familiarity with the superintendent
and other board members.
Delimitations of the Study

The study includes the following delimitations:

1. Data was collected for a limited number of urban districts in California.
2. Because data was collected for a limited number of districts, generalizations
drawn from the data may apply only to those districts.
3. Only four board members with either the longest tenure in the district or those
serving in the capacity of board president were interviewed.
4. School districts were selected based on their available three-year data as
measured by available accountability measures related to student achievement
included but not limited to those found in Academic Performance Index
(API ) and the federally mandated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and
additional data relative to Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and American
College Testing (ACT) exam participation rates and scores.

Definition of Terms

Academic Performance Index (API): a numeric index or scale that ranges from 200 to
1000. A school or district’s performance level on this scale determines its performance level. An
API score of 800 is the statewide target. A district’s growth is measured by how well the district
moves toward or past the statewide target goal. The API was developed in response to
California’s Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (California Department of Education,
2014).
Accountability: The obligation of schools to produce improvements in student academic
21
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

achievement. This is a system that holds districts, schools and/or students responsible for student
performance. Accountability systems typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results,
and rewards or sanctions based upon student performance over time (California Department of
Education, 2014).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measures the
progress of all public schools, and school districts toward enabling all students to meet the state’s
academic achievement standards. AYP measurements target the performance and participation
of various subgroups based on race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, and English
proficiency. The goal of NCLB is to have 100 percent of student’s proficient by 2013-14
(California Department of Education, 2014).
California Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Educational standards describe what
students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade. Since 2010, a number of
states across the nation have adopted the same standards for English and math. These standards
are called the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (California Department of Education,
2014).
Conceptual Framework: A lens through which research literature, theories, and other
pertinent information forms the basis for the analysis of findings within the study (Qualitative
Research Design, 2005).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): federal legislation that made schools and
districts accountable for student success, often imposing severe consequences for school systems
that do not make progress (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
School Board: a committee composed of elected officials who oversee all aspects of
district policy, structure, and governance. The school board hires and evaluates the
22
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

superintendent (California Education Code, 2014).
School District: A local public educational agency that operates schools and serves
students in any variation along the K-12 spectrum (California Education Code, 2014)
Student achievement: A measureable increase in student academic performance based on
a standard assessment tool (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
Superintendent: A K-12 administrator hired by the Board of Education to provide
leadership to the public school district he or she serves (California Education Code, 2014).
Urban School District: Urban school districts are located in an urban area as typically
serve high populations of poverty, high populations of English Language Learners have largely
diverse populations, and serve over 25,000 students (Lippman, et al, 1996).
Organization of the Study
Chapter Two contains a literature review of the current research on superintendent and
school board relationships. Also within this chapter is the review of current research on the role
of both the superintendent and school board as well as leadership structures. An emphasis on the
political, structural, and human resources frames of Bolman and Deal (2008) will be examined.
Finally, current research on conflict as it relates to the relationships of the superintendent and
school board will be reviewed.
Chapter Three contains the research methodology used in the study. The methodology
used will be qualitative in nature focusing on surveys and interviews. The interview protocol
consists of questions guided by the research questions contained in Chapter One.
In Chapter Four, the report of the findings as they relate to the research questions are
examined. The review of the findings also includes a discussion within the framework of the
23
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

results contained in the review of the literature. This is done to assist in the reliability and
validity of the findings.
Chapter Five contains the conclusions, implications of the research, and
recommendations related to current practice and future study.

24
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter is organized into four parts. Part one of the chapter will be a brief review of
the purpose of the study. The second part of the chapter is the conceptual framework for the
study and the review of literature. Part three of this chapter will provide a synthesis of the
literature related to the study. The chapter concludes with a summary of the limitations of the
research discussed in the literature review.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, the study seeks to identify strategies that lead
to building relationships amongst superintendents and their school boards that in turn promote
student achievement. Second, the study seeks to evaluate how leadership behaviors transfer into
building positive relationships enabling superintendents of urban districts to raise student
achievement.
In order to achieve the purpose of the study, a detailed literature review was conducted
with a focus on the following areas: historical context of the school board and superintendent,
characteristics of the urban school districts, the relationship of conflict within the school district
as it relates to the superintendent and school board relationships, characteristics of effective
school boards and effective superintendents, and the importance of the relationship between the
superintendent and the school board. Within the above areas of emphasis, strategies and
behaviors from the literature will be reviewed.
Conceptual Framework of the Study
To be fully understood, one must view the concepts of leadership within the context of
the setting. In doing so, one can identify how leadership concepts and theories assist the
superintendent in developing relationships with the board of education. Leadership is observed
25
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

in context and relationship (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This demonstrates that each situation the
leader encounters and the applicable strategies he or she uses are determined by the organization
and the people within the organization. As the literature will suggest, there are unique
characteristics of the superintendency in urban districts as different leadership strategies are
utilized in order to successfully navigate the challenges within the urban setting. Effective
leaders must possess a myriad of qualities including vision, strength, and communication. In
addition, superintendents of urban districts must understand strategies that apply to each of the
aforementioned leadership qualities that impact the academic success of students. Leaders must
know what works in one context may not be effective in another (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This is
especially true in that every urban district has unique characteristics based on the community.
Later in this chapter, the literature related to the above qualities that assist the superintendent in
developing relationships with school boards and in developing the proper structures for
increasing student achievement will be discussed.
To increase the understanding of the concepts described in the literature, the frameworks
of leadership organization and power are examined. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) research on
organizational leadership was utilized to frame the literature and the study as a whole. Bolman
and Deal (2008), utilize four frames: the human resource frame, the political frame, the
structural frame, and the symbolic frame. For this study on superintendents, the human resource
frame, the political frame, and the structural frame were selected. These frames were selected
based on how the research supports the strategies, behaviors, and structures that guide the
interactions of superintendents and the school board as it relates to relationships.
Structural Frame
The structural frame is defined by core ideas and assumptions. Core ideas of the structural
26
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

frame include clearly understood goals, relationships, and consistent alignment of the
organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As the research will indicate, these core ideas and
assumptions are critical for superintendents to work with their boards and develop relationships
that lead to increasing student achievement. As suggested, relationships are contained within the
core ideas and assumptions of the structural frame.
The assumptions of the structural frame serve to guide this study as well as areas from the
research on how superintendents develop and organize their vision for achieving goals within the
urban setting. Assumptions of the structural frame included in the review of research for this
study are:
• organizations exist to achieve established goals
• rational decision making over personal agendas and pressures from outside the
organization
• the structures and protocols in place that fit the organizations current situation
• creating new systems when the performance of the organization does not meet the
established goals (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
This leadership frame is especially important for superintendents in the urban setting as they
work to balance agendas and work through the pressures from outside organizations. Urban
districts also suffer from interests groups swaying public opinion leading to confusion on
educational issues (WestEd, 2003). Given the large and diverse populations that exist in the
urban setting, the probability of outside organizations with a variety of agendas is likely. The
structural frame provides the superintendent the understanding that personal agendas and
pressure exist and he or she must form structures to ensure rational decision making takes
priority.
27
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

The leaders within the structural frame must be aware of formal roles in the organization,
the policies and procedures of the organization, and have the ability to guide the organization
away from personal agendas (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As the research will indicate in latter
sections of this chapter, urban districts create obstacles for superintendents. Therefore, building
relationships, creating adequate structures and processes with the board, and putting the
necessary systems in place so that the agenda for increasing student achievement may move
forward is critical work for the superintendent. Urban districts face challenges in all of the
structures presented due to the diverse nature of the urban setting (Land, 2002).
Human Resource Frame
The second frame to include within the conceptual framework of this study is the human
resource frame. The human resource frame calls for the leaders to understand people within the
organization and communicate a belief in the persons ability to be successful in their work
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). As it relates to school boards, the superintendent must ensure cohesion
and demonstrate trust. The research within this chapter will suggest the importance of
superintendent communication in developing relationships with the school board and in reducing
conflict by communicating the board members’ role within the larger context of the school
district.
. For the purpose of this study, the organization is defined as the school board and school
district. In order to develop relationships, the superintendent looks to understand the people he
or she interacts with in the organization. The human resource frame focuses on how people
work and treat one another within the structure of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Knowing how to treat board members requires an understanding of each individual. To do so,
interpersonal skills should be maximized. Interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence are key
28
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

to developing effective relationships (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Communication plays a part in
how individuals work and interact together.
Assumptions of the human resource frame included in the review of research are:
• when there is a lack of unity between the people and the organization goals are
not met
• organizations exist to serve human needs
• people and organizations need each other (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
These assumptions, especially the lack of unity between people and the organization are
commonly present as urban school boards struggle to maintain a united vision and purpose.
Groups may become ineffective due to social pressures and personal agendas (Bolman & Deal,
2008). This often occurs when pressures from constituent groups lead board members to serve
an agenda not in line with the superintendent’s and this may lead to a lack of unity in in the
board. In the urban setting, the superintendent may need to place an emphasis on unity for his or
her school board and ensure the board serves the needs of all students. Relationships will allow
the superintendent to bridge the above challenges of unity and make sure the board has a larger
vision for their work. These points are further discussed and developed later in this chapter. The
effective superintendent knows building relationships is a priority (Townsend et al, 2007).
Political Frame
The final frame of Bolman and Deal to consider is that of the political frame. This frame
will assist in developing the context for how superintendents navigate the political aspect of their
position and the strategies utilized to develop a school board serving one educational mission.
One such area inherent to the political nature of the superintendency is conflict.
The political frame emphasizes the structures and protocols in place to manage conflict
29
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

(Bolman & Deal, 2008). For the purpose of this study, only one concept of the frame will be
examined as the concept has the greatest impact on the relationships between the superintendent
and school board. The assumption included in the review of research is:
• decisions and goals emerge from bargaining and negotiating amongst competing
stakeholders attempting to hold on to their own interest (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Competing stakeholders are a frequent challenge in urban districts as is the conflict
within the board. In addition, the research from Glass (2013) indicates that urban districts
typically have political advocacy groups and other coalitions that compete for involvement in the
decision making of the district. Urban districts frequently have outside groups or coalitions
which push agendas on the board creating inner strife within the board (Glass, 2013). In
conjunction with the other frames of Bolman and Deal (2008), the superintendent can use
relationships to help combat the difficult nature of competing groups in the district. This is
necessary to provide unity and direction. As stated by Glass (2013), large urban districts have
the greatest amount of board conflict.
Protocols and structures, as the research in the following sections will suggest, serve to
manage issues that arise from a lack of clarity in the roles of board members as well as how
effective communication assists the superintendent in managing conflict and increasing the
possibility for developing positive relationships. Smoley (1999) adds that conflict is a part of the
working relationships between boards and superintendents. Smoley (1999) suggests strategies
should be developed to handle conflict. Board roles and responsibilities are often not clear,
therefore leading to conflict (White, 2007). Creating a structure can serve the superintendent
well in managing difficult situations. Effective school board-superintendent relationships are a
product of creating protocols on how to work together effectively (Townsend et al, 2007). Part
30
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

of this process of collaboration assists in reducing conflict. Utilizing structures and protocols
that promote and facilitate communication reduce conflict and effectively increase positive
relationships.
One such structure to assist the superintendent is board retreats. Board retreats may be
designed to address and reduce conflict by creating structures to address disagreements (Hill,
2003). Further, the research of Bredson and Kose (2007) and Glass (2013) emphasize that
training the board reduces conflict and works towards positive relationships. Bredson and Kose
(2007), state that establishing a structure or protocol for board member training helps maintain
effective relationships with the board.
The Historical Context of the Superintendent and School Board
This section discusses the history of the superintendent and school board and briefly
discusses the evolution of both roles in the public school system. Those who govern and
administer our public schools must share a vision, a clear purpose, and the ability and courage to
lead (Educators Consultants and Research Association, 2010) as evidenced by their review of the
literature. No more so than in today’s educational setting do superintendents and school boards
need to lead with courage as achievement gaps continue to become even greater.
The early history of the education system primarily existed of relationships built between
families and neighbors (Educations Writers Association – Special Report, 2003). The
relationship between family and neighbors has evolved into the familiar structure of:
superintendents and school boards. These two entities are responsible for the vision, purpose
and leadership of the school system. Although separate in construction, they work together to
govern school districts. In the next section, the historical context of each will be explored.

31
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Historical Context of the Superintendent
The research recognizes three historical periods have characterized the superintendency
in the United States (Houston, 2013). The first superintendents appeared within the school
system in 1837 with their role primarily instructional with community input assisting in making
instructional decisions (Educations Writers Association-Special Report, 2003; Houston, 2013;
Institute for Educational Leadership, 1986). This suggests during that era, the superintendents’
role was to guide student achievement. This remains an important function, perhaps the most
important function, of the modern superintendent. The community involvement, as will be
clarified later, became the role of an elected body defined as the school board.
The second era of the school board began in the early twentieth century. Here, the
position became influential as superintendents developed policy and shaped the direction of local
districts. In the early twentieth century, the position was at a high point in its authority. During
this era, the superintendent was highly involved in the community as the superintendent became
the figurehead of the district through his or her involvement in the community. The second era
also marked the superintendent as civic leader (Houston, 2013). This remains an important
function today as superintendents should look to message the instructional vision of the district
to a multitude of stakeholders in the community. In addition to being a figure representing the
district and a civic leader in the community, the era is also characterized by the superintendents’s
authority and power of the position suggesting trust from the community. This trust would soon
be broken as public education approached the 1960’s.
The current view of the superintendency is considered the third era as stated by Houston
(2013). The 1960’s began a change in the school system and in how the superintendent worked
within the system. Houston’s research (2013) suggests the political nature of the 1960’s,
32
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

including the rise of teacher unions and activists playing a larger role in education thus
influencing the diminishing authority of the superintendent. It is suggested in the literature that
the number of individuals and groups involved in educational decision making increased, thus
removing the authority from the superintendent. The increasing negative view of public
education and the era of accountability also lessened the impact the superintendent had over
instruction and in the educational vision of the school district. With the publication of “A Nation
at Risk”, federal, state, and public accountability increased, further diminishing the authority of
the superintendent (Houston, 2013). Again, outside pressures and involvement changed the
superintendent’s role and forced the position to serve greater needs, especially the public
accountability for better schools.
The role of the urban superintendent has also changed with the school system. Yet, as
research suggests, the responsibility of the urban superintendent will become increasingly more
important. The changing demographics of the urban setting and school districts in general will
result in a change as to where students are educated. According to Glass (2013), approximately
one half of all school age children will attend urban school districts by 2020. Glass’ research
suggests a greater responsibility of the urban superintendent to provide a quality educational for
all with what may be reduced resources.
Historical Context of the School Board
For over two-hundred years, American education has had school boards (IEL, 1986).
Yet, like the superintendent, the role of the board has changed from families and neighbors
providing direction to a governing body overseeing local public education. The concept of local
school boards originated in New England where families controlled local schools via town hall
meetings (Wirt & Kirst, 1992). Boards were created to make educational decisions when schools
33
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

began to grow (Educations Writers Association- Special Report, 2003). These processes and
structures remain part of the modern educational system.
One of the factors leading to the creation of school boards and their function in the school
system was the emphasis on the local control of schools. This was the vision of educational
reformers in the 1800’s and became a greater reality at the turn of the century. Horace Mann
lobbied for central control of schools which began in the early 1900’s (Education Writers
Association-Special Report, 2003). As NCLB and now the Common Core State Standards
movement continue the accountability movement, the authority of local school boards and their
ability to make decisions in the best interest of the school district remain an unanswered
question. How then can superintendents and their school board increase student achievement?
The role of the school board has become more complicated in recent years as an
accountability driven public demands more from their local officials. They must share the
educational vision of the district to their constituents effectively in order to serve the needs of all
district members. This must be done in a unified voice, a difficult proposition in urban districts.
The role of the school board serves to translate the educational mission and goals of the district
to the community (IEL, 1986). Due to increased accountability, the school board serves a role to
set high expectations for students (WestEd, 2003). The research therefore demonstrates that the
history of both the superintendent and school board, although remaining much the same in
structure, has increased demands creating a more difficult environment to effectively lead school
districts in providing quality education for all students.
Urban School Districts
Urban school districts face unique challenges compared to their smaller counterparts. In
this section, the characteristics that set urban districts apart from those serving suburban or rural
34
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

students will be discussed. Also discussed will be the challenges the urban districts face and
how those challenges relate to the relationships between the superintendent and school board.
Characteristics of Urban Districts
Urban school districts face greater challenges and must serve more students than
suburban and rural districts. According to McCracken & Barcina (1991), urban districts are
characterized by serving students residing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.
Land’s research (2002) indicates urban districts have larger populations of students and educate a
more diverse makeup than non-urban districts.
Challenges of Urban Districts
In addition to population differences, urban districts are defined as serving students with
greater needs than those in suburban settings. Generally, urban districts have been defined in a
manner that identifies more than the size of the district but considers additional factors of urban
society including demographics. Urban districts are characterized by serving large populations,
students of poverty, lower parent education levels, and larger numbers of factors contributing to
school site difficulties such as crime (Lippman, et. al., 1996).
Poverty, just one example of the challenges urban districts face, impacts the educational
achievement of students. In the case of poverty, the following factors have an impact on student
achievement: health and nutrition; vocabulary; effort; a growth-mind set; cognition;
relationships with adults; and feelings of stress (Jensen, 2013). The research of Jensen indicates
urban districts, with only poverty considered as one defining factor, have a number of areas to
address in order to maintain a quality education for students.
Urban districts are also noted for low student achievement as compared to suburban or
rural districts. Urban schools have lower levels of student achievement (Lippman, et. al.1996,
35
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Childress, Elmore, and Grossman, 2006). This creates a challenge for leaders of the district.
One of the biggest educational challenges is improving performance in urban districts (Childress,
Elmore, and Grossman, 2006). As indicated by Glass (2013), improving student achievement in
urban districts remains a challenge. Urban districts struggle with poverty, academic
underachievement, dropouts, unstable school boards, constant reform initiatives, crime, and high
superintendent turnover (Glass, 2013). As identified by the research in this section, it is
important for those charged with improving student achievement to address the challenges they
face in urban school districts.
Conflict
As superintendents work with their school boards it is important to note that conflict will
arise as various interests are involved within the district. Smoley (1999) adds that conflict is a
part of the working relationships between boards and superintendents and strategies should be
developed to handle conflict. The process of how superintendents and school boards work to
manage issues is critical for creating successful relationships between both parties. How conflict
is managed is the important factor in the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). How to best
manage conflict so that relationships can be developed to assist in reducing challenges, theories
of conflict, and power will be reviewed.
Theories of Conflict and Power
School boards and superintendents are an organization. Within organizations, groups
must function in a manner that goals of the organization can be achieved. Decision making is an
important part of creating the vision to lead an organization forward therefore conflict must not
only be addressed but solved for initiatives to be implemented and be successful. School boards
and superintendents can wrestle with decision making; therefore, they are both likely to engage
36
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

in power struggles (Mountford, 2004). These power struggles may cripple the ability of the
superintendent to improve district educational outcomes.
Tallerico (1989), in her study of relationships between the superintendent and school
board, defined behaviors exhibited by the board as falling into four categories. This definition of
behaviors is important for framing how the superintendent must view conflict and power in order
to apply appropriate solutions. For the purpose of superintendent-school board interaction,
Tallerico’s (2013) restive vigilance will be examined.
Restive vigilance is defined as a member of the school board who is highly involved in
all aspects of school district functions, including individual partaking in conversations with
teachers and district office employees. Board members who display a restive vigilance
orientation became personally involved in all matters of the district thus leading to potential
conflict (Talerico, 1989). In order to address this type of conflict, the superintendent would look
at the motivation and interest of the individual. This is stated in the research of Bolman and Deal
(2008) with the political frame. To navigate potential political conflicts, the leader must separate
people from the issue as well as focus on the interests of the individual and not their position,
and finally invest in a position of mutual gain (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In addition to Tallerico’s
(2013) concept of restive vigilance, Mountford’s (2004) theory of power may be used to provide
a frame for superintendents to navigate disagreements.
Mountford (2004) used power to frame relationships and conflict between the
superintendent and board. Power struggles have the ability to impact district goals. Mountford’s
(2004) research placed conceptions of power theory on a continuum between power-over and
power-with. Power-over is associated with conflict.
Power-over is imposing the will of one over the will of another. This is found or defined
37
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

as power produced through authority, legitimate structures, or hierarchy that is found in
hierarchal structures such as school systems (Bolman & Deal, 2008, Mountford, 2004). This
applies to the interaction and relationships between the superintendent and board members. The
superintendent may utilize the concepts within this research to make effective choices in
developing structures and protocols to address conflict.
Managing Conflict and Power
Although understanding the background and theory of conflict is important,
superintendents must apply theory to their daily work to manage situations that arise with the
school board. For example, strategies to utilize for power-over types of conflict may be used in a
different manner as compared to situations involving power-with. The research on the
applications of conflict management strategies as related to superintendent-school board
relationships will be discussed below.
Formal training has assisted superintendents in navigating conflict amongst board
members and with their own relationship to the school board promoting stability and the ability
to move the district forward (Williams & Tabernik, 2011). As suggested by the Institute for
Educational Leadership, effective boards function as one body and resolve conflicts with student
achievement in mind (IEL, 1986). As part of an effective structure, Togneri and Anderson
(2003) state superintendents and boards work together in creating solutions to work through
conflict. By working together, an atmosphere is created that allows for open communication and
increased trust. The commitment of respect among colleagues so that differences could be easily
worked through is to adopt a solution-seeking orientation (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
Increasing the commitment to the district is then asking for individuals to work together thus
increasing the likelihood of positive relationships
38
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

How conflict is managed is an important factor in an organization (Bolman & Deal,
2008). Managing conflict is an important part of managing relationships with the school board.
Successfully working through and resolving conflict is one method that works to improve and
maintain positive working relationships with the board (Nelson, 2010; White, 2007). As will be
noted later, relationships with the school board are essential in improving student achievement.
The research of Bolman and Deal (2008) points to the importance of relationships within
an organization and how understanding individuals through the human resource frame may assist
the leader in working through and overcoming difficult situations. This concept is especially
important as organizations consist of individuals with different backgrounds beliefs and ideas.
Groups encounter predictable differences when coming from different interests, backgrounds,
and beliefs, creating a greater likelihood of conflict (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Thus, knowing that
a school board must function as a coherent group and that the board is made up of diverse
individuals, developing positive relationships is a key component to working through conflict.
The relationships with others often form the organization’s highs and lows (Bolman &
Deal, 2008). Low points, or times of disagreement, infighting and conflict, weaken the ability of
the superintendent and create a less stable environment which the research suggests negatively
effects student achievement. The superintendent-school board relationship, when poor, affects
the educational program in school districts as well as creating conflict and weakening the
stability of the district (Fusarelli, 2006). This places a district at a crossroads as the inability to
manage crisis will effect students’ ability to learn. Research indicates building effective
relationships allows for moving through difficult and challenging times and keeps a focus on
student achievement in the district (Townsend et al, 2007).
39
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Strategies employed to manage conflict should match the purpose of creating change with
individuals involved. The superintendent should look to understand the background and
motivations of the person and the situation. What motives are behind individual actions can lead
to dysfunctional relationships in an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Townsend, et al, 2007).
In examining Mountford’s (2004) power continuum, power-over strategies require approaches
whereby working with the school board collaboratively assist in overcoming struggles. Also
helpful to the superintendent is creating structures to manage issues. To minimize the power
struggles associated with power-over orientations, Mountford (2011) suggests time in board
development and study sessions that would be dedicated to the concepts of motivation and power
(Mountford, 2004). Board retreats may be designed to address and reduce conflict by creating
structures to address disagreements (Hill, 2003). Through board retreats and study sessions, the
superintendent can maximize these tools for building bridges of understanding between
individuals. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), recognizing commonalities assists in
confronting and managing conflict. These commonalities and the collaboration between the
board and superintendent are part of Mountford’s (2004) power continuum. Power-with is
characterized by shared-decision making, open communication, and the belief power is not tied
to position (Mountford, 2004). Therefore, superintendents understanding power-with theory and
practicing this concept with the board may assist him or her in managing conflict.
Strategies and Structures of Communication
As the literature indicates, the frequency of communication between the superintendent
and school board, as well as the structures for which communication are provided, is critical to
maintaining organizational stability and beneficial working relationships. Communicating with
trust, integrity, and in an open manner is key to a successful superintendent (Townsend et al,
40
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

2007). The school board acts on what they know; therefore, extensive communication assists in
building a positive relationship with the board. In urban districts, ensuring communication is
clear and open is necessary so the school board understands the issues within the district.
Superintendent-school board relationships may be jeopardized if decisions are left to individual
board members. When boards do not receive adequate information from the superintendent they
seek information elsewhere which can often lead to confusion and distrust between the school
board and superintendent (IEL, 1986). As stated earlier, the vast number of advocacy groups and
diverse population contained in urban districts may impact the work of the superintendent and
possibly fracture board relationships.
Research has demonstrated communication is an important factor in improving
superintendent-school board relationships. Dr. Mary Ann Nelson (2010) studied 213 Minnesota
superintendents, surveying their responses to research questions on their experiences and
observations of relationships with school board members. In her findings, she found
communication improved relationships and helped avoid conflict (Nelson, 2010). Having
positive relationships with school boards allowed for critical conversations to take place (Nelson,
2010).
The literature on superintendent-school board relations and conflict also illustrates an
understanding of the nature of the interaction between the respective groups. Because
disagreements and discussions on difficult subjects are part of the work, conflict is inevitable.
Although conflict is inherent to board – superintendent relationships, conflicts are more readily
resolved when there is open communication (IEL, 1986). Again, the research demonstrates the
importance of communication in finding a quick resolution to the challenges faced.
41
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Given the amount of information to be shared, consistent communication is necessary
from the superintendent. In urban districts, the superintendents, to avoid potential conflicts,
should ensure the school board is not surprised by critical and important information pertaining
to the district (Townsend et al, 2007). This is necessary due to the size of the urban setting as
well as the volume of information produced by serving a larger and more diverse population than
suburban or rural districts. Surprises regarding district events and issues might cause district
members to seek information from other sources. In doing so, the superintendent will have
created conflict that could have been more readily managed had he or she openly and frequently
communicated information.
To increase long term effective communication, superintendents must create a system and
structure for communications flow (IEL, 1986). Within this system, the research suggests how
superintendents create a collaborative structure. Superintendents of urban school boards
consisting of a more diverse representative body need to understand how decisions will be made.
Effective superintendents, from the work of Waters and Marzano (2007), utilize a collaborative
goal setting process. Consensus, however, is not a goal of this form of collaboration. That is,
they do not look to build consensus; rather, there is a goal to reach acceptable agreement
amongst those involved (Waters & Marzano, 2007). This is an especially important concept for
the urban superintendent as he or she will face a variety of outside groups or individuals
attempting to impact decision making which may create difficulty in building relationships with
board members.
Strategies and Structures to Define Roles
Yet another area to consider with the literature involving superintendent-school board
relationships is the importance of establishing clear roles for board members. One of the
42
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

superintendent’s roles is to develop a working relationship with the board and procedures to
define roles and relationships (Educators Consultants and Research Association, 2010). This
section will review how the lack of clearly defined roles can lead to dysfunction and conflict for
the superintendent.
In order to avoid potential pitfalls in relationships, it is wise for the superintendent to
create structures to clearly define what is expected from each board member. Protocols frame
the work of the board and explicitly define their roles (Townsend et al, 2007). Possible protocols
include board retreats and board study sessions. When there lacks a clear understanding of roles,
protocols, and policies, conflict arises between the board and superintendent (Townsend et al,
2007). Establishing methods for defining roles also bridges differences board members bring to
the group as urban school boards are frequently comprised of divergent views. Recognizing
commonalities assists in confronting and managing conflict (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Strategies and Structures to Establish Vision
The effective leader sets an agenda with two areas of focus: a strategy for achieving the
vision and recognizing there are competing forces among stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Effective superintendents employ strategies to establish and maintain relationships with the
school board. These superintendents do so through setting a vision for the district and board of
education, having structures in place to effectively work with the school board, establishing roles
for the school board, communicating in ways that allowed for productive work, and focusing on
student achievement. It is therefore the superintendent who takes the primary responsibility
for the academic achievement of students. This must be done in conjunction with the board.
The literature defining these areas will be reviewed in the following sections.
43
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

To be a leader in an educational organization requires balancing district needs with public
opinion. This requires the leader to establish the vision and mission of the organization.
Effective leaders are able to articulate a vision, set performance standards, and create a focus and
direction for the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Effective superintendents must drive the
educational mission of the district. The responsibility for ensuring that students are prepared for
their future is placed first with the superintendent and then the school board (Education Writers
Association – Special Report, 2003). This returns to the need for the superintendents, the
instructional leader of the district, to be courageous.
What appears to be the activity of one individual, that of creating and setting the vision, is
done in collaboration with the school board. The research suggests that both the individual
aspect of a district vision and providing clear messaging to the board must take place. This
should be done in a collaborative process. Superintendents should lead in setting the policies and
vision for raising student achievement (Bryant & Houston, 2002). Superintendents who are
effective leaders collaborate with their board (Glass, 2013). The vision leads the way in setting
how relationships are established and maintained during the superintendent’s tenure.
Superintendent-School Board Interactions that Increase Student Achievement
Setting the educational vision is an important component in raising student achievement.
This section will address interactions between the superintendent and school board that work
towards increasing student achievement. The literature reviewed will indicate the importance of
the work of the superintendent in leading student achievement through their relationships and in
their interactions with the school board.
The role of the superintendent as the instructional leader is a crucial factor in the success
of a district in meeting students’ academic needs (Goodman and Zimmerman, 2000). As the
44
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

leader of the district and much like the public view as “figurehead”, the superintendent should be
at the forefront of determining how student achievement will take place. They must serve as the
model for learning. Goodman (1997), states that a characteristic of effective superintendents was
their ability to be viewed by all as instructional leaders. Effective superintendents, serve as role
models for student achievement to all members of a school district (Goodman, et al., 1997). This
requires time spent interacting with the board on educational issues. Research indicates more
time in developing relationships should be spent on educational issues related to student
achievement and less time on administrative issues (IEL, 1986; Orr, 2006). In addition to the
superintendent, research has also indicated effective boards believe student achievement is a
priority in their work. Superintendents and school boards have both ranked student achievement
as the single most important factor in their work (Moffett, 2011). This continues to emphasize
that superintendents lead the work of districts in increasing student achievement.
In order for an organization to be successful, the leadership should be focused on
essential components integral to the organization’s success. In urban districts, as in all districts,
the leader is the superintendent. The superintendent must be viewed by all in the district as the
instructional leader (Castallo, 2003). To be effective, he or she should know instruction and
tailor the district’s instructional message in an clear, cohesive manner. The superintendent is the
instructional leader in the district and students, teachers, district staff, and the community must
associate the superintendent with instructional leadership. This was articulated in the report
written by the Education Writers Association outlining effective superintendents and effective
school boards. Effective superintendents know instruction and have a coherent vision
(Education Writers Association – Special Report, 2003).
45
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Most often, student achievement is not associated with the school board. In addition,
school boards are frequently not included in conversations related to student outcomes. School
boards are most often associated with policy yet this is contradicted by literature suggesting that
effective school boards invest most of their time in educational outcomes (IEL, 1986). With the
time spent on making student achievement a priority, the school board and superintendent create
a basis for achieving high academic standards district-wide. Student achievement outcomes are
rarely associated to the school board or superintendent yet those groups lay the foundation for
success (Education Writers Association – Special Report, 2003). However, Harris (2011) points
out that student achievement improves when the superintendents and school boards commit to
making student achievement a priority. When superintendents and school boards were
committed to student success, student achievement improved (Harris, 2011).
Structures
The ability to work together requires an established process. In order for an academic
foundation to be set for the district, the superintendent must structure their work - that is, create
the possibility to work together for student achievement. Many school boards have worked
together and structured their work to ensure student achievement (IEL, 1986). Again, as
indicated by IEL (1986), structures help provide a process for achieving the work necessary for
improving achievement.
The superintendent should be the leader in creating structures to ensure the school board
focuses on student achievement as improving student achievement relies on those established
structures. (Land, 2002). This is supported by Calwetti and Protheroe (2007) when their study
found students from low-income families and students of color demonstrated higher academic
success when strong superintendent leadership in conjunction with the board focused on student
46
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

achievement (Calwetti & Protheroe, 2007). Because urban districts serve the highest number of
low income and minority students, strong leadership actions with the school board provide a
strong indicator of student achievement.
A second action to influence student achievement in an urban district is how effectively
superintendents collaborate with their school board. Because decision making and policy for the
district cannot be done in isolation, having the governing body of the district working together
increases the academic outcomes for students.
Collaboration
Much like managing conflict, collaboration plays a role in the superintendent-school
board relationships that promotes student achievement. However, for student achievement to
best be served, the link to communication that develops the necessary relationships is that of
collaboration. The collaborative work between the two entities assist in establishing and
promoting relationships. The research on collaboration will be reviewed in this section.
If urban districts are to increase achievement, especially for demographics demonstrating
the largest achievement gaps, then both the school board and superintendent must be held
responsible. This should be viewed not in the sense of political accountability, but defined by
professional accountability between both parties. Professional accountability is the practice of
treating those involved in work as professionals in their work. In professional accountability,
individuals hold one another accountable to the tasks in order to ensure outcomes are met
(Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). Superintendents and school boards are equally accountable in
working together to improve student achievement (Glass, 2013). Equally holding one another
accountable through professional accountability occurs when relationships are developed. This
would suggest a culture of collaboration and mutual accountability for superintendent and school
47
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

board.
All relationships tied to student achievement come from a culture established by the
superintendent. District leadership, particularly the leadership of the superintendent, is needed to
transform culture to place a focus on student achievement (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman,
2006). Waters and Marzano (2007) identified student achievement goals correlated to
collaboration with the school board and principals as well as board support aligned with district
achievement goals as two critical areas for student achievement. Relationships assist in aligning
goals as the structures in place, particularly board retreats, provide the opportunity to collaborate
on strategies for closing achievement gaps as well as providing the best possible educational
outcomes for all students. Many boards work positively for student achievement and have
structures in place to achieve this goal (IEL, 1986).
Collaboration through board retreats and study sessions are important for helping
increase students’ academic achievement. High student achievement comes from
superintendents and school boards working together (McCloud & McKenzie, 1994). Yet, board
retreats and the superintendent-school board collaboration cannot be about agreement by all
participants. It is not about reaching consensus for goals to be agreed upon. Urban districts and
their diverse population would become increasingly difficult to move forward if this practice is
adopted by the superintendent. Rather, he or she should seek work towards mutual agreement.
According to Waters & Marzano (2007), superintendents must utilize a collaborative goal setting
process. Relationships built on trust and mutual respect allow for this to occur. Mutual trust
amongst the board and towards the superintendent led to relationships that raised student
achievement in the district (Harris, 2011).

48
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Relationship Strategies that Work Towards Student Achievement
Although much of what has been stated on the relationship between school board and
superintendent has focused on the negative aspect of their relationships, research has found
boards and superintendents do work together. Working together requires having one voice on
the goals of the district. The board must function as an effective unit and partner in collaboration
with the superintendent to improve student academic achievement (Gomes, 2011). Open
communication during strategic planning keeps the board informed about student achievement
and allows them to fully participate in forming a plan (Harris, 2011). To become that unit, the
structures in place should guide an outcome of shared belief. Student achievement is improved
when the superintendent and board hold a shared belief in raising student achievement for all
students (Harris, 2011).
Waters and Marzano (2007) conducted a meta-analysis over several years looking to
determine characteristics of effective school leaders and what characteristics led to student
achievement. For their study, 2,827 districts were studied with 3.4 million students examined for
levels of student achievement. They found four major findings in the study, three of which are
focused on in this review. The three findings are: importance of district-level leadership,
superintendents that focused efforts on creating district goals through a collaborative process,
and aligning board and district goals. These findings are supported by much of the research on
effective superintendents. A particularly strong area of the report is the research question asking,
“what is the strength of the relationship between leadership at the district level and average
student achievement the district?” Their findings indicate strong and effective superintendents
positively impact student achievement. Correlation between superintendent leadership and
student achievement was .24 which, as defined in the study, had a significant impact on student
49
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

achievement. In particular, when superintendents establish clear roles for district personnel and
the board, as well as clearly articulate clear goals for student achievement, there is a profound
impact on student learning in the district.
The Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) (2000) conducted a study over a three-
year period. The Lighthouse Inquiry, as the study was called, reviewed data high and low over a
three-year period from 1995 through 1998, utilizing state assessments to identify high and low
achieving districts. The research suggests, in part, behaviors and beliefs ensured conditions were
present to improve student achievement. A major finding related to superintendent-school board
relationships involved the concept of “peaceable relationships”. This was defined in the research
as the school board-superintendent teams having fairly amicable relationships. Board members
shared through interviews that conflict was not personal, whether it existed with the
superintendent or amongst each other.
The last area of focus in creating a district focused on student achievement is
relationships. Relationships with board members assist the superintendent in moving the vision
forward. By working towards creating positive relationships with school boards, student
achievement may be improved (Estes, 1979). This work, which should be a priority, can help the
superintendent advance achievement for all districts. The effectiveness of the school district is
improved when the superintendent works to develop and maintain positive relationships with his
or her school board (White, 2007).
School boards and superintendents that understand the importance of relationships
demonstrate high student achievement (Educations Writers Association-Special Report, 2003).
Given the challenges of urban districts, this focus on student achievement has become
increasingly important. In working with the board, the superintendent should look to maintain a
50
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

focus on academic achievement for all. The importance of a successful superintendent-school
board relationship is urgent in order to provide a high quality education for all students (Glass,
2013). The sense of urgency, as the research has indicated, is ever present in urban districts as
the achievement gap remains greater than that of smaller districts. Yet, the literature on
relationships also sheds information on how negative relationships may put students in jeopardy
of not meeting the academic goals necessary for their future.
Conversely, poor relationships between the school board and superintendent had an
adverse effect on student achievement and district improvement (Peterson & Fusarelli, 2001).
With urban districts in need of considerably more support, building and maintaining
relationships should remain at the forefront of a superintendent’s planning.
Evaluating Relationships
It is possible, according to the literature, to measure the ability of the superintendent by
how well he or she is able to impact policy in the district. The effectiveness of a superintendent
is often measured by his or her ability to influence educational policy (Peterson & Fusarelli,
2001). Because research also suggests how critical the superintendent’s role is to student
achievement, defining the role of the school board by explicitly describing board roles is an
important factor in building relationships that may lead to student achievement. Townsend et al
(2007) research effectively summarizes the importance here of the superintendent’s role. The
superintendent’s role is to set the instructional plan for the district. To do so, he or she must
have strong beliefs on instruction, create and articulate specific goals, and prioritize standards
(Townsend, et al, 2007). This is an important factor of the superintendent as mentioned in
previous sections of the chapter as the superintendent must always be viewed as the instructional
leader in the district.
51
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Limitations of the Research
In this section, limitations of the study will be explored and possible alternatives may be
applied to the studies. The limitations sections will seek to follow the same discussion as the
previous discussions in the lit review. For discussing the limitations, seven studies will be
reviewed.
The first discussion on limitations involves emotional intelligence which serves as part of
how superintendents work with school boards in developing relationships. Within Bolman and
Deal’s (2008) human resource frame, emotional intelligence serves to assist in understanding
relationships. Interpersonal skills are the focus of emotional intelligence.
The studies on emotional intelligence were limited in scope. Harms and Crede (2010)
tied emotional intelligence (E.I.) with transformational leadership. In a meta-analysis of 62
studies they found emotional intelligence factored in developing relationships. This was also
found in Calweti and Protheroe’s (2007) research. However, both studies samples limited the
application of E.I. to urban districts and compared high and low districts. Another limitation is
how E.I. is viewed in the scientific community as Harms and Crede (2010) state there are few
universally accepted measures to verify emotional intelligence. Finally, a third limitation in the
research is the lack of specific skills and strategies from E.I. that would fully develop the
capacity of superintendents to establish and improve E.I. in the context of their district’s setting.
To remedy these shortcomings, a more scientific acceptance of E.I. would be helpful in
providing credibility to the link between interpersonal skills associated with E.I. and
relationships.
52
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

With regards to power and conflict, the research of Mountford (2004) and Tallerico
(1989) were discussed. Both researchers raise questions on how superintendents may effectively
apply strategies and techniques to their district and board.
Mountford and Tallerico both utilized qualitative methods consisting of surveys and
interviews. Mountford and Tallerico used semi-structured formats for the interviews triangulated
with additional interviews of colleagues of board members and superintendents from the study.
Mountford’s focus was on perceptions which limit the factual data supporting the claims of the
research. Regarding sample size, each was limited to fifty participants or fewer, which limits the
generalizability of their data.
The next study from the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) (1986) provides an
overview of strengthening relationships between the board and superintendent. In this study of
450 board presidents, IEL surveyed fifty small urban districts with enrollments of at least 10,000
students. This limited generalizability as surveys of board presidents did not consider large
urban districts and how they worked with superintendents to develop relationships. Had this
taken place, findings would have been strengthened.
Two studies in particularl focused on relationships between the superintendent and their
school boards. Fusarelli (2006) used a case study of one small district in a southern city. This
limited the findings as the sample was small and the application of any findings would not be
generalizable to urban superintendents and school boards. Nelson (2010) studied the same topic,
working only with superintendents in Minnesota. A larger sample size helps support the
findings; however, like Fusarelli, the limited nature of who was studied (a southern city and
Minnesota) does not allow for application of strategies found in the research. Another limitation
was a focus on experiences rather than specific outcomes.
53
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

As discussed in this chapter, student achievement and superintendent-school board
research was limited. In the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) (2000), The Lighthouse
Inquiry was a comprehensive study of high and low achieving districts conducted over a three
year period from 1995 through 1998. The IASB study used standardized test scores to identify
districts with high student achievement. Small districts were used in the sample with the largest
district serving approximately 5,000 students. Because of the district size, the relevance to larger
urban districts may be limited. Although no causal effect was identified, the research did
suggest, in part, that behaviors and beliefs ensured conditions were present to improve student
achievement.
Summary
There have been a number of studies, as indicated by this literature review, on
superintendent-school board relationships; however, a gap still remains in how relationships may
lead to increases in student achievement. The research on relational effects between the
superintendent and school board have not specifically documented the impact of relationships on
student achievement. Many studies have compared low and high achieving districts or focused
solely on superintendent practices or board practices.
For those studies that do focus on the impact of relationships to student achievement,
there lacks depth in the research to generalize the findings to urban districts.
Specifically, what strategies and behaviors are used by superintendents to establish and
further develop relationships specifically those leading to increases in student achievement?
Further, are there strategies and behaviors in urban districts that differ from suburban or urban
settings? The unanswered research poses a struggle for the urban superintendent as they attempt
to navigate the political atmosphere and the accountability expectations of today.
54
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

To best search for answers to the above limitations, it may be wise to look at the research
on communication and the impact of communication on establishing, building, and maintaining
relationships. There is consistency in the literature on how effective communication builds
positive relationships. Specifically, over communicating to the board helps demonstrate trust
and establishes a structure for two-way communication. Carlson (2010) suggests three areas that
positively impact superintendent and board relationships: treating all board members equally,
allowing time for board members to discuss items, and frequent communication (Carlson, 2010).
Communicating with trust, integrity, and in an open manner is key to a successful
superintendent (Townsend et al, 2007). One body of research was explicit in identifying the
frequency of communication for effective superintendents. Glass (2013) stated effective
superintendents, according to a 2000 study, over-communicated to their school board. In fact, it
was noted those superintendents communicated three times more than ineffective
superintendents.
After communication, there is a second area from the literature that suggests a high
impact strategy. The area of high impact centers on structures and protocols. Because these
concepts are used synonymously in the research, they are listed as one strategy.
Another important point to note from the literature is how effective superintendents
negotiate the historical practices of the district. Because of the size of the urban setting,
understanding the history and past practices assists the superintendent in applying the necessary
strategies for success. Effective superintendents honor past practices while finding ways to
create new protocols effective for their own work with the board (Townsend et al, 2007).
Finally, the structures and protocols for superintendents may impact student achievement.
This is due to providing understanding for the board on what the district plan for student
55
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

achievement is and how the district intends to achieve the plan. Creating a structure for
collaboration and high expectations assists in raising student achievement (Childress, Elmore, &
Grossman, 2006). These two parties, the superintendent and school board, must work together to
improve student achievement outcomes. The superintendent as instructional leader and the
school board as the close link to the community must collaborate on all aspects relevant to
student learning. As Bryant and Houston stated, school boards and superintendents work
together to set the vision for schools (Bryant & Houston, 2002).
The following chapter will review the methods used in this study to understand
the way relationships between the superintendent and school board assist the district in
improving student achievement. Specifically, a closer look at strategies and behaviors by the
superintendent in establishing and nurturing relationships will be studied.

56
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Chapter Two of the study outlined the literature relative to the characteristics of
relationships between superintendents and school boards. Included in the literature were the
historical context of both superintendents and the board of education. A second area in the
research were the characteristics and challenges of urban districts as urban districts face unique
challenges placing additional strain on the superintendents relationships with his or her school
board. Research on conflict and power were reviewed to assist in providing context for the role
of superintendent. Finally, establishing a vision was identified and discussed.
In looking more closely at the research, common themes were established in areas that
may have the greatest impact on relationships leading to increases in student achievement. The
themes identified were: communication between the superintendent and school board,
establishing structures and protocols for creating and managing working relationships with the
board, and the strategies used by superintendents to work through conflict with the school board
in order to further relationships that may assist in promoting student achievement.
The purpose of this study is to identify strategies that lead to building relationships
between superintendents and their school boards that in turn promote student achievement. In
addition, the study seeks to evaluate how leadership strategies transfer into building positive
relationships enabling superintendents of urban districts to raise student achievement. Finally,
the study seeks to identify successful protocols used by superintendents to achieve positive
relationships with the school board.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide the examination of superintendent-school
board relationships and how it leads to student achievement.
57
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

1. What strategies or behaviors do successful urban superintendents use to build positive
relationships with school board members?
2. How do positive interactions of superintendents and school boards increase student
achievement?
3. What leadership strategies promote positive relationships between the superintendent
and school board?
4. How do superintendents and school boards evaluate the effectiveness of their
relationships in regards to increasing student achievement?

Method of the Study
A mixed method design was used for the study. This research method was used to
strengthen the generalizations from the research. Mixed methods analyze both qualitative and
quantitative data to increase the strength of a study (Cresswell, 2003). Within this method,
interviews and surveys were conducted to gather data relative to the research questions. When
researching using a mixed method, researchers use quantitative methods and qualitative methods
in order to best understand the research problem (Creswell, 2003).
The data for the study was collected in phases with the survey done first in order to
provide the necessary background information of superintendents and school board members.
This assisted the researcher in focusing questions that reflected responses in the survey. This
also allowed the researcher to modify questions for interviews as needed. Mixed method
research allows the researcher to collect data in a non-sequential manner with quantitative or
qualitative data done first (Creswell, 2003).
Interviews were conducted following the survey. The researcher began the interviews
with the superintendent. After the superintendent interview, the researcher met with the board
58
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

president or longest tenured board member based on the availability of each. As the researcher
gained insights based on the data, he adjusted the order of follow up interviews and continued to
adjust the interview order based on data gleaned from the process.
In following the process of surveys and interviews, the researcher elected to use a
connected method for merging the data. Connecting in a mixed method study mixes the
quantitative and qualitative research between analyzing the first phase of data collection and the
second phase of the data (Creswell, 2003). For this study, the first phase consisted of the survey
with the second phase being the interviews.
The strategy used for collected the data within the mixed method was the sequential
mixed method design. The researcher utilized this strategy to align with the connected
methodology. The sequential mixed method allows the researcher to expand on findings of one
method with another methodology (Creswell, 2003). For the purpose of this study, the
researcher used a quantitative method through a survey to gain insight into the relationships
between the superintendent and school board. This was followed by the qualitative strategies
utilized for the interviews. The interview questions were adjusted, as needed, to reflect data
gathered during the survey.
A theoretical perspective was applied to the research so that the study could frame the
data in a larger context. The leadership frames of Bolman and Deal (2008), (Structural, Human
Resource, and Political) provided the theoretical framework. The researcher selected this
framework due to the literature on relationships between the superintendent and school board.
Much of the literature focused on issues involving the structures superintendents used to develop
and manage relationships, the humanistic aspect of working with people in an organization, and
the political pressures faced by the urban superintendent. A theoretical perspective provides a
59
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

lens to shape the research as it relates to formulating questions, research participants, and the
collection of data (Creswell, 2003).
A qualitative research design within the mixed method was applied for the primary data
collection. This was done due to the nature of the research. Qualitative research studies events
in their natural setting, attempting to analyze, interpret and make sense of the meanings
associated with the environment (Merriam, 2009; Creswell, 2003). Qualitative research helps
understand the context in which individuals act and what within the context influences actions
(Maxwell, 2013). This design allowed the researcher to interview superintendents and school
board members within the context of their relationships. The responses from the interviews
assisted the researcher in obtaining rich data from the detailed responses of those interviewed,
allowing for rich data on the strategies and actions superintendents employ to build positive
relationships with board members.
Sample and Population
The researcher used unique purposeful sampling in order to identify respondents who are
uniquely able to respond based on their expertise on a subject (Maxwell, 2013). This sampling
method was used with the goal of achieving a typical representation of superintendents who had
been successful in raising student achievement in urban districts. For this study, raising student
achievement is defined by increasing student outcomes in the criterion listed below. Because the
research study focuses on relationships between superintendents and school boards that lead to
student achievement, these superintendents may provide a unique knowledge to the strategies
and structures they use to develop relationships and manage conflict. Further, a good respondent
has information on the culture of the situation and has the ability to articulate that viewpoint
(Weiss, 1994).
60
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Large urban districts were selected for the study. This allowed for the potential for
increased diversity in the school board. Due to the diversity and size of the district, this provided
an increased potential for political issues in the district, which is a characteristic of urban districts
mentioned in the previous chapter.
Urban school districts were identified for the study based on the following academic
factors listed below. The criteria are as follows:
• Performance and improvement results on mandated state tests in reading and
math.
• The reduction and magnitude of achievement gaps between ethnic groups and
between low-income and non-low-income students utilizing graduation data.
• Graduation rates calculated using the California Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
indicators.
• SAT and ACT exam scores.
Quantitative Data Collection Procedures
The quantitative data measurement used for this study was a survey. Surveys are data
collected to describe or explain individual values, perspectives, or behaviors (Fink, 2013). A
twenty-five question, web-based survey instrument was completed with the superintendents,
school board presidents, and longest tenured board member from each district. The survey
instrument included questions gleaned from the research questions and sub-questions mentioned
earlier.
Qualitative Data Collection Procedures
The qualitative data measurements included interviews and document analysis.
61
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Interviews were conducted with superintendents, school board presidents, and school board
members. For the document analysis, board meeting agendas and board study session or
orientation/training documents were reviewed and analyzed.
Process of constructing the interview protocol
The interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol to allow for the respondents
to speak openly, and share experiences, behaviors, and opinions. An interviewer may ask
questions that are designed to elicit actions, behaviors, what one does, and beliefs (Merriam,
2009). In order to construct the interview protocol, the researcher reviewed the data collected
from the survey and created questions that might elicit appropriate responses.
The goal of the interviews was to construct a story based on a series of questions that
would allow for a more open-ended response. A semi-structured interview form allows for more
flexible wording to allow for more exploration (Merriam, 2009). Hypothetical questions ask
individuals to speculate on what they might say or do (Weiss, 1994). Sentence frames were used
to delve deeper into the thinking of the respondents. Probes were used in order to allow for the
interviewees to share additional information or to get a deeper, more meaningful response from
the participants as well as to follow up on a previously asked question.
Interviews
In order to answer the questions posed for the study, interview data were gathered from
current superintendents in five urban districts. For the purpose of this study, urban districts are
identified as having a district enrollment of greater than 20,000 students. In addition, these
districts contain a population of socio-economically disadvantaged students of at least forty-
percent of the total district enrollment based on data from the 2012-13 school year. A total of
four interviews were conducted, one for each superintendent in the study. Interviews were also
62
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

conducted with school board presidents or the longest tenured member of the school board. This
was done to gain perspective on the role of the board president and how a board member with the
longest seniority viewed relationships with the superintendent.
The goal of the interviews was to construct a story based on a serious of questions that
would allow for a more open-ended response. A semi-structured interview form allows for more
flexible wording in order to produce responses that may be explored further in follow-up
interviews. (Merriam, 2009). Hypothetical questions ask individuals to speculate on what they
might say or do (Weiss, 1994). Also, superintendents were asked to respond to an ideal
relationship with a board member and what that might look like. Ideal position questions are
designed to provide additional information and opinions on a subject (Weiss, 2009). Sentence
frames were created so that the researcher might delve deeper into the thinking of the
respondents. Probes were used in order to allow for the respondents to share additional
information or to get to a deeper, more meaningful response as well as to follow up on a
previously asked questions. Probes are used as follow-ups to questions that have been asked
(Weiss, 1994). They help to gain clarity about what was said in response to the question (Weiss,
1994).
Approach to capturing data for interviews
After gaining consent to conduct interviews, the researcher engaged in conversation with
each participant in the study. This was done to establish additional rapport for the interview and
re-establish a relationship with each individual. The interviewee and interviewer is a partnership
(Weiss, 1994).
The interviews averaged approximately thirty to forty-five minutes in length. The
interviews were recorded using a digital recorder as well as an iPAD and iPhone. Notes were
63
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

taken while the interviews were conducted.
Process for gaining consent
Getting consent for the study took two forms. The first form of gaining consent was
through the use of a gatekeepers familiar with districts studied. Gatekeepers assist a researcher
in gaining access to the setting of the study (Maxwell, 2013). The second form of gaining
consent was via email contact to each superintendent. This followed with emails to the board
president and longest tenured board member. A consent form was developed and signed by all
participants. Within the consent form the respondents were made aware of the purpose and
needs of the interviews. In most interviews one should communicate to the respondents what is
needed from the interview (Weiss, 1994).
Validity and Reliability
Multiple data sources assist the researcher in triangulating data (Patton, 2002). The study
utilized a mixed-methods approach to collect and analyze data. A survey questionnaire,
interviews, and document reviews were conducted to provide greater depth to the understanding
of how superintendents develop and manage relationships with his/her school board. The
researcher used a number of methods to attempt to maintain validity in the research as well as
produce reliability in the findings. To increase the validity, the researcher triangulated the data
collection using multiple forms of data. Triangulation is a principal strategy to ensure for
validity and reliability (Merriam, 2009). Also to address validity concerns, the researcher sought
to collect rich data from the interviews. Through the use of interviews, the researcher may
collect rich data that is varied enough to provide a full and meaningful description of what is
studied (Maxwell, 2013). Respondent validation was also utilized. In respondent validation, the
researcher solicits feedback from respondents in order to ensure accurate representations from
64
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

the interview (Maxwell, 2013).
Four districts were selected for the study with two participants identified to participate:
the superintendent from each district and the board president or longest tenured board member.
This was done to assist in increasing the validity of the research findings. Ensuring validity and
reliability in qualitative research involves conducting the investigation in an ethical manner
(Merriam, 2009).
In addressing validity and reliability, the researcher considered researcher bias and
reactivity. Researcher bias is a specific threat in that conclusions may be categorized into a
preconceived notion of the researcher (Maxwell, 2013). To address researcher bias, the sample
selection design was purposeful and unique. The researcher also recognized the knowledge of
some participants and the contexts of their phenomenon would be part of the findings of the
study. The surveys were consistently applied to all participants to increase reliability.
The researcher also considered reactivity as part of the reliability and validity of the
study. Reactivity occurs when the researcher becomes part of the participant’s world (Maxwell,
2013). Taking the time to consider all possible meanings helps researchers to become more
aware of their own assumptions and the interpretations they are placing on data (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008).
Ethics
To address ethical issues, the researcher applied the strategies and checklists of Merriam
(2009) and Creswell (2003). The strategies of Merriam and Creswell include: explaining the
purpose of the study, informed consent, and confidentiality. To address the purpose of the study,
the researcher explained in detail what the purpose of the study was and how the information for
the study would be used. To assist in this, the researcher developed an informed consent.
65
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Confidentiality was also stated in the consent form and pseudonyms were used to increase
confidentiality for all participants.
Finally, the researcher followed the procedures required by the Institutional Review
Board of the University of Southern California. The interviews and document review data were
collected and coded to maintain confidentiality of all participants in the study.
Summary
The study followed a sequential mixed-methods design using a survey for qualitative data
collection. The survey, which functioned as the secondary data collection assisted the researcher
in providing an overall context for the qualitative data collection. Qualitative methods were the
primary source for data collection and consisted of in-depth interviews and document review.
The previous chapter discussed the research design of the study, identified the sample
population, and the process for collecting and analyzing data. The chapter identified a mixed-
method design utilizing quantitative design for the first phase of data collection and a qualitative
design for the latter phase as this design best suited the research questions and purpose of the
study. The following chapter will analyze and discuss the findings from the research.

66
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Background
This chapter contains an analysis of the data collected from the study that sought to gain
insights and identify strategies that lead to effective relationships amongst superintendents and
school board members as well as how these relationships may help promote student
achievement. Developing relationships can improve the effectiveness of a district in improving
student achievement (White, 2007). Research suggests a positive superintendent and school
board relationship may lead to increases in student achievement within a district.
The researcher used a mixed-method approach to capturing the data. To increase
validity, data were analyzed and interpreted through triangulating the results. Triangulation is a
principal strategy to ensure for validity and reliability (Merriam, 2009). In this study, surveys
and interviews were utilized as the multiple forms of data collection. School board member
responses were framed against the superintendents in order to assist the researcher in
triangulating responses from each superintendent during the interviews. This would assist the
researcher in verifying the responses of the superintendents by looking for a correlation between
the superintendents and board members. In addition, the researcher looked for negative cases
within the data. Negative cases and analyzing for discrepant data is a key part of testing the
validity in qualitative research (Maxwell, 2013). Survey questions and the interview protocol
were linked to assist in data collection.
Data was collected using a quantitative format. The study utilized surveys to gain
preliminary responses from superintendents in urban California districts. A total of forty-nine
surveys were distributed to superintendents in elementary school districts, unified school
districts, and union high school districts. School district superintendents were limited to those
67
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

meeting qualifications of the study stated in the methodology section. Districts surveyed ranged
from a student population of 11,900 to 38,900 students. Twenty-five of the 49 electronic surveys
were returned for a response rate of 51.0%.
Qualitative data was collected using one-on-one interviews with four superintendents
from the surveys. In addition, because the researcher sought to gain insight into relationships
superintendents have with school board members, four school board members were interviewed.
To gain further insight, the researcher selected either the longest tenured member of the school
board or the school board president for the interview. For the purpose of this study, the
superintendents are referred to as Superintendent A-D and the School Board Members are
referred to as School Board Member 1-4. The researcher ensured all participants of his or her
confidentiality throughout the interview process.
The researcher selected a semi-structured approach to the interviews. The semi-
structured interview protocol allowed the researcher to collect the necessary data and allow for
the respondents to speak openly, sharing experiences, behaviors, and their opinions. A semi-
structured interview form allows for more flexible wording to allow for more exploration
(Merriam, 2009). An interviewer may ask questions that are designed to elicit actions,
behaviors, what one does, and beliefs (Merriam, 2009). In order to construct the interview
protocol, data from the surveys and research questions were reviewed as well as relevant
research on the subject of superintendent-school board relationships.
The interview protocol for superintendents consisted of eleven questions. The semi-
structured format created greater flexibility for the researcher. The goal of the interviews was to
construct a story based on a series of questions that would allow for a more open-ended
response. Hypothetical questions ask individuals to speculate on what they might say or do
68
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

(Weiss, 1994). Superintendents were also asked to respond to an ideal relationship with a board
member and what that might look like. Ideal position questions are designed to provide
additional information and opinions on a subject (Weiss, 2009). Probes were used in order to
allow for the respondents to share additional information or to get to a deeper, more meaningful
response from each respondent as well as to follow up on a previously asked question. Probes
are used as follow-ups to questions that have been asked (Weiss, 1994). They help to gain
clarity about what was said in response to a question (Weiss, 1994).
The interview protocol for school board members followed a nine question format. The
semi-structured format was also applied during this data collection. The researcher eliminated
two questions from the board member interview protocol as those questions were specific to the
position of superintendent; otherwise, the questions for both interview protocols remained the
same.
Demographics of Survey Participants
Age, Gender, and Tenure of Survey Participants
Of the twenty-five electronic survey respondents, nine respondents were between the
ages of 56-60 years (36%), seven respondents (28%) were between the ages of 46-50, five (20%)
respondents were between the ages of 61-65, three respondents (12%) indicated their age as
between 51-55 years, and one respondent (4%) indicated an age of between 36-40 years.
According to Kowalski et al (2011) in the 2010 Decennial Study of American Superintendents,
14.6% of superintendents are less than 46 years of age with 18% older than 60 years of age.
Seventy-eight percent in the study were between the ages of 46-60 (Kowalski et al, 2011). The
data from Kowalski et al (2011) nearly aligns with this study as 64% of superintendents
participating in this study were between ages 46-60.
69
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

The respondents to the survey were predominately male consisting of 19 (76%)
respondents while six (24%) were female. This data aligns with results from the 2010 Decennial
AASA study which reflects 76% of superintendents are male (Kowalski e al, 2011).
As shown in Table 1, the tenure of the superintendents participating in the electronic
survey indicates seventeen (68%) of the respondents have served in their position for between
two and four years. Seven respondents (28%) are serving in their first year of the
superintendency with one respondent (4%) in the position for eight or more years. Research
suggests urban school superintendents face shorter tenures due to the pressures to achieve
academic success added to the politics of the position. Short tenure is a major feature of urban
districts where superintendents face intense pressure to improve student achievement as well as
manage the politics of the elected school board (Freedburg, 2014). In a survey from 2012, forty-
three percent of 100 superintendents in California surveyed found district leaders served in their
position for three or fewer years (Freedburg, 2014). In the Nelson’s 2010 Study of School Board
-Superintendent Relationships in Minnesota, 54% of respondents had been in the
superintendency for five years or fewer (Nelson, 2010). Thus, data from this study reflects more
superintendents in the position for fewer than four year. This may be due to a turnover rate in
the superintendency in the districts surveyed as well as a relatively small sample size as the data
only reflects twenty-five districts in California. In addition, survey participants served in seven
California counties ranging from San Diego in the south to Napa County in the north.

70
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 1
Number of Years Serving as a Superintendent
Superintendents

n = 25

Responses Frequency %

First Year 7 28.00
2 – 4 years 17 68.00
5 – 7 years 0 0.00
8 or more years 1 4.00

Number of Districts Served
The data from the electronic survey suggest a variety of responses to the number of
districts each superintendent had served in addition to their current assignment. Of the
respondents surveyed, four (33%) indicated this was their second district while three (25%)
indicated this was their third district. Twenty-five percent also indicated this was their fifth or
more district. Only two respondents (17%) indicated this was their fourth district as a
superintendent. In Kowalski et al’s (2011) Decennial Study data reflected 81% of respondents
served in one or two districts as superintendent. The small sample size may result in such a
discrepancy in the data. A full breakdown of the data is contained in Table 2.
This question was utilized in order for the researcher to gain insight into how school
boards and superintendents may function given the experiences with the respondents under
different conditions. In addition, the question was used to assist the researcher in gaining insight
into the experiences of working with multiple school board members.
71
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 2
Number of Districts Served
Superintendents

n = 25

Responses Frequency %

1 District 4 33.00
2 Districts 3 25.00
3 Districts 2 17.00
4 Districts or more 3 25.00

Grade Levels of District Served
The data from Table 3 indicates the grade levels served by the superintendents
participating in the electronic survey. Eighteen (72%) of respondents served in K – 12 districts
with three (18%) serving in K – 8 districts. Two respondents served in high school, or 9 – 12
districts, and one respondent each serving in a K – 6 elementary district or 7 – 12 school district.
The California Department of Education (CDE) from data in 2014, reports 52% of California
districts are elementary districts with 34% identified as unified school districts (CDE, 2014).
Eight percent of school district are high school districts. (CDE, 2014). Data from this study does
not align with the research. This may be due to the small sample size utilized for this study. A
full list of the data from the survey with regards to the district levels served appear below in
Table 3.
Demographics of School Districts
As stated in the previous chapter, the researcher sought to gain insights into the strategies
used by superintendents in successful urban districts. A unique purposeful sampling method was
72
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 3
Grade level of District Served
Superintendents

n = 25

Responses Frequency %

K – 6 1 4.00
K – 8 3 12.00
K – 12 18 72.00
7 – 12 1 4.00
9 – 12 2 8.00

utilized with the goal of achieving a typical representation of superintendents who had been
successful in raising student achievement in urban districts. Superintendents and school board
members from four districts were selected for the study. These districts had a history, over a
three-year period, of raising student achievement and demonstrating higher than the state average
on the criterion defining success in this study. Raising student achievement, for this study, is
defined as increasing student outcomes in a specific set of the criterion. Urban school districts
were identified for the study based on the following academic factors listed below. The criteria
are as follows:
• Performance and improvement results on mandated state tests in reading and
math.
• The reduction and magnitude of achievement gaps between ethnic groups and
between low-income and non-low-income students utilizing graduation data.
73
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

• Graduation rates calculated using the California Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
indicators.
• SAT and ACT exam scores.
Student Enrollment
Enrollments for the districts participating in the study ranged from 17,189 to a high of
35,519 students during the three-year period used for the research. Table 4 reflects the mean
enrollment figures and mean significant subgroup enrollment populations for the participating
districts including the percentage of students participating in free-reduced lunch program. Free-
reduced lunch is an indicator of poverty for California public schools.
The data from the districts studied reflects higher numbers in Hispanic-Latino and free-
reduced lunch percentage participation as reflected in Table 5. Hispanic-Latino enrollment
percentages are nearly twenty-percent higher with free-reduced lunch percentages reflecting an
increase of over ten percent each year. Mean African-American enrollment percentages (3%) are
roughly one-half of the state average (6%) over the three-year period.
Data utilized in Table 4, Table 5 and subsequent tables reflect those enrollments as
measured by the California Academic Performance Index (API) from the 2011 through 2013
years. Mean enrollment percentages in the tables and additional indicators reflect those
populations assessed on state exams.
District Academic Achievement
California has used the Academic Performance Index to measure district and student
academic growth on state assessments. The API is an annual measurement of a school and
district’s academic performance based on performance on the Standardized Testing and

74
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 4
Mean District Enrollment & Demographics
Districts

n = 4

Year Enrollment Hispanic-Latino % African-American % Free-Reduced Lunch %

2013 38,379 72.00 3.00 72.00
2012 38,599 71.00 3.00 68.00
2011 38,891 70.00 3.00 67.50

Table 5
Mean State Enrollment Demographics
Statewide

Year Hispanic-Latino % African-American % Free-Reduced Lunch %

2013 52.00 6.00 59.00
2012 52.00 6.00 58.00
2011 51.00 7.00 57.00

Reporting (STAR) and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) (CDE, 2014). As
reflected in Table 6, results from the participating districts reflect higher than statewide
performance with a high of thirty-six points in the 2011 testing year the first year of data used in
the study. For the most recent data set, participating districts maintained a growth of nineteen
points over the statewide average of 790.

75
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 6
Mean API Data
Districts
n = 4

Year District API Statewide API Difference +/-

2013 809 790 + 19
2012 803 788 + 15
2011 815 779 + 36

Significant Subgroups Academic Achievement
Table 7 reflects the academic performance of Hispanic-Latino and African-American
groups as measured by statewide mandated assessments. As suggested by the data, the
participating districts achieved at a higher level than the statewide average for both Hispanic-
Latino and African American populations. In the most recent year of testing, the increase for the
Hispanic-Latino population was twenty-four points with the African-American population
reflecting an increase of forty-one points as compared to data statewide.
District Graduation Rates
The graduation rates in California have improved over recent years. According to
Stephan Ceasar, in his report in the Los Angeles Times, improvements in graduation rates have
exceeded 80% for the first time since data has been measured (Ceasar, 2014). The data from
participating districts reflect this increase trend, as reflected in Table 8, as measured by mean
graduation rates for each district including significant subgroups populations utilized in the
research.

76
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 7
Mean API for Significant Subgroups
Districts
n = 4
District State

Year Hispanic-Latino African-American Hispanic-Latino African-American
District API District API State API State API
2013 767 774 743 702
2012 763 773 740 706
2011 765 754 729 696

In addition, participating districts have stayed ahead of statewide graduation rates for Hispanic-
Latino and African –American populations, a trend that does not align with state data.
Graduation rates for Latino and black students were lower than their white and Asian
counterparts (Ceasar, 2014). This trend may help support the definition of a successful urban
district used for this study as the significant subgroup populations demonstrate graduation
percentages above the statewide rate.
Table 8
Mean Graduation Rates
Districts
n = 4
District State

Year District % Hispanic- African- Statewide % Hispanic- African-
Latino % American % Latino % American%
2013 88 86 93 81 77 68
2012 87 85 82 80 76 68
2011 85 82 83 79 74 66

77
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

District SAT & ACT Results
Another set of criterion used in this study to help define a successful district are scores on
the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the ACT (American College Test) both measures of
college readiness. Data from the participating districts are below that of the state average. One
potential reason for the drop in results might be the large number of traditionally under-
represented student populations in the districts. Because the purpose of this study seeks to
identify strategies that lead to building relationships amongst superintendents and their boards
that in turn promote student achievement, as well as how leadership behaviors transfer into
building positive relationships that enable school districts to raise student achievement in urban
districts, the reasons behind the results were not explored. Table 9 reflects the data from SAT
and ACT results during the three-year period used to measure district success. The measures to
reflect college readiness for the purpose of this study were the percentages of students scoring
above 1500 on the SAT and students scoring above 21 on the ACT.
Table 9
Mean SAT & ACT Results
Districts
n = 4

Year District SAT % District ACT % Statewide SAT % Statewide ACT %

2013 34 50 46 57
2012 38 52 46 57
2011 37 50 46 57

The data discussed in this chapter thus far were used to provide context for the interviews
of the superintendents and school board members. Survey questions and interview questions
78
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

were linked to assist the researcher in gaining descriptive information and insights into the
relationships between successful superintendents and their school boards. In addition,
information was sought by the researcher into the strategies used by successful superintendents
to develop and nurture positive relationships with the board based on interview responses. The
data from the interviews and the findings of the researcher will be discussed in the next section.
Demographics of Interview Participants
Demographics of Superintendents
Superintendent interview participants were selected from the electronic survey
respondents. This allowed for creating deeper meaning from the survey responses.
Superintendents participating in the interviews have all served their district for a minimum of
three years, have served as superintendent in multiple districts, or were promoted from within the
district. All superintendent participants are serving in unified school districts.
Demographics of Board Members
All board member interview participants have served as Board President during their
tenure. Two members currently serve as the board president in their given district. The shortest
tenure for a board member was three years with the longest serving over twenty consecutive
years on the school board.
Research Questions
The findings of this study have been guided by the research questions listed below.
1. What strategies or behaviors do successful urban superintendents use to build
positive relationships with school board members?
2. How do positive interactions of superintendents and school boards increase
student achievement?
79
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

3. What leadership strategies promote positive relationships between the
superintendent and school board?
4. How do superintendents and school boards evaluate the effectiveness of their
relationships in regards to increasing student achievement?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this was to identify strategies that lead to building relationships amongst
superintendents and their boards that in turn promote student achievement. The study sought to
evaluate how leadership behaviors transfer into building positive relationships that enable school
districts to raise student achievement in urban districts.
Coding of the Data
The data collected for this study included responses from the electronic survey
questionnaire and interviews. Interviews were done after survey data were collected. Data from
both methods were used in the study. To analyze the data, a combination of the processes
outlined by Maxwell (2013), Corbin and Strauss (2008), and Cresswell (2009) were utilized.
Data analysis systematically searches and arranges data and continues as an ongoing process
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Analyzing data is an ongoing process of constant reflection and
analytic questions (Cresswell, 2009).
The first step the researcher used was to organize all of the data, which included the
audio transcriptions of the interviews, the low-inference notes taken during the interviews, and
survey data. Although appearing linear, the process is interactive and steps are interrelated
(Cresswell, 2009). The researcher continued to re-organize and develop a narrative based on
data from all areas of the research.
80
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Second, the researcher read through all data in the order each piece of data occurred. The
goal of this process is to gain a general sense of the data and think about its overall meaning
(Cresswell, 2009). The researcher listened to the audio from interviews to assist in recalling
information. During this process, the researcher made additional adjustments to transcripts to
align interview notes with audio recordings to assist in gaining clarity. In addition, the
researcher continued a cyclical process of reviewing interview transcriptions and notes as well as
data from surveys to constantly compare information. The constant comparative method looks at
each piece of data and compares it with one another to identify similarities and differences
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This process is inductive in nature as concepts and themes are built as
data is gathered and analyzed (Merriam, 2009). After reviewing and comparing the data, the
researcher moved to coding, a third step in analyzing data.
To code the data, the researcher began with the process of open coding. Open coding
refers to being open to all possibilities that may be helpful in reference to answering the research
questions (Merriam, 2009). In-vivo coding was also utilized in that the words of the
interviewees were utilized. In-vivo codes consist of using the language of the experiences of the
participants to name a code or theme (Maxwell, 2013).
As the researcher reviewed each interview, a narrative of the data was developed. The
researcher found the responses from the interviews related to data from the survey as well as
from the literature review. As this process continued, the researcher noticed repetitive comments
from the interviewees.
The next step in coding the data was taking the in-vivo codes and the interpretations from
the repetitive comments and organizing them into segments. Organizing the data requires one to
return to the data and organize the data into topics and write codes into (Creswell, 2009). From
81
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

this point, descriptive words and phrases form the codes. This began the process of developing
categories or themes from the data. Following this process, the researcher began to re-organize
the codes into the established categories from the previous steps. In addition, codes were
combined that suggested similar concepts in the data. Finally, after all data was coded, an
analysis of the data was conducted to outline the findings from the study and tie those findings to
the research questions.
Findings
The data analyses that follows are based on the research questions that guided the study.
After creating codes and categories from the data, one must look at how the data are related in
order to move towards an explanation of the meaning of the data (Merriam, 2009). The data
from the survey and interviews of superintendents and school board members were analyzed in
an attempt to answer the research questions. Responses from the quantitative survey and
responses from qualitative interviews were utilized to assist in making meaning of the data in
response to research questions.
Research Question #1
What strategies or behaviors do successful urban superintendents use to build positive
relationships with the school board members?
The questions linked to research question #1 and used to guide the analysis of the data in
this section are: Interview questions #1 and #2 and Survey questions #7, #11, and #25.
Frequent Communication
Effective superintendents are attentive of their need to focus on constant communication
(Kowalski, et al, 2011). As suggested by research, a positive relationship with the school board
assists the superintendent in performing their primary role as the instructional leader of the
82
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

school district. Relationships are of great importance to the board and superintendent
(Cleveland, et al, 2000). Superintendents participating in the survey were asked to identify a key
characteristic to building a positive relationship with the school board of seven possible choices.
Table 10 reflects the data from this question. Eleven respondents (44%) shared frequent
communication as being the key component. Six (24%) stated transparency, with four (16%)
responding that a connection on a personal level assisted in developing positive relationships. A
total of two superintendents ranked understanding and treating board members equally (8%) and
political context of an individual (8%) the same. No respondents identified collaboration or the
use of board study sessions as being important to developing a positive relationship with the
school board; however, as discussed in later sections, board study sessions do play a part in
raising student achievement. Good relationships with the school board that are built on good
communication, trust, and respect help foster effective school governance (Land, 2002). The
research and data therefore may suggest the relationship is what allows the study sessions to take
place in a manner that helps promote plans that may increase student achievement.
Survey question 7 asked respondents to share experiences that have been most positive in
shaping a relationship with their school board. Table 11 reflects the responses of participants.
Eleven respondents (44%) believed experiences that involved communication were key in
shaping a positive relationship with the board. Eight superintendents (32%) identified
workshops due to the time spent together, with the only other multiple response from
superintendents being individual meetings with four (16%) selecting that response. Ninety-two
percent of respondents selected some type of interaction with their board as shaping the positive
relationship they had with the school board.

83
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 10
Key Characteristics for Building Relationships
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Frequent communication 11 44.00
Transparency 6 24.00
Connecting on a personal level 4 16.00
Treating board equally 2 8.00
Understanding political context 2 8.00
Collaboration 0 0.00
Board study sessions 0 0.00

Communication was one factor superintendents and school boards point to in developing a
positive relationship (Castallo, 2003). Superintendent A stated his thoughts on the need for
constant, frequent communication in his interview with regards to strategies and behaviors
successful urban superintendents use to build positive relationships with board members.
Superintendent A: Number one is make sure that your communication is constant. So
our weekly packet is vital. They know they are going to get updated weekly. They also
know, and I would say, be constant or consistent in communication is one thing and the
other thing I would say is when in doubt provide the information.
This was supported by Superintendent D emphasizing the need to communicate often. “So the
strategies I use in public relationships would include constant communication; you know emails,

84
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 11
Experiences Shaping a Positive Relationship
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Communication 11 44.00
Workshops 8 32.00
Individual Meetings 4 16.00
Time on the Job 1 4.00
Focusing on the student 1 4.00

letters, going to lunch during the day . . . keeping in touch with the board members.” Research
suggests this assists the superintendent in developing and sustaining a positive relationship.
Communication is a key element to creating and sustaining a positive and supportive relationship
with the school board. (McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; Glass, 2013; Nelson, 2010).
In addition to sustaining a positive and productive relationship, research states that the
ongoing communication assists the superintendent and board in making decisions that align with
district goals. If communication is not frequent and clear, school boards seek information
elsewhere. When boards do not receive adequate information from the superintendent they seek
information elsewhere which can often lead to confusion and distrust between the school board
and superintendent (IEL, 1986). Interviews with school board members affirm the research as
noted by Board Member 2. “If I feel I have enough information. I’m not going to do that
blindly, obviously. If I feel like I can understand the situation, I understand where it’s at, um, I
85
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

will try to be an ally to him”. A critical factor in allowing for a school board to make sound
educational decisions was their access to information from the superintendent (IEL, 1986).
The need for communication is clear in the research and in the data from the study. How
successful superintendents communicate was yet another question posed to participants in the
study.
The frequency of respondents to the survey were analyzed by asking how often
superintendents communicated with the board. Thirteen (52%) responded they communicate on
a weekly basis while nine respondents (36%) stated they communicate with board members at
least two times per week. Table 12 reflects participant responses in detail. Kowalski et al (2011)
Decennial Study on American Superintendents suggests less frequent communication with
school board members as approximately two-thirds of respondents reported they spent less than
six hours with their school board. Qualitative responses from superintendents interviewed
suggest frequency was best measured by need as well as the method in which communication
was given or received. Due to the unique purposeful sampling of successful superintendents, one
may expect a higher rate of communication with board members due to the superintendent’s
understanding of the importance of communication as related to relationships with the school
board.
No Surprises
The idea of frequent communication lends itself to asking the question of why this need
for constant communication is so important to the superintendent-school board relationship.
When participants were asked to describe what a positive relationship looks like, the theme of no
surprises developed. Townsend et al (2007) emphasized the responsibility of the superintendent

86
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 12
Frequency of Communcation
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Weekly 13 52.00
Twice per week 9 36.00
Less than one time per week 2 8.00
Daily 1 4.00
At least twice daily 0 0.00

to protect the board from surprises. The superintendent is responsible for protecting the board
from surprises (Townsend et al, 2007). Superintendents, to avoid potential conflicts, should
ensure the school board is not surprised by critical and important information pertaining to the
district (Townsend et al, 2007).
All four superintendents interviewed for the study shared the importance of not surprising
the school board. Superintendent B identified a positive relationship as:
No surprises. That I know things are going well with the board and I'm accessible and
available and the board understands that I am interested in hearing what they have to say
and hearing any suggestions and answering their questions.
Superintendent C repeated this theme discussing the need for work prior to board
meetings in order to allow for consistency amongst the board and superintendent.
Superintendent C stated, “You have to do a lot of proactive work, behind the scene stuff, so that
87
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

when we come into the board meeting we have really thought it through so there is not a
breakdown and no one is surprised.”
The need to keep the board informed was part of the community presence as well. Given
the public nature of the school board’s position, allowing the board to be prepared to respond
appropriately was important. Superintendent A compared this relationship using a metaphor of
deposits and withdrawals.
Superintendent A: So, everything is like every time I do communicate and somebody
comes up from the community and says, ‘Hey, what about this?’ They are aware. When
something like this happens and somebody gets to them and they don’t know, that’s a
withdrawal. I always try to make sure I’m making smaller deposits then there might be a
withdrawal and I try to avoid any big withdrawals.

Superintendent D continued the emphasis on no surprises sharing, “I think the positive
relationship is based on no surprises” while Superintendent A re-stated the importance of the
board’s interaction in public.
I think that the crux of that is to make sure that they do not get blind-sided by anything
out in the community. So I am very clear with them. My goal is to make sure that
they look good in the community at all times and a big part of that is being sure that they
do not get blindsided in the community by something that happened in our schools. So, I
think that is really part of when you talk about a successful relationship it’s from my
perspective making sure they have enough information to be able to provide a quality
answer should they ever be asked.

88
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Managing Conflict
Within the responses to interview and survey questions focusing on Research Question
#1, conflict was the final theme that was reflected in the data, specifically, how effective
superintendents manage and work through conflict.
Survey question 8 asked respondents to identify the most challenging experience in
shaping their relationship with the board. Of the respondents, twelve (48%) stated an individual
or political agenda made relationships difficult. Five superintendents identified the board not
knowing their role in the district or micro-managing. This was followed by respondents three
(12%) identifying with the same frequency both communication and establishing protocols,
while one superintendent each identified establishing trust (4%) and board meetings (4%)
respectively. The full data from the survey question is contained below.
Table 13
Most Challenging Experiences Shaping a Relationship
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Individual Agenda 12 48.00
Knowing their Role/Micro-managing 5 20.00
Communication 3 12.00
Establishing Protocol 3 12.00
Trust 1 4.00
Board Meetings 1 4.00

89
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Research affirms the difficulty superintendents have when individual interests outweigh
the district agenda. The Minnesota Study on School Board-Superintendent Relationships found
180 of 213 respondents (85%) stated micro-managing or role confusion as a challenge or conflict
within the board (Nelson, 2010). However, superintendents during the interviews shared the
struggle of board members with their own agenda as the greatest potential conflict they
experienced. Superintendent D explained this struggle with political motivation from a board
member.
I had a previous board member who did become a mayor who had political aspirations
and I do find that typically the worse scenario. People with political aspirations who
want to do things because they want it on their resume. For the other board members the
majority of them are not politically you know motivated at all, they just want to see
things happen.

However, there was less frequency with the superintendents interviewed regarding individual
agendas. This may be due to the identification of successful urban superintendents due to the
nature of purposeful selection utilized for this study.
Perhaps the most frequent conflict experienced by superintendents is when board
members are out to serve their own interest (Glass, 2013). Conflict within the board impacts their
ability to move educational initiatives that serve the districts interest forward as infighting over
personal agendas take over the board’s purpose (IEL, 1986, Nelson, 2010).
Managing conflict, research would suggest, is a key component to a positive relationship.
Superintendents were asked how they managed conflict in the survey. This is supported through
the lens of Bolman and Deal (2008) who suggest how conflict is managed is an important factor
in an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
90
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 14 reflects how superintendents responded to the question of how they manageed
conflict. In their responses, superintendents shared an example of how they managed conflict.
Communication was cited thirteen times (52%), thus being the as the most frequent response.
Respondents shared open dialogue, frequent conversations, and direct face to face meetings as a
narrative to the open ended question. The second most cited response, five (25%), was using the
board president. The board president serves an important role in determining the effectiveness of
the school board. A good board president is fair, encourages for all points of view, and does not
allow for one individual to dominate board proceedings (IEL, 1986). The use of the board
president will be discussed further in this study. Focusing on the student, with a response rate of
four (16%), followed with redirecting the board to student needs as a strategy. One respondent
(4%) each selected providing data, transparency, and that it varied in their responses.
Table 14
How Do You Manage Conflict?
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Communication 13 52.00
Using Board President 5 20.00
Focusing on Students 4 16.00
Transparency 1 4.00
Providing Data 1 4.00
Varies 1 4.00

91
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

To provide a more detailed response, interviews were conducting asking superintendents
to idenitfy how they managed conflict within the context of the superintendent-board relationship
and what the positive relationship looks like. Respondents shared the need to adderess conflict
and repeated the need to communicate with the board and use the Board President strategically.
In the political frame, conflict does not necessarily mean something is wrong within the
organiztion (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Superintendent B explained how school boards that were dysfunctional and full of
conflict did not necessarily impact district success due to the skill of the superintendent.
I’ve been in districts where they’ve had really dysfunctional boards that the schools hit on
all cylinders because the superintendent steers skillfully, and manages that conflict and
puts a barrier between maybe what’s going on in that central level and what’s going on
day-to-day in the classroom.

This response might suggest the importance of the superintendent understanding how to manage
conflict in order to increase student achievement and manage district affairs.
Another pitfall of the superintendent-school board relationship was the school board
micromanaging the work of the district. Included within the survey responses, and cited by 20%
of respondents was that of the board micro-managing district affairs. Research suggests micro-
managing leads to superintendent dissatisfaction and frustration. According to the Report
written by The Education Writers Association (2003), 7 of 10 superintendents state their board
interferes with their ability to do work. Castallo’s (2003) research suggests this is an issue that
requires delicate management of conflict. One of the most sensitive issues regarding
relationships between board members and superintendents involved micro-management
(Castallo, 2003). Research by the American Association of School Administrators suggest that
92
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

the superintendent’s job can not be managed by board interference. Conflict is likely to ensue
when boards attempt to micromanage superintendent responsibilities (AASA, 1980).
Interview participants responded to conflict and board micromanagement citing the
importance of clear goals and roles for the superintendent and school board. According to
Superintendent B, the mutual understanding of this relationship between superintendent and
board roles proved successful in navigating conflict.
So, I have been really pleased to be able to always work with boards to make sure that
they have a clear understanding of what our goals and missions are and to bring to them
opportunities that re-enforce the good work we are doing. Which kind of keeps them out
of the tendency to maybe micro-manage around a central office directly to a site which
can be very disruptive.
Superintendent B also referenced the mutual trust that is earned over the duration of a positive
relationship which allows for the communication necessary to stem conflict.
Because I had the type of relationship I could call the trustee and say, “Can we meet for
coffee tomorrow morning? I need to talk to you about something.” That kind of call,
right away, they kind of, their ears perked up and kind of wondered what was going on,
probably not a good thing. Because our relationship is one in which they know that I
want them to do well and be successful, I think that that relationship allowed me to have
that difficult conversation without making it sound like I was calling anyone out and if I
handled it right, I usually get thanked by the end of those.

A board member interviewed shared insight also focusing on mutual trust. That is to respect the
position of the superintendent. Board Member 1: “I think you need to have a respect of his
position and understand that as a board member, you are not supposed to micro-manage.”
93
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

To further support the importance of managing conflict, the superintendent need only
look at research to guide thinking. The Decennial Study of American Superintendents
(Kowalski, et al, 2011) suggests superintendents leave the position due to conflict with the board.
Superintendents responding to the study cited conflict (15.3%) second after desiring a new
challenge (30.3%).
As shared by Superintendent D during the interview, there is an understanding by the
successful superintendent that conflict is inherent to the position.
Superintendent D: There is always going to be conflict. Any relationship is going to have
conflict and I think that what I have found with the board is that with individual board
members I have to keep there are some things that I just have to say no big deal or I am
not going to get upset about they have an opinion.

Conflict is a part of an organizational relationship. Individuals that work closely will
disagree. How it is managed and framed asissts the organization to move in a positive direction.
The research of Bolman and Deal (2008), within their political frame emphasizes that conflicts
do not have to jeopardize relationships or the organization as a whole. In the political frame,
conflict does not necessarily mean something is wrong within the organiztion (Bolman & Deal,
2008). As demonstrated during the interviews, superintendents understood conflict and utilized
strategies to assist them in dealing with issues that traditionally impacted the superintendent-
school board relationship.
Research Question #2
How do positive interactions of superintendents and school board members increase student
achievement?
94
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

The questions linked to research question #1 and used to guide the analysis of the data in
this section are: Interview questions #4 and #5 and Survey questions #9, #10, #13, #14, #18,
#23, and #24.
The superintendents surveyed and interviewed, as well as those board members
participating in the study, were asked how their interactions might lead to increases in student
achievement. Specifically, interview participants were asked about the instructional benefits a
district experienced when superintendents and board members demonstrated a positive
relationship. Survey questions also sought to identify how relationships may benefit student
achievement.
Research indicates that a postitive relationship does in fact assist the superintendent in
raising student achievement. The importance of a successful superintendent–school board
relationship is important in order to provide a high quality education for all students (Glass,
2013; White, 2007). Data from survey question 18 suggests respondents to the survey enjoy a
positive relationship with the school board and board members respect their position as
instructional leaders. Twenty respondents (80%) either agreed (10 respondents) or strongly
agreed (10 respondents) that the board respected their position as instructional leader while four
(16%) slightly agreed. Only one (4%) responded that the board did not respect their role as the
district’s instructional leader. This may suggest most respondents have increased credibility,
trust, and have effectively communicated the role of the school board through strategic planning
or retreats. These concepts will be discussed in this and later sections. Data from the question
are reflected in Table 15.

95
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 15
The School Board Respects and Values My Position
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Strongly Disagree 1 4.00
Disagree 0 0.00
Slightly Agree 4 16.00
Agree 10 40.00
Strongly Agree Data 10 40.00

What then might superintendents do to create an atmosphere that not only promotes a positive
relationship with the board and increases student achievement?
According to Togneri and Anderson (2003), student achievement occurs when
superintendents and school boards build consensus and collegiality, are commited to respect
among colleagues so that conflicts may be worked through, and adopt a solution-seeking
orientation. In response to Research Question #2, the data indicates there are systems and
structures successful superintendents use to create a district that promotes positivity amongst the
superintedent and board members and increases student achievement. Those structures include:
strategic planning sessions, creating a culture of success by communicating a vision, establishing
trust through communication, and formalizing roles of the board. These themes will be
discussed further in this section.

96
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Strategic Planning Sessions
A strategic plan assists the superintendent and school board in defining roles, setting a
vision for student achievement, and formalizing protocols. Communication again surfaces as a
key factor to the success of the planning process. Open communication during strategic planning
keeps the board informed about student achievement and allows them to fully participate in
forming a plan (Harris, 2011). This was observed by Superintendent B who shared the
importance of goal setting and working with the school board.
The strategic planning process and annually working and setting goals and priorities
really helps a superintendent to work with the board to focus on what matters and
typically throughout relationships you develop enough of a shared focus that when those
distractions and maybe new opportunities that board members stumble across or a great
idea that they have at a weekend workshop and in their zeal to do good things for kids,
come in and set a new course.
Given the advent of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the need to perhaps
adjust instructional practice and vision based on new accountability measures, the researcher
sought to identify the use of a consultant to assist superintendents in strategic planning and if the
frequency of strategic planning with a focus on CCSS had increased in their districts. Table 16
reflects the survey responses to whether board sessions have focused on CCSS. Sixteen (64%)
of respondents stated they strongly agree or agree that they have spent more time focusing on
common core while six (24%) responded that they slightly agree. With 88% of responses in the
affirmative, the data suggests CCSS has been a priority to superintendents as they guide
schoolboards into instructional conversations during strategic planning.
97
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 17 reflects survey responses of the twenty-five superintendents on the use of a
consultant. Thirteen (52%) superintendents answered yes to the question suggesting there was
no strong preference or particular need in utilizing a consultant to assist the superintendent. In
addition, of the twenty five respondents only Leadership Associates and the California School
Table 16
Study Session Focus on CCSS
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Agree 9 36.00
Strongly Agree 7 28.00
Slightly Agree 6 24.00
Disagree 3 12.00
Strongly Disagree 0 0.00

Board Association (CSBA) received multiple responses, three and two respectively. This data
suggests there is no preference amongst the respondents to utilizing professional consultant
services.
However, the need for planning, creating a vision and culture for student success, and
establishing roles was important as suggested by the data from interview participants.
Strategic planning allows for the superintendent and board to get together and focus on
their work. Supporting student achievement relies on structures in place to focus attention on
student outcomes (Land, 2002).

98
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 17
Using Consultants for Strategic Planning
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Yes 13 52.00
No 12 48.00

As it relates to setting an instructional vision, seventeen survey respondents (68%) either
strongly agreed or agreed that the work together was important. Table 18 reflects the results of
the question focusing on setting an instructional vision. When the superintendent and school
board were strategic in planning goals for achievement, all students improved (Harris, 2011).
Superintendent B identified that strategic plan focused the board on their priorities. He stated, “I
find that that strategic plan really helps me draw that board back. That relationship that we had
developed, it gives me license to go back and say this may be something we want to talk about.”
The data from interviews also indicates that sessions became more focused on instruction
and were more frequent with the advent of the Common Core. Board Member 1 suggested only
a slight increase; however, the background of board members may influence the response of
particular board members. During the interviews, two board member participants were former
teachers. He shared. “Yeah, but not dramatically. I mean there have been some study sessions on
the LCAP and what implications it has.” However, board members that did not have an
educational background shared the following regarding board study session on Common Core.

99
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Table 18
Assisting in Setting an Instructional Vision
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Agree 9 36.00
Strongly Agree 8 32.00
Slightly Agree 4 16.00
Disagree 3 12.00
Strongly Disagree 1 4.00

Board Member 3 stated, “I think it has been different in that it’s setting a strategic
direction and discussion into relationships with other board members and the details in managing
outcomes and staying focused.”
Board Member 2: It’s has helped us set the standard for them. The rest of the district to
have faith and believe it can work because it is the only choice we have and we make the
best of it. We do the best we can and the energy and the excitement of the teachers and
staff is so exciting.
Another interview participant, Board Member 4 shared the importance and frequency of
in-services and their contribution to school board learning and district achievement.
Board Member 4: So I think that we have been very successful with the increase of our
students’ achievement across the board and as far as common core standards I really
believe to some extent we are really cutting edge because we have had so many in-
services.
100
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Data from Table 18 were supported by Superintendent A during his interview when he stated:
“So, again, while their role isn’t necessarily formulating the strategic plan, their role is to
formally adopt a strategic plan and we could have come to that with some kind of document and
said this is an accumulation.”
There was agreement by the superintendents interviewed when they described the need
for training and knowledge of CCSS and student achievement. Superintendent A stated, “It’s
imperative that the school board know and understand what we are trying to do with students and
I think that there are so many recent examples of that in the Common Core.”
The planning and focus, according to interviews, returned to the idea of communication
as shared by Board Member 2 when she stated:
I think that as I said we have a good relationship and we are able to sit down and
prioritize what is important, what things we want to accomplish in our district and what
things are feasible long term vs. short term and because we have that good relationship,
we are able to accomplish that.
Interviews suggest work done between the superintendent and school board, when effective, are
promoted through the positive relationship established between both parties. This speaks to the
nature of a shared belief as indicated by Harris (2011). Student achievement is improved when
the superintendent and board hold a shared belief in raising student achievement for all students
(Harris, 2011).
Creating a Culture of Success by Communicating a Vision
A focus on instruction is one part of the planning process as identified in interviews. A
second area emphasized by superintendents was creating a culture of success by communicating
a vision to the board and school district. Part of that vision, given recent educational changes to
101
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

California, involves CCSS.
Effective leaders are able to articulate a vision, set performance standards, create a focus
and direction for the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Table 19 reflects the data on the
implementation of CCSS and whether there have been frequent conversations regarding
implementation.
As the data suggests, 23 of 25 respondents (92%) answered in agreement to the question
on CCSS implementation suggesting that superintendents have emphasized the importance of
board members having knowledge of educational changes and the potential changes to
instructional practices that have accompanied Common Core.
The superintendent’s role is to set the instructional vision, share the vision for the district
and to do so he or she must have strong beliefs on instruction, create and articulate specific
Table 19
Conversations on Common Core (CCSS)
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Agree 11 44.00
Strongly Agree 6 24.00
Slightly Agree 6 24.00
Disagree 1 4.00
Strongly Disagree 1 4.00

goals, and prioritize standards (Castallo, 2003; Townsend, et al, 2007). However, research
indicates this is a joint process. School boards and superintendents work together to set the
102
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

vision for schools based on core values, a mission, and vision. (Bryant & Houston, 2002;
Townsend et al, 2007).
Interview participants, both superintendents and school board members, articulated this
priority and that it rests on the superintendent. Relationships were mentioned as being at the
core of this belief as shared by Board Member Board 2 who stated, “I think that typically if you
have a good relationship with the superintendent typically that school district has a positive kind
of atmosphere.” Superintendent C also shared this concept when stating:
So, for example, because of this high quality functioning relationship with our board, we
have got it to where we are never centered on instructional and every board meeting there
is a distinction . . . insisting on talking about student achievement.
Participants cited strategic planning and the idea that the school board was aware of
changes and district vision due to time spent together in planning sessions.
Superintendent A: Well you know the thing happens is that we last year went through a
strategic planning process and so they unanimously adopted our vision and our mission
and our shared values and so that really my conversations with them if there is something
that really centers around whatever we do for consistency whatever we do has to fit our
overall vision of what we are heading as an organization.

Superintendent C: So, for example when we go on district instructional rounds, we will
invite our board members to go with us so they can get a look at what that looks like and
practice. We have our five-day summer principal’s institute. A training on instructional
leadership. They are there to see what that looks like. So, those pieces are in play.

Board members participating in the interviews also shared that behaviors brought out
103
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

through strategic planning helped build a culture promoting student achievement.
Board Member 3: You will never move to the excellence we should be unless we do
focus on, emphasize, and discuss what does excellence look like. And how do we
achieve that? and I think it just changes the entire dynamic and thought process when
instruction is at the forefront.
Through the processes and systems established by the superintendent-school board work, a
support is developed that assists the superintendent in creating a learning community with a
focus on student achievement and not on other issues. As Superintendent A shared :
Having them fully support what we are doing and asking some thoughtful questions
really helps us be better as a staff so that’s really having the support of the board has been
incredibly eempowering to us as a staff to do this as best as possible.
Establishing Trust Through Communication
Research suggest a superintendent can accomplish little without a positive relationship
with the school board. Good relationships are characterized by mutual respect, trust, support,
confidence, and open communication and these traits assist superintendents in raising student
achievement (Harris, 2011; Land, 2002; Talerico, 1989). Building a relationship on trust helped
Superintendent A navigate difficult situations. “Having this relationship and having the trust it
really allows me to make some tough decisions that need to be made and know that board is
supportive of what we are doing so I really appreciate that level of relationship.”
Superintendent B related how trust assisted in moving the school board forward on
instructional issues related to Common Core implementation.
Superintendent B: I have one trustee who is quite suspect of the common core but
because of the relationship we have developed over time and the credibility of the team
104
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

work we have done in professional development and the successes we have had in our
trajectory of student performance that he is inclined to trust what he sees and hears from
us.
The idea of frequent communication is also a theme of comments shared by Superintendent B.
Trust is not lost on the credibility of the superintendent as witnessed by Superintendent A
commenting on the feeling one receives when there is trust from the board to the superintendent,
especially when that trust worked to assist in common core implementation.
Superintendent A: What I really appreciate is that the board looks at my qualifications
coming in and they made the decision hire me and they place a high level of trust in my
ability to lead this transition forward as we get deeper into Common Core.

Conversely, research by Peterson and Short (2002) indicate a negative relationship may impact
the superintendent’s ability. Negative relationships between the board and superintendent can
impact the superintendents credibility and trustworthiness (Peterson and Short, 2002). The 2010
Minnesota Study on School Board-Superintendent relationships found 95% of respondents
reported their relationship as very good or good (Nelson, 2010).
Survey question 14 asked respondents if they collaborated on all decisions with the board
of education. Data from the question suggests superintendents did not communicate with the
board on all decisions. Eighteen respondents (72%) strongly disagreed (3) or disagreed (15) with
consulting or collaborating on all decisions, while five respondents (20%) slightly agreed and
two respondents (8%) agreed that they do consult and collaborate on all decisions. Through
interviews, this question was more fully discussed with superintendents in interviews sharing
they communicate frequently and consult on decisions that are within the role of the school
board. Table 20 reflects the results from the survey question. The role of the school board is
105
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

more fully discussed in the next section.
Table 20
Defining Board Roles
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Strongly Agree 17 68.00
Agree 7 28.00
Slightly Agree 0 0.00
Disagree 0 0.00
Strongly Disagree 1 4.00

Establishing the Role of the School Board
The role of the school board is not simple (IEL, 1986). As discussed during this chapter,
individual agendas may lead to conflict and political motivations of individual board members
may interfere with the work of the superintendent. Additionally, micro-management may impact
superintendent and district outcomes.
According to the Kowalski’s et al Decennial Study of American Superintendents (2010),
the board exerted considerable influence over superintendents 69% of the time with respondents
cited moderate influence 28% of the time. (Kowalski, et al, 2011). Data suggests school
superintendents may want to establish roles and protocols in order to lessen board influence and
establish what influence the board may take on educational matters. Within the structural frame,
Bolman and Deal (2008) emphasized when goals are not clear, individuals define their own role
based on their personal desires.
106
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Survey data, as noted by Table 20 suggest superintendents found it important to clearly
define board roles. Twenty-four of twenty-five surveyed (96%) stated they agreed or strongly
agreed it was important to clearly define the role of the school board. This would indicate
superintendents might make it a priority to define roles early in their superintendency.
In the first few months of the superintendency, he or she should establish the parameters of the
roles and responsibilities of the board (Glass, 2013). One superintendent interviewed shared the
importance of establishing what the school board would do early in their career.
Superintendent B: I establish this early on, when I come into a district. I think that up to
the extent possible, when the board understands its role and understands its role as a staff,
and by that, I mean they really stay in the area of policy and setting the targets and
monitoring.
Separating the role of the board from that of the superintendent is one of the most
important factors in contributing to a successful school board-superintendent relationship
(Nelson, 2010). Role confusion is the single greatest factor contributing to a poor superintendent-
school board relationship (Nelson, 2010). Surprisingly, a board member participating in the
interviews was critical of the role of the school board interfering with educational decision
making by the superintendent. Board Member 1 stated, “So, you've got some boards who are
having to make decisions over something that they really don't have any specific knowledge of.”
Superintendent C looked to the contract to help establish the role of the board and the
superintendent. He stated, “The contract outlines those roles and responsibilities so going into
the relationship with the board there is clarity around what are those roles and responsibilities.”
This may help to provide clarity as the research indicates one problem is when roles are not
explicit. The separation between policy development and administration is often blurred
107
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

between the superintendent and school board (Kowalski et al, 2011). Establishing clear roles
assists the superintendent in eliminating the misunderstanding in role confusion which may lead
to conflict (Bryant & Houston, 2002; Eadie, 2003; White, 2007). The separation of roles and
what specifically each member, superintendent and school board, should oversee was stated by
Superintendent A who shared the following in his interview:
I work at being very respectful as well so we certainly have disagreements but we go
back to relating to two things. Number one is the role of the board in regard of policy and
the role of the superintendent in regards to running the day to day operations of the
district so we talk about it here or we look and which of these does this fit into. It if falls
into the policy then obviously we have to bring in the other board members.
As opposed to micro-management, a well-researched negative role of the board, board
members participating in this study indicated the need to empower and support the
superintendent and his or her team. This they believed created a positive culture and team effort.
Board Member 4 stated, “Well, the best thing that I’ve always done here is I have no agenda. I
try to serve the kids as best as I can.”
Board Member 2: I think the board empowers the superintendent, empowers the head of
Educational Services, the Assistant of Educational Services, empowers the teachers, the
principals, the schools, in general by telling them that, you know, when something comes
up that is controversial or can be taken in two different ways . . . there is a lot of upside
to this thing, there is a lot of down side, too, but I think that’s where we come in as a
district and say we are going to implement this and search completely free outside.
An effective leader has the foresight to see the importance of explicit and well-defined
roles and responsibilities. Bolman and Deal (2008) suggest the structural frame provides a
108
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

context for this concept. The leaders within the structural frame must be aware of formal roles
within the organization, policies and procedures of the organization, and have the ability to guide
the organization away from personal agendas (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Effective superintendents
reinforce board roles and are cognizant of their values and beliefs and how they impact their
leadership (Castallo, 2003).
Research Question #3
What leadership strategies promote positive relationships between the superintendent and school
board?
The questions linked to research question #1 and used to guide the analysis of the data in
this section are: Interview questions #3, #6, #7, and #8 and Survey questions #8, #12, #15, #14,
#16, #19, #20, #21, #23, and #26.
In order for a superintendent to be succesful in their leadership of the board, it is
suggested strategies be put in place to organize and structure the work of the superintendent and
school board. Avoiding dysfunction is paramount. By utilizing appropriate strategies, a
superintendent may best lead the board in achieving district priorities. What motives are behind
individual actions can lead to dysfunctional relationships in an organiztion (Bolman & Deal,
2008). By analyazing data from surveys and interviews, four themes were refelcted related to
effective superintendent strategies. These include knowledge of the school board, formalizing
protocols, communication strategies, and utilizing the school board president effectviely.
Work to Know the School Board
To best understand why a superintendent may wish to know their board, one may focus
on the Political Frame of Bolman and Deal (2008). Within the political frame, the leaders must
understand how others think and what they care about so one may respond to these issues
109
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

regarding the leaders agenda (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Identifying the habits, needs, and desires
of a board member can increase the likelihood of building a positive relationship.
Superintendents shared startegies they use to create a relationship with board members.
Superintendent D shared, “You know, having conversations getting to know them, talking to
them openly, being vulnerable sometimes and being transparent. Those are the things I do.”
In order to move towards a positive relationship and create a district focused on student
achievement, the superintendents in the study were asked to identify strategies they utilize to
build relationships. An overarching question in the interview protocol also focused on what a
new superintendent may need to focus on in order to promote positive superintendent-school
board relationships. Superintendents, through both questions, shared a recursive theme of the
necessity to know the board on a personal level. The superintendent must know the motivations
of all board members and use those motivational aspects to serve the good of the district
(Townsend et al, 2007). The concept is supported by the conceptual framework of the study.
The research of Bolman and Deal (2008), indicates people may often form relationships
that fit individual styles and preferences that are counter to the organizational needs (Bolman &
Deal, 2008). The responses of superintendents in the study align with the research inasmuch as
they shared how knowledge of the board assists them in working through various agendas and in
separating the person from the issue. Superintendent C suggested, “Some of them you have to
separate passions and what's the underlying motivations and it boils down to what is best for the
kids and the community and that is the common ground.” Superintendent B indicated, “I think
that the key thing in building relationships with the board is that I take time to learn each of their
particular interests, habits, what brought them onto the board.” This practice, as suggested by
research, is important in avoiding problems one might encounter with the school board. What
110
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

motives are behind individual actions can lead to dysfunctional relationships in an organiztion
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Communication remained a topic shared in the interviews. Superintendents indicated
knowing the board asissts them in knowing how to communicate. “For example, one board
member requires just an occasional phone call, another requires almost a daily discussion, some
require more than that,” shared Superintendent C. In addition to knowing how to approach the
board, Superintendent B also stated knowledge of the board impacts their communication
through the board packet. “I funnel information to the board and highlight what is going on in
the district, making sure that I get their particular areas of interest.”
Finally, one Superintendent in the study shared how they have a conversation with new
board members. Superintendent B stated:
I have to really get to know my trustees. ‘So, what brought you to the board? What made
you decide to become a board member?’ There’s usually a story and then I start getting a
sense of what their hobbies are, you know, their issues and you pick up what their style
is. You get a sense of each trustee.
A third area brought out from the interviews and supported by the research was how trust
and integrity were hallmarks of a positive relationship. Trust and integrity are built upon
communication. Research on school boards cite trust and open communications as important
factors in developing a positive relationship with the superintendent (IEL, 1986). Trust and
strong communication between the superintendent and school board helps foster effective
leadership (IEL, 1986; Land, 2006).
Superintendents explicitly stated trust in two of four interviews as being a critical
component. Superintendent A shared, “I think it really, like anything else, is based on constant
111
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

communication and trust.” While Superintendent C identified the mutual nature of trust. “I
think that the word respect and trust comes to mind. That's mutual.”
The board members interviewed most strongly indicated the importance of trust. Two of
four board members interviewed identified communication builds the necessary respect that
helps define the relationship between the superintendent and board. Without communication, the
relationship may not fully develop. Board Member A stated, “There is good communication,
you can see that they get along well. That there is mutual respect for both parties concerned.”
Board Member C said the following:
Really in public, the speed of trust which goes through characteristics what trust is and
how we are trustworthy ourselves or not and the characteristics of this. And I really think
that building that trust is extraordinarily important. Well clearly respect and trust is
paramount. It’s a foundation that you really build on from there and then an open and
honest dialogue is one that just cuts through any air or miscommunication.

This suggests that through communicating often there is a level of trust built between all parties.
Because of this trust, superintendent and board may work through situations that might ordinarily
result in conflict or dysfunction. Research indicates the need for positively handling conflict.
Resolving conflict between school boards and superintendents is important in order to maintain
positive working relationships (White, 2007). Understanding and managing conflict was
analyzed within this study in previous sections of the chapter and was clearly defined as key to a
successful superintendent-school board relationship.
Formalizing Protocols
The use of protocols helps establish a process or system for addressing work between the
superintendent and school board. Superintendents that identify protocols and systems greatly
112
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

enhance relationships with their board. Effective school board-superintendent relationships are a
product of creating protocols that produce clear structures for communication (Townsend et al,
2007). As addressed earlier, communication was a key indicator for a positive relationship.
Also, student achievement is effected when there are no protocols in place, as board members
had the tendency to seek information elsewhere which was discussed in interviews and supported
by research. School board and superintendents that increased student achievement had a system
in place to respond to changes and assist in communication to the board (Harris, 2011; IEL,
1986).
Superintendents and board members during the interviews identified formalizing
protocols in order to clarify roles, create a vision for the district, and build a relationship. Board
Member 2 shared the importance of establishing protocols and policies as they assisted in having
a positive relationship in order for students to achieve at higher levels. She stated, “I think that
by having a positive relationship with your superintendent you have certain policies set aside and
visions set for the district and student so that they will be successful.”
Superintendent C mentioned the importance of protocols for both the superintendent and
board. “Fundamentally, so the superintendent isn’t running point on a discussion that involves
his behaviors as well as the boards”, he stated. This, he identified, as a way to evaluate
discussions and ensure a voice from all participants.
The formal protocols were also a part of strategic planning and the process
superintendents use to assist them in setting a vision for the district especially when the
relationship between all parties is positive.
Superintendent B: So, kind of in a global sense, we are, going to be doing the full day
retreat in July to adopt a formal governance hand book which I think we have very well
113
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

understood informal rules of conduct and norms of engagement but they need to be
solidified while the board is healthy and happy like they are now.
In addition, this protocol of board retreats helps the superintendent manage behaviors and
establish strategies. In particular, conflict may be better managed through board retreats. Board
retreats may be designed to address and reduce conflict by creating structures to address
disagreements (Hill, 2003). Additional research on organizational theory also supports the
superintendents’ use of protocols. The political frame emphasizes the structures and protocols in
place to manage conflict (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Superintendent A shared why setting up
norms and protocols for discussion are important to the superintendent-school board relationship.
He stated:
Any board members would like to see, that board member says, “you know I'd like to see
this” and another board member seconds it then we will move forward in putting that in.
We will do our research as a staff and put that on the agenda. So when somebody has a
personal issue or somebody has something they would like to see there are venues for
that and if they are not satisfied if I have explained to them sort of what we are doing and
they are not satisfied with that and that's okay there is a venue for them with their
colleagues where they are allowed to say, “I would like to pursue an avenue of inquiry
related to this” and if they get a second then we will place on a board agenda for further
discussion. If there is no second then obviously it's not something that the others see an
interest in and they kind of realize at that point, “well okay this is my issue and I get that
and nobody else is concerned about that so I'm okay with that.”
Because of the potential volatile nature of the board meeting as well as the public nature
of the superintendent and school board, superintendents shared the importance of protocols for
114
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

meetings. Establishing norms for behavior were part of the positive relationship superintendents
had with their school board.
Superintendent D: A lot of the norms are about how do we conduct ourselves in a
meeting. How do we conduct ourselves for example if we have a discussion item? Let’s
do that behind closed doors or in a study session; let’s not do that in an open session in
public.
Superintendent C stated, “I think first and foremost it’s having a clear set of operating norms.
We started that. That was probably the first activity I engaged in when I became part of the . . .
team.”
Finally, superintendent D emphasized the public nature and need for protocols in his
interview.
Superintendent D: Like if the media talks to you don’t say we the board say you can say
I as an individual. Have the district communicate directly to me about items so that way
we don’t surprise people and ask questions. We try to minimize asking questions at a
meeting to say oh we are going to do that? Why are we going to do that? They should
have called me already and we should have had a conversation about it before it even
happens.
Communication Strategies
A third strategy reflected by superintendents and supported by school board members
was communication strategies. Frequency of communication was analyzed in the study; yet,
how does the superintendent communicate to board members to ensure adequate information in a
timely manner? Research suggested the relationship between the board and school board is
impacted by communication. Communicating with trust, integrity, and in an open manner is key
115
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

to a successful superintendent (Townsend et al, 2007).
The strategies successful urban superintendents employ to create the structure for
communication were analyzed in the study. These include weekly packets, regular meetings,
emails, and face to face meetings. Superintendents in this study cited email as the most frequent
form with 17 (68%) using this strategy most frequently followed by phone calls with six (24%)
respondents, and two (8%) stated text messaging. Table 21 reflects data from superintendent
participants. In this study, the weekly packet or mail out was mentioned as a strategy to keep
board members informed.
Board members participating in the interviews shared the need and importance of open
communication. In particular, the definition of a positive relationship by Board Member 1 was
clear.
Board Member 1: Open communication. Positive means that if you are going in the
same direction, you are comfortable with the kinds of proposals the superintendent is
making. Not that they necessarily agree on everything but, where you don't agree, you
need the positives where the superintendent knows where you are coming from.
A strategy employed by superintendents in the study was to ensure all members of the
board received the same information. Superintendent A shared, “Be consistent in your
communication. Make sure all board members get the information at the same time. And make
sure there is equity in communication.” This strategy allows for each board member to be
treated equally, as well as increasing transparency in the relationship.
Strategies to increase communication include weekly newsletters, workshops, continued
training, and strategic planning sessions (IEL, 1986). Two participants shared the use of a
116
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

weekly packet or folder to increase communication with their board. Superintendent B shared
his practice was typical of many superintendents.
Superintendent B: In addition, I do send out, as a practice of most superintendents, a
weekly packet to the board that includes kind of a digest of what’s going on in the
district, particularly tied to district priorities and the particular interests of the trustees.
Table 21
Rank Order of Communication Strategies
Forced Ranking
Response 1 2 3 4 5
N % N % N % N % N %
Email 17 68.00 4 16.00 3 12.00 1 4.00 0 0.00
Mail 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 6 24.00 17 68.00
Personal Visit 0 0.00 5 20.00 6 24.00 9 36.00 5 20.00
Phone 6 24.00 11 44.00 6 24.00 2 8.00 0 0.00
Text Message 2 8.00 5 20.00 8 32.00 7 28.00 3 12.00

Superintendent A shared details on the weekly folder.
I do a weekly information folder and we are on email and phone calls as necessary so
the one constant is always the weekly informal folder so all seven of them
receive information at the same time. It's got a cover sheet with everything that’s
included in there to let them know the topics on a broad level and it’s got some specifics.
On the first page are the specific activities that I would like to highlight with them and
then a calendar of upcoming events so they all know what is happening and then the
117
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

different topics that we want to share with them.
Yet, a third participant, Superintendent D emphasized the need for face to face
communication and interaction in concert with emails. This helped build a positive
relationship.
Superintendent D: I think that face to face interaction, the emails, the
conversations, the track record the confidentiality. Building a relationship, you know it’s
like building any other relationship. I really enjoy having those monthly meetings
because it gives me an opportunity to just talk one on one and again that relationship
building kind of thing.

Superintendent C also emphasized the personal aspect and importance of one on one
communication when she stated, “For me it's just face to face conversations.” This idea was
supported through the interview with Board Member 1 who shared, “You know, stopping by,
having a set time where you are going to have to talk about things. Life cannot simply exist off
of text messages and emails.”
Finally, Superintendent A shared why communication must be frequent and at the
forefront of the superintendent-board member relationship when there occurred a time when an
event at a school was not communicated to the board. He stated, “So, again that was an example
of when consistent communication was not used and when in doubt let them know. It was an
easy thing to do and I didn’t do it and it was a strong reminder to me. I have to make sure to be
consistent and thorough in my communication.”
Board members also shared the importance and how open and honest communication
helps foster a team approach when there are problems or conflicts within the district or
relationship.
118
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Board Member 3: The dialogue just the regular dialogue open honest dialogue when
things go off track one would raise the issue with each other and I think if you mean no
offense the goal would be to move forward as effect as a leadership team as we can if we
are not in synch as a leadership team.
The strategies these superintendents found successful were face to face communication
and the weekly board packet. This was supported by research on communication strategies
presented in this section. Overall emphasis was given by superintendents in this study on face to
face communication due to the personal nature of that mode of communication.
Utilizing the Board President
A final strategy shared in interviews and supported by the survey of twenty-five
superintendents was the importance of the relationship with the board president. According to
research, the role of the board president may serve as integral part of the success of the
superintendent. The board president serves an important role in determining the effectiveness of
the school board. A good board president is fair, encourages for all points of view, and does not
allow for one individual to dominate board proceedings (IEL, 1986). This suggests that the
relationship with the board president is different than that of other board members.
The electronic survey asked respondents if the relationship with the Board President was
different than that of other board members. Twenty-four (96%) of the superintendents surveyed
responded in the affirmative when asked about the relationship with the board with only one
superintendent responding negatively. Six (24%) strongly agreed that the relationship with the
Board President was different with 13 (52%) agreeing. Data from this study affirms the research
on the relationship with the board president. Table 22 represents the data from the survey which
asked respondents to identify whether their relationship with the president was different from
119
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

that of other board members.
Much of the research suggests the use of the board president to assist in managing
conflict and disagreement amongst other board members. Because there are different policies in
Table 22
Different Relationship with the Board President
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Strongly agree 6 24.00
Agree 13 52.00
Slightly agree 5 20.00
Disagree 1 4.00
Strongly disagree 0 0.00

place for electing or naming the board president, it would suggest working to develop the
relationship with the board president is critical.
Superintendent B: I work with whoever the board president is so I might give a president
a call saying, “You know, I can’t help but notice there is a little tension between these
two members. What are your thoughts? Is this something that will play out? Is this
something that we need to intervene and discuss?”
Board members shared the need for the board president to assist the superintendent in
issues related to board member to board member relationships. Board Member 2 stated, “I
believe that it is the president's job to make sure that the board members are getting along well.
120
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

He should be able to call and say, ‘I’ve got a problem and it involves the board’ and that’s the
end of that.”
Board Member 3: A lot of these never get to the superintendent and I try to keep them
from the superintendent. If there is any conflict per se that I’ll see what I can do to
resolve it and I will try to center it back to discussions that we have had on the desired
outcome and the purpose of it.
Differences between board members and the board president were further highlighted in
data from the superintendent survey. Superintendents were asked to identify the frequency with
which they communicated with their board president. Eighteen (72%) of respondents selected at
least twice per week as the frequency with which they communicated with the board president.
Weekly communication was selected six times (24%) by respondents with one (4%) selecting
daily communication. Data from the survey on frequency with general board members reflected
56% of respondents communicated with board members once per week. (Table 23 contains a
full list of the data regarding board communication). Therefore, data suggests successful
superintendents communicate with their Board President more frequently than those
superintendents who do not demonstrate positive relationships with the school board.
The board president’s role with the superintendent can be equally important. Often, the
board president serves as a personal audience for the superintendent (IEL, 1986). This audience
might primarily serve to prepare the superintendent for a response to a given situation or, as
stated by board members in the study, an idea for what is going on with the rest of the school
board. Board Member 2 suggested, “The superintendent would use his head and use it the right
way, especially a board president with experience who, again, could be a sounding board. Board
Member 3 shared this when asked in the interview about the role of the Board President.
121
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Board Member 3: And there is just more communication. I am communicating with him
on a much more regular basis than I was before. As I said before I think that it is
important if a board member does not micro-manage and I probably talk to him now at
least a couple of times as week we communicate back and forth.
Superintendent A shared a similar response in terms of bringing the board president in
first as a way to gauge specific board interest or to provide additional insight. He stated, “In
other words as things are happening now, you communicate with your board president as the
point person as to how one will want approach this with the rest of the board.”
Table 23
Frequency of Communication with Board President
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

At least two times per week 18 72.00
Weekly 6 24.00
Daily 1 4.00
At least twice daily 0 0.00
Less than one time per week 0 0.00

Superintendent B agreed with this process of gaining insight to the entire board’s
understanding or belief in a specific item.
Superintendent B: I develop relationships with the president so that I can sit down and
talk those through maybe share insights that I would not have shared with one of their
122
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

board colleagues that might make that job easier for them or easier for me and more
effective in making sure that the right people are assigned to the right kinds of tasks.
Data from the interviews also indicated the Board President is a first line of
communication for preparation of board agendas.
Superintendent B: The school board president really has no authority or power over the
other members. However, they are appointed for that year to be the person that reviews
the agenda should a situation arise in the district that may need to communicated with the
board. I would definitely call the school board president first, whomever that might be,
explain the situation and work with them to determine whether or not this merits a call to
the other trustees.

Board Member 3 agreed with this concept when asked, through the interview protocol, the board
president’s role with the superintendent.
Board C: In advance discussing areas we know will be sensitive to specific interest to
specific board members is a common discussion and having response towards how we
would respond should an individual board member ask along certain question lines in
public meetings we want to be able to guide that discussion towards an effective
outcome.
Relationship building and maintaining a positive relationship were also highlighted in the
interviews.
Board Member 2: I believe that it is ultimately the president’s job the president of the
board to make sure that those relationships are going well and if he realizes that there is a
conflict and they don't take it upon themselves to meet then he needs to make sure that he
takes it upon himself to make sure that they arrange so that they can meet.
123
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Summing up the relationship with the board president was a comment from
Superintendent A. He stated, “The relationship with the board president is really a consultation
and a strategic relationship.” This also brings to attention the need for a successful
superintendent to realize the unique relationship he or she may have with the board and leverage
the individuals appropriately.
Research Question 4
How do superintendents and school boards evaluate the effectiveness of their relationships in
regards to increasing student achievement?
The questions linked to research question #4 and used to guide the analysis of the data in
this section are: Interview questions #9, and Survey questions #22 and #25.
The effectiveness of the superintendent should be measured by an evaluation process.
Evaluating relationships, research suggests, assists in determining the overall effectiveness of the
superintendent. Evaluating superintendent – school board relationships was one of the most
effective methods to assess superintendent effectiveness (Mountford, 2004). Yet, there was little
garnered from the data in this study on evaluating the effectiveness of their relationship with the
school board and how the relationship might impact student achievement. Responses from the
survey and interviews spoke of the constant, ongoing nature of the relationship and how changes
in practice are made based on the cyclical nature of the roles both the superintendent and school
board play.
Data from this study suggest two areas of evaluation. They are: formal evaluation and
ongoing feedback. This aligns with the Kowalski et al (2011) 2010 Decennial Study of
American Superintendents. Yet, to be effective and meaningful, performance evaluations should
contain both formative as well as summative provisions, should be conducted properly, and
124
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

should offer a means of professional development for sitting superintendents (Kowalski et al,
2011). Superintendents and school board interview participants emphasized both aspects in their
responses.
Data from the survey, found in Table 24, suggests superintendents utilize a formal,
annual evaluation and ongoing feedback to evaluate their relationship with the school board.
Thirteen (52%) of the superintendents responded to an annual/formal evaluation while ten (40%)
stated their evaluation takes the form of ongoing feedback based on discussion with board
members. The number of respondents is less than Kowalski et al (2011) study of American
Superintendents where it was reported two-thirds of superintendents were evaluated annually.
This discrepancy may be due to the district organizations and history of positive superintendent-
school board relationships because the participating districts have demonstrated success over
time.
In response to the low evaluation rate, Kowalski et al (2011) suggests the need for timely
feedback. For evaluations to be meaningful and assist in guiding the superintendent and school
board relationship, evaluations should be timely and administered frequently (Kowalski et al,
2011). Ten (40%) of respondents from the survey stated they rely primarily on the ongoing
feedback received from the board to evaluate their relationship.
Formal Evaluation
According to Kowalski et al (2011) study, the most common form of evaluation was the
formal job description (Kowalski et al, 2011). All superintendents interviewed shared
their process for evaluation. No superintendent mentioned, explicitly, the job description as the
evaluation method; rather, they emphasized evaluation was an ongoing process.
125
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Superintendent B outlined the formal evaluation process used in the district.
Superintendent B shared, “I give them prescribed goals or proposed goals for the upcoming year.
The board then responds and gives me feedback in writing and including any other suggestions
they would like to see me address in the coming school year.”
Table 24
How Do You Evaluate Your Relationship?
Superintendents

n = 25

Response Frequency %

Annual/Formal 13 52.00
Ongoing 10 40.00
Consultant 1 4.00
No response 1 4.00
Less than one time per week 0 0.00

Superintendent C also shared the formal process for evaluation. He stated, “I have a
formal evaluation process every year which clarifies those roles and responsibilities in terms of
what specific goals do I have to accomplish and what does the board expect of me.”
Superintendent A stated, “Well, I have a formal evaluation every year. Obviously, it’s an
on-going, day-to-day in communication and at the end of the year, um, I go through a formal
evaluation process as well which has a variety of different things on there to gauge.”
For Superintendent D, the process had just begun in the district due to little changeover
within the district and a history long-time sitting superintendents.
126
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Superintendent D: So now when I started, two almost three years before now, it was
important to have the board discuss it sooner. So we had a group come in and go through
the process and it was also tied into my evaluation so we sat and talked about what we
should have.
Two of the superintendents interviewed stated relationships were explicitly linked to the
evaluation process.
Superintendent D: I happen to have an evaluation process and part of the categories
under my evaluation process is to address my relationship with the board. We annually
look at the board norms they give me feedback and we discuss. The evaluation thing is
new to them because as I said before the previous superintendent got evaluated once in
the fifteen year term so it is something new to them but we are finishing the second year
of evaluations.

Superintendent A shared, “In regards to my relationship, there is a formal component to it
that has criteria in there and communication is a big one of those things and so it's a big process.
It’s something we have formulated jointly.”
Ongoing Feedback
The superintendents participating in the interviews stated they relied less on a formal
evaluation to measure their relationship and its importance on student achievement. They shared
the importance of the ongoing and frequent communication they enjoyed with their boards.
Building effective relationships with the board is a continuous process (Townsend et al, 2007).
As suggested by Townsend et al (2007), the nature of effective relationships, is ongoing thus a
continuous process might best assist a superintendent in measuring effectiveness.
Superintendents believed the formal/annual evaluation in combination with the ongoing feedback
127
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

provided a barometer for their relationships. Three superintendents shared their thoughts on how
these two pieces work together.
Superintendent C: We also have a quarterly informal with the board around my
evaluation so it’s kind of like a pulse check about how I’m doing about what you wanted
me to accomplish and where we are on and that constant dialogue ensures that we are
working on that relationship we are constantly working on the roles and responsibilities
Supt B: Then, I think that in formal ways my annual evaluations and the interim basis
touching base in between allows me to kind of do that formative assessment so I make
sure that there are no surprises when my annual evaluation comes. We have been
communicating all through the year and I can see that I am on track.
Supt D: I think the more interactions you have with them the better even though
sometimes it gets annoying. We had a consultant the first year and I was having a
meeting on average about once a month but I don't have a formal meeting set up which he
really strongly suggested that since we had a retired former superintendent to make a
formal meeting.
Aspects of a superintendent’s job performance evaluation should include improving
communication, improving educational performance, clarifying roles of the board and
superintendent, and improving superintendent and board relationships (Cleveland et al, 2000).
All of the areas indicated by Cleveland et al (2000) are part of the means with which effective
superintendents create positive relationships with their school board.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from the twenty-five superintendents responding to the
survey as well as four superintendents and four school board members from successful school
128
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

districts as identified by the research parameters. Board members interviewed had all served in
the position of School Board President. The results from the study indicated that effective
superintendents build positive relationships through frequent and open communication,
managing conflict, building trust amongst the board, having an in depth knowledge of each board
member, establishing clear roles, and effectively utilizing the board president. These findings
align with research indicating the necessary components that define a positive relationship. Both
board members and superintendents agree that open communication, trust, and the understanding
of role differences are three factors associated with effective board and superintendent
relationships (McCloud & McKenzie, 1994).
The findings of the study also aligned with research on student achievement and
superintendent-school board relationships. The results indicated that effective relationships help
guide the structures necessary for improving student achievement. These structures include
formalizing protocols, establishing roles with the board, creating and communicating a vision,
and creating a culture of success. Positive relationships allows for the necessary structures to be
successful. Therefore, the ability to communicate the vision, establish roles, and effectively plan
are successful due to the ability a superintendent has to communicate and relate positively to the
school board. Conversely, poor relationships between the school board and superintendent had
an adverse effect on student achievement and district improvement (Peterson & Fusarelli, 2001).
Chapter five will discuss the research, provide further conclusions and discuss
implications of the study. Finally, recommendations for further research will be reported in the
chapter.

129
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
The superintendency remains one of the most challenging leadership positions in
education. There remains significant pressures on superintendents to increase student
achievement while maintaining relationships with the school board, unions, and management.
As changes have evolved, superintendents and districts have needed to respond to the
accountability targets thus adding additional pressures to the position. As accountability has
increased, the relationship between the superintendent and school board has become strained
(IEL, 1986).
Superintendents are struggling to remain in positions during tenuous times. In California,
the turnover comes at a time when superintendents have the added charge of implementing
reforms most notably the common core state standards (Freedburg, 2014). Research suggests
that superintendents that are able to maintain positive relationships with the school board may
find success in maintaining their status as superintendent.
Research suggests superintendents that focus on frequent and open communication,
manage conflict effectively, build trust amongst the board, have an in depth knowledge and
understanding of each board member, establish clear roles, and effectively utilize the board
president are successful in increasing student achievement (IEL, 1986, Peterson & Fusarelli,
2001, White 2007, Hatrick, 2010). The importance of this study was to further the body of
research on superintendent-school board relationships and the strategies successful urban
superintendents use to build positive relationships and increase student achievement.

130
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this was to identify strategies that lead to building relationships amongst
superintendents and their boards that in turn promote student achievement. The study sought to
evaluate how leadership behaviors transfer into building positive relationships that enable school
districts to raise student achievement in urban districts.
Research Questions
The research of this study has been guided by the questions listed below.
1. What strategies or behaviors do successful urban superintendents use to build
positive relationships with school board members?
2. How do positive interactions of superintendents and school boards increase
student achievement?
3. What leadership strategies promote positive relationships between the
superintendent and school board?
4. How do superintendents and school boards evaluate the effectiveness of their
relationships in regards to increasing student achievement?
Methodology
The researcher used a mixed-method approach to capturing the data. In this
study, surveys and interviews were utilized as multiple forms of data collection. School board
member responses were framed against the superintendents in order to assist the researcher in
triangulating responses from each superintendent during the interviews. Survey questions and
the interview protocol were linked to assist in data collection.
Data was collected using a quantitative format. A total of forty-nine surveys were
distributed to superintendents in elementary school districts, unified school districts, and union
131
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

high school districts. Twenty-five of the 49 electronic surveys were returned and utilized for
data collection.
Qualitative data was collected using one-on-one interviews with four superintendents
from the surveys. In addition, four school board members were interviewed.
In order to construct the interview protocol, data from the surveys and research questions
were reviewed as well as relevant research on the subject of superintendent-school board
relationships.
The interview protocol for superintendents consisted of eleven questions. The semi-
structured format created greater flexibility for the researcher. The interview protocol for school
board members followed a nine question format. The semi-structured format was also applied
during this data collection. The researcher eliminated two questions from the superintendent
interview protocol as those questions were specific to the position of superintendent; otherwise,
the questions for both interview protocols remained the same.
Results and Findings
The findings in this study are based on the results from all data collected and analyzed.
This section will combine the results from the qualitative and quantitative data from the study
and frame the results against the literature.
Research Question #1
What strategies or behaviors do successful urban superintendents use to build positive
relationships with school board members?
Major themes from the data were frequent communication, ensuring no surprises to the
school board, and managing conflict. These themes, regarding strategies and behaviors
132
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

superintendents use to build positive relationships with their school board were supported by
research in the area of superintendent and school board relationships.
Frequent Communication
The first theme of frequent communication was a strong indicator of a strategy successful
superintendents utilize to build relationships. Superintendents and board members both indicated
the importance of maintaining open lines of communication. Research suggests a positive
relationship leads to productive work and effective governance (Cleveland et al, 2000; Kowalski,
2011; Land, 2006).
In discussing the experiences that helped build a positive relationship with their board
members, superintendents in the study viewed communication as a key component. Research
supports this finding. Communication is part of enjoying a successful and positive
superintendent-school board relationship (McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; Castallo, 2003; Glass,
2013; Nelson, 2010).
Research indicates that the interval of communication plays a role in a positive
relationship. Kowalski et al (2011) suggested less than six hours according to the Decennial
study of American Superintendents based on the respondents to the study. Data from this study
indicates weekly communication supports a positive relationship. Qualitative responses from
superintendents and board members indicated daily communication was often the norm;
however, both superintendents and school board members shared the need to understand the need
of each board member and tailor communication based on the needs of the individual board
member. Participants indicated no set interval for communication.

133
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

No Surprises
A second theme represented in the research and confirmed in this study was that of not
surprising the board. Townsend (2007) emphasized the need for superintendents to protect the
board from surprises and ensure their understanding of district related matters in the community.
The superintendents interviewed in this study all stated the need to keep board members
informed. Superintendents ensured their boards were informed through frequent communication.
The strategies these superintendents utilized were: emails, the weekly board update, phone calls,
and face to face communication. As stated previously, emphasis was placed on the mode of
communication each board member preferred.
Managing Conflict
The third theme found within research question one was the superintendent’s ability to
manage conflict. The superintendents in this study indicated individual agendas resulted in the
greatest challenge leading to conflicts with the board while serving as superintendent. This
finding aligns with the research on superintendent-school board conflict as research indicates
individual board member interests created the greatest conflict and stress upon superintendent
and school board relationships (Glass, 2013; IEL, 1986; Nelson, 2010). In addition, Mountford
(2004) indicates board members who attempt to use their positional power disrupt district
practice.
Addressing the issues of conflict are paramount to enjoying a successful relationship with
the board. Conflict does not necessarily impact an organizations ability to be effective (Bolman
& Deal, 2008). This concept supported the findings of this study as superintendents indicated
the way one addresses and manages conflict with the board ensures district priorities can be
achieved. Superintendents stated their frequent communication allowed them the freedom and
134
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

confidence to approach board members. In addition, they indicated formalizing roles was a key
factor in managing conflict. This item will be discussed later in this chapter.
Research Question #2
How do positive interactions of superintendents and school boards increase student
achievement?
Research question two focused on how positive relationships may help increase student
achievement. Research indicates there is a relationship between positive superintendent-school
board relationships and academic achievement (Glass, 2013; IEL, 1986; Togneri & Anderson,
2003; White 2007).
Strategic Planning
The first theme illustrated by the data and supported by research was strategic planning
sessions. The partnership involved is brought on by planning which assists the superintendent in
improving student achievement as both parties collaborate and focus on increasing student
outcomes (Gomes, 2011).
The superintendent participants demonstrated increased time on instructional planning
sessions based on meeting the needs of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In essence,
they shared the importance of planning and collaborating to support student learning. This
concept is supported by research as Harris (2011) and Land (2002) suggest meeting to plan and
focus on achievement assists the board and superintendent in creating an instructional vision for
the district.
Creating a Culture of Success by Communicating a Vision
A second theme addressed within this research question involves establishing a culture
for success by communicating an instructional vision. The focus of this particular theme
135
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

involved a vision for student achievement based on CCSS. The research supports the importance
of this finding. An instructional vision is the role of the superintendent and effective
superintendents communicate that vision (Calweti & Protheroe, 2007; Townsend et al, 2007).
Findings from this study affirmed the responsibility of the superintendent in
communicating the vision. Participants in interviews indicated the instructional vision
established by the superintendent and repeated in actions assisted in establishing a culture of high
expectations and academic success. School boards that work positively with the superintendent
and collaborate in practice assist in improving student achievement (Gomes, 2011, IEL, 1986).
Findings from this study aligned with the research based on interviews from superintendents and
board members as they indicated the joint process built a vision for student success.
Establishing Trust Through Communication
A third prominent theme from this research question involves the trust superintendents
establish with their board through communication. According to research, trust and
communication play a major role in developing a positive relationship with the school board
(IEL, 1986).
The findings from this study indicate trust assisted superintendents in managing conflict
as well as navigating challenging situations within the district. Calweti & Protheroe (2007)
suggest a supportive school board assist the superintendent in improving student achievement.
Superintendents stated their constant communication built a level of trust with the board,
providing them the necessary support to move forward on needed agendas.
Establishing the Role of the Board
The final theme from this research question is establishing the role of the school board.
This theme is closely related to conflict as noted in the research. A lack of clarity on the role of
136
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

the school board is one of the contributing factors of poor superintendent-school board
relationships (Nelson, 2010; White, 2007).
Findings from this study supported the research and the necessity to establish clear and
concise roles for the board. Board members and superintendents through interviews supported
the need for a clear understanding of the role of the board, especially as it relates to student
achievement. Open communication and clarifying roles is a key component of the
superintendent and school board relationship (McCloud & McKenzie, 1994).
Research Question #3
What leadership strategies promote positive relationships between the superintendent and school
board?
The themes that emerged from the response to research question three were knowledge of
the board, formalizing protocols, communication strategies, and utilizing the board president.
Know the Board
A significant theme related to the research question was the need for superintendents to
know each school board member. Research supports this finding in that to understand the
approaches of individuals within an organization assists in knowing their needs (Bolman & Deal,
2008). The findings of this study support the research as superintendents participating in the
study, as well as school board members, shared the need to understand one another on a personal
level. This level of understanding, shared superintendents, assisted them in managing conflict
and working through board issues.
This theme of knowing the board was characterized by communication. Understanding
what each board member’s interests were and who they were personally guided the
137
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

superintendent in identifying the method of communication that would be most effective with
each board member.
Formalizing Protocols
A second theme found in research question three was formalizing protocols. When
systems are in place to address change, student achievement improves as superintendents and
school boards have systems in place (Harris, 2011). The findings of this study align with
research in that having protocols assisted the superintendent in clarifying roles and expectations
for the board. In addition, structures were in place using protocols during strategic planning as
shared by study participants. Respondents were also consistent in their need to formalize
protocols to manage potential conflicts. Superintendents and board members found protocols
assisted them in responding to situations.
Communication Strategies
Communication is often noted as an important aspect of the superintendent and school
board relationship. This study sought to identify the methods successful superintendents used to
communicate with their board.
Findings from the study aligned with the research in that participants utilized board
packets as a weekly communication strategy. Weekly letters and newsletters are methods
superintendents employ to communicate with the board (IEL, 1986).
However, superintendents in this study emphasized the need to communicate face to face.
This was highlighted in the need to know the board on a personal level, as the findings of this
study indicated, was a key factor in effective communication and building a positive relationship
with the school board.

138
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Utilizing the Board President
The Board President serves as a support and audience to the superintendent (IEL, 1986).
Superintendents participating in this study aligned with research as they used the Board President
to gain insight into how other members of the board viewed issues. Superintendents in the study
also utilized the Board President strategically in order to support their vision for the district.
Board member participants also believed superintendents who used the board president,
primarily as a sounding board, assisted in managing conflict and improving the overall culture
and working relationship of the board.
Research Question #4
How do superintendents and school boards evaluate the effectiveness of their relationships in
regards to increasing student achievement?
Research question four focused on evaluation and the role evaluation plays in
superintendent-school board relationships. Two themes emerged from the data.
Formal Evaluation
Research indicates formal evaluation has often been the job description of the
superintendent (Kowalski et al, 2011). The findings in this study do not align with this process
of evaluation. Study participants indicated that evaluation was an ongoing process. All
superintendents indicated they took part in a formal year end evaluation; however, they shared
the ongoing aspect of evaluation occurred during their frequent communication. Superintendents
stated the formal evaluation process reviewed their performance on their roles and
responsibilities.

139
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Ongoing Feedback
As stated previously, ongoing feedback served a major role in evaluating relationships
and performance. This was a second theme emerging from research question four.
Superintendents indicated the importance of frequent communication, highlighted in this
study, and this ongoing communication helped the superintendents evaluate their relationships
with the school board. Research supports the finding of ongoing communication and how the
continuous process of communication between the board and superintendent assist each party in
building positive relationships (Townsend et al, 2007).
Implications of the Study
This study contributes to the body of research regarding superintendent and school board
relationships. This study emphasizes how relationships between the superintendent and school
board may assist in increasing student achievement. Findings from this study aligned with the
research suggesting implications for practice that may support effective practices that build
positive relationships between the superintendent school board that lead to increased student
achievement in school districts.
In order for superintendents to develop and sustain positive relationships with board
members, educational programs and professional organizations might place an emphasis on
communication strategies, the emphasis superintendents place in developing deep knowledge of
their board, establishing roles for the board, and developing strategies to manage conflict.
Communication Strategies
To best serve future superintendents, educational programs and professional
organizations should focus on effective communication strategies. Participants in this study all
served successful districts as noted by the data reflecting standardized assessments and increased
140
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

achievement of traditionally marginalized populations. Superintendents and board members
indicated frequent communication was a key factor in building positive relationships and
allowing the superintendent and board members to work together effectively. The findings
indicate email was most frequently utilized; however, superintendents indicated and emphasized
the importance of personal, face-to-face communication with the board. Greater emphasis
therefore should be placed on preparing superintendents to personally engage with members of
the school board. The research supports the findings of open and frequent communication. Both
board members and superintendents agree that open communication, trust, and understanding of
role differences are three factors associated with effective board and superintendent relationships
(McCloud & McKenzie, 1994).
In addition, for the need to place an emphasis on identifying strategies, a focus should
also be placed on ensuring superintendents provide consistent communication to all board
members. This may be done through ensuring candidates to the superintedency understand they
must include all board members equally and focus on strategies that meet the needs of each
board member. This concept will be discussed in the next section.
Know the Board
A second point of emphasis is the knowledge a superintendent must have of the school
board. This allows the superintendent to best communicate with each member as well as
understand what might be areas that will create potential conflict or function as areas of support
for a board member.
This study provided data from interviews that supported the need for superintendents to
spend time with each board member. This allowed the superintendent to know the motivations
of each member, share experiences that may assist the superintendent in developing a deeper
141
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

relationship, and assist the superintendent in building a supportive relationship. Qualitative data
emphasized the importance of interacting on a personal level and building on that relationship
allowed superintendents to build trust and establish integrity.
Board Roles
A third important implication to the research based on this study is the importance
superintendents must place in defining and establishing roles for the school board. Findings
from this study indicate superintendents should establish roles with the school board in order to
clearly identify what each individual must do in order to increase student achievement. Research
supports the need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Board members and
superintendents must remember that they should look to open communication, build trust, and
clarify respective roles to increase effectiveness (McCloud & McKenzie, 1994). Additionally,
clear roles may assist the superintendent in avoiding potential conflict with board members.
Managing Conflict
Finally, educational programs and professional organizations may focus on assisting
superintendents with strategies that help manage conflict with the board. Although a difficult
task, conflict is part of the relationship with the school board and a necessity for the position.
Discussing issues between board members and superintendents is not a reluctant situation
(McCloud & McKenzie, 1994).
Superintendents that participated in the study emphasized the need for understanding the
reason behind conflicts with the board. Research reflects conflict and micro-management creates
a strain on the superintendent-school board relationship leading to superintendents leaving the
profession. Kowalski et al (2011) Decennial Study of American Superintendents (2011)
suggests superintendents leave the position due to conflict with the board. Superintendents
142
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

responding cited conflict (15.3%) second after desiring a new challenge (30.3%) (Kowalski, et
al, 2011). Superintendents in this study discussed frequent communication, knowledge of the
board, and establishing roles as the primary reason they have been able to avoid significant
problems with the board. These areas should be explored further in future studies.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study involved twenty-five superintendents as part of the quantitative data set, four
superintendents and four school board members that have either served as the school board
president or served as the longest tenured board member in their respective district. Based on the
study of those individual participants, the following are recommendations for further study:
1. Expand the research on identifying best communication practices superintendents
use with school boards.
2. Greater emphasis placed on preparing future superintendents for strategies that
assist in engaging board members in face-to-face conversations.
3. Greater emphasis in preparing future superintendents for managing conflict with
board members.
4. Further research into strategies that best allow superintendents to clearly create
concise and well understood roles for the school board.
5. Review educational programs and professional organizations to determine how
effectively superintendents are supported with regards to communication
strategies with the board, strategies to know the board on a personal level,
strategies for managing conflict, and strategies for establishing roles of the school
board.

143
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Concluding Remarks

This study has demonstrated the importance of superintendents understanding the need
for frequent and ongoing communication as well as the personal connection needed for
superintendents to effectively build relationships with the school board. The study explored
relationships between effective superintendents and school board members focusing on what
these superintendents did to build positive relationships with the school board.
The interview participants, both superintendents and school board members, emphasized
the importance of ongoing and frequent communication with one another. An emphasis was
placed on knowing the school board on a personal level and tailoring communication to meet the
needs of the board member.
Superintendents participating in the study along with those board members shared the
need for establishing roles for the board. This allowed for superintendents to navigate through
potential conflict as board members knew how they were to function as school board members.
Participants shared how protocols played a role in providing direction and identifying roles for
their work.
Conflict was clearly a part of the superintendent-school board relationship. Participants
in this study shared their insight into conflict. It was clear that effective superintendents know
there will be times of conflict and areas that lend themselves to potential conflict.
Superintendents shared the importance of facing conflict and having strategies to manage
conflict with the board. At the heart of this was frequent communication that assisted
superintendents in building trust with the board. In addition, effectively utilizing the board
president also assisted superintendents in navigating challenges with the board.
144
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Finally, at the heart of the study, is the importance of superintendents and school board
members taking time to know one another. Based on the findings, it is important for those
wishing to serve as superintendents must understand the significance of their position and the
importance of working with the school board to develop deep and meaningful relationships in
order to best serve their districts and increase student’s academic outcomes.

145
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

References

Allman, H. (1941). The school board and education. Phi Delta Kapan. 23, (7), 261-263.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organization: Artistry, choice and
leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bredeson, P. V. & Kose, B. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of
school superintendents' instructional leadership. Education Policy analysis Archives,
15(5). Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vl5n5/
Bryant, A. & Houston, P. D. (2002). It takes a team to raise student achievement. School
Administrator. 59, (7), 40.
California School Boards Association. (2007). School Board Leadership.
California Department of Education. (2014). Fingertip facts on education in California.
retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
Calweti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2007). The school board and central office in district
improvement. In H. Walberg (Ed.), Handbook on restructuring and substantial school
improvement. (pp. 37-52). Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement.
Retrieved December 17, 2013 from:
www.adi.org/about/downloads/Restructuring%20Handbook.pdf
Carlson, Howard. (2010). Three keys to a successful superintendent/school board relationship.
Arlington, VA, American Association of School Administrators, July.
Castallo, R. T. (2003). Focus leadership school boards and superintendents working together.
Scarecrow Education, Laham, Maryland, and Oxford.
146
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Ceasar, S. (2014, April 28). California graduation rate passes 80% for first time. The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-grads-dropouts-
20140429-story.html
Center for Public Education. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. Retrieved
from: http://www.centgerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eight-
characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-
boards.html
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Cleveland, P., Peterson, G.J., Sharp, W. M., & Walter, J. K. (2000). A three state examination
of school board evaluation of superintendents. Educational Research Quarterly. 23, (3),
3-21.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). The basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Council of Great City Schools. (2013). A Resource for Superintendents, School Board
Members, and Public Relations Executives.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools.
Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.
Davis, S.H. (1998). Why do principals get fired? Principal, 28(2), 34-39.
Dawson, L. J. & Quinn, R. (2000). Clarifying Board and Superintendent Roles. The School
Administrator. American Association of School Administrators, 57(3), 12-14, 16, 18.
147
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Eadie, D. (2003). Eight keys to an extraordinary board-superintendent partnership. Lanham,
MA: Scarecrow Education.
Educators Consultants and Research Association. (2010). Effective superintendents literature
review. Retrieved from http://www.ecragroup.com/resources
Education Writers Association Special Report 2003. Retrieved from
www.ewa.org/docs/leadership.pdf
Elmore, R. (2003, November). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62 (3), 6-10.
Estes, N. (1979). Meeting the challenge of the 80s. Texas School Board Journal, 25(3), 26-27.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step by step process. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Freedburg, L. (2014). High turnover in school district leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/2014/high-trunover-in-school-district-leadership.html
Fusarelli, L. D. (2001 November). Changing times, changing relationships: an analysis of the
relationship between superintendents and boards of education. A paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the University Council; for Educational Administration,
Cincinnati, OH.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity,
conflict, and community. Journal of cases in Educational Leadership, 9, (44).
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Glass, T. E. School Board Relations – Relation of School Board to the Superintendent.
Retrieved November 3, 2013 from
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2388/School-Board-Relations-RELATION-
SCHOOL-BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT.html
148
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Glass, T. E. (2103). Superintendent of Large-City School Systems - History of the Urban
Superintendent, The Profession, School Boards, Characteristics of the Large-City
Superintendent. Retrieved on November 1
from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2470/Superintendent-Large-City-
School-Systems.html
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gomes, S. E. (2011). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT
RESPONSIBILITIES. California State University, Stanislaus (Doctoral Dissertation)
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright , L., & Zimmerman, Jr, W. G. (1997). Getting There from Here:
School Board-Superintendent Collab oration: Creating a School Governance Team
Capable of Raising Student Achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st-
century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
students achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Harms, P. D. & Crede, M. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and transformational leadership: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 17, (1), 5-17.
Harris, A. G. (2011). SCHOOL BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONS IN A
SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED ACHIEVEMENT
FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF COLOR. University of Wisconsin-Madison
(Doctoral Dissertation).
149
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Hatrick, E. B. (2010). Searching for excellence in a superintendent. The School Administrator,
67(9), 41-42.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century. Arlington: National School
Boards Association.
Hill, P.T. (2003). School boards focus on school performance, not money and patronage.
Progressive Policy Institute 21
st
Century School Project.
Houston, P. D. (2103). Superintendents of schools – history, importance in education, new
expectations, an evolving role. Retrieved on November 1 from
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2471/Superintendent-Schools.html
Institute for Educational Leadership. (1986). Strengthening Board of Education/ Superintendent
Relationships In America's Schools. Monograph Series 4, (1).
Iowa Association of School Boards [IASB]. (2000). IASB’s Lighthouse Study: School boards
and student achievement. Iowa School Board Compass, V(2) 1-12.
Jensen, E., (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership. 70,
(8), 24-30.
Kowalski, T., McCord, R., Peterson, G., Young, P., & Ellerson, N. (2011). The American
school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Latham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Education.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students academic achievement. Review of Educational Research. Vol 72, (2), 229-
278.
Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the accountability system. Policy Brief: UCLA Center for the Study
of Evaluation.
Lippman, L, Burns, S, McArthur, E, Burton, R, Smith, T. M. Kaufman, P. (1996). Urban
150
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

schools the challenge of location and poverty. National Center for Education Statistics.
McCloud, B & McKenzie, F. D. (1994). School boards and superintendents in urban districts.
Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (5), 384-385.
McCracken, J. D.& Barcinas, J. D. (1991). Differences between rural and urban schools,
student characteristics, and student aspirations in Ohio. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 7, (2), 29-40.
Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moffett, J. (2011). Perceptions of school board superintendents and board presidents on
improved pupil performance and superintendent evaluation. The International Journal of
Educational Leadership. 6, (1), 1-9.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: implications for school
board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, (5), 704-
741.
National School Boards Association. (1999). Leadership matters: Transforming urban school
boards. Alexandria, Va.: National School Boards Foundation.
Nelson, M.A.E. (2010). An exploration of school board-superintendent relationships in
Minnesota. Presented to the Minnesota Association of School Administrators, October
5, 2010.
151
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Orr, M. T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and determination.
Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1362-1403.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3
rd
edition). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Peterson, G. J. & Fusarelli, L. D. (2001 November). Changing times, changing relationships:
an exploration of the relationship between superintendents and boards of education. A
paper presented at the Annual Conference of the University Council for Educational
Administration, Cincinnati, OH.
Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2002). An examination of the school board president’s
perception of the district superintendent’s interpersonal communication competence and
board decision making. Journal of School Leadership, 12(4), 411–436.
Petersen, G. J., & Williams, B. M. (2005). The board president and superintendent: An
examination of influence through the eyes of the decision makers. In G. J. Petersen & L.
D. Fusarelli (Eds.), The politics of leadership: Super-intendents and school boards in
changing times (pp. 23–49). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Polacheck, K. N. (2006). Effective superintendent - district board team leadership in large
urban districts to improve student achievement (Order No. 3224342). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(305343841). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/305343841?accountid=14749
Rice, R., et al. (2001). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/superintendent team behaviors in
school districts with extreme differences in student achievement. Iowa Association of
School Boards. A Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Association
152
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

2001 Annual Meeting.
Roles and relationships of school boards and superintendents. (1980). The American Association
of School Administrators National School Boards Association, Alexandria, VA.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185-211. A first formal theory of emotional intelligence, Retrieved from
http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Reprints/EIreprints%201990-1999.htm
School Boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. (1986). Institute for Educational
Leadership. American Can Co. Foundation, Greenwich, CT.
Smoley, E (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies for improving board performance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tallerico , M. (1989). The dynamics of superintendent-school board relationships: a continuing
challenge. Urban Education. 24, (2), 215-232.
The American Association of School Administrators. (1993). Professional standards for the
superintendency. Arlington, VA, American Association of School Administrators.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First
Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Townsend, R. S. et al. (2007). Superintendents-school board practices. Strategies for
developing and maintaining good relationships with your board. Corwin Press, Thousand
Oaks.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Educational Research Service, 25(2),
1-12.
153
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical strategies for new leaders at all levels. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview.
WestEd (2003). Policy trends. Leading in difficult times: Are urban school boards up to the
task?
White, R. L. (2007). School in Distress: School Boards and Superintendents’ Perceptions of
Their Roles and Responsibilities During Conflict. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdtft/docview/304794028/1406A64572E23
C25C02/1?accountid=14749, 3277869
Williams, P. and Tabernik, A.M. (2011). School district leadership stability: The relationships
between the stability of a board of education and the superintendent. International
Journal of Educational Reform. 20, (1), 16-32.
Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. (2005). The political dynamics of American education, 3
rd
ed. Richmond,
CA: McCuthan Publishing.

154
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Appendix A
Interview Cover Sheet

My name is Mark Sims and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at USC.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the interview segment of the study. I am conducting a
research study as part of my dissertation process under the direction of Dr. Rudy Castruita. My
study focuses on examining “strategies and behaviors superintendents use to build positive
relationships with the school board”.

The interview will take approximately 25-35 minutes. The interview will be conducted by
phone, in person, or via “Skype”. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience
regarding a date and time you might be available as I want to make sure this does not
inconvenience you. Attached you will find questions for you in preparation of the interview.
Again, participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times. Your relationship with USC will not be affected whether or not you
participate in this study.

If you have questions, please contact me via email at: marksims@usc.edu or by phone: 626-
599-5701, 626-786-1122, or 626-222-4064.

I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Mark Sims
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

UPIRB#: #UP-14-00102

155
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Appendix B
Interview Protocol for Superintendents

Superintendent Questions
1. What strategies do you use for building positive relationships with your
board/superintendent?

2. What does a positive relationship with a board member/superintendent look like?

3. How about the relationship with the board president/longest tenured member of the school
board. What might that look like? FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER: As the school
board president/longest tenured board member, what does your relationship with the
superintendent look like? How might that relationship be different?

4. What are the instructional benefits (increasing student achievement) of having a positive
relationship with your school board/superintendent? In what ways has your relationship with the
school board/superintendent changed with the advent of the Common Core State Standards and
changing accountability?

5. How have relationships with the board/superintendent improved your ability to move the
district forward instructionally?

6. What is the thought process behind your conversations when you need to redirect the board
from their agendas to increasing student achievement?

7. How do you manage conflict with the board/superintendent as it relates to your relationship
with them and with each other?

8. In what ways do you establish roles and responsibilities with the board that help guide your
relationship and the work you do with the board?

9. What is the process you and the school board/superintendent use to evaluate your
relationships?

10. What would you share with a new superintendent/school board member regarding the most
effective strategies for building rapport and a positive environment?

11. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding superintendent/school board
relationships?

156
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Appendix C
Interview Protocol for Board Members

Board Member Questions
1. What strategies do you use for building positive relationships with your
board/superintendent?

2. What does a positive relationship with a board member/superintendent look like?

3. How about the relationship with the board president/longest tenured member of the school
board. What might that look like? FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER: As the school
board president/longest tenured board member, what does your relationship with the
superintendent look like? How might that relationship be different?

4. What are the instructional benefits (increasing student achievement) of having a positive
relationship with your school board/superintendent? In what ways has your relationship with the
school board/superintendent changed with the advent of the Common Core State Standards and
changing accountability?

5. How have relationships with the board/superintendent improved your ability to move the
district forward instructionally?

6. How do you manage conflict with the board/superintendent as it relates to your relationship
with them and with each other?

7. What is the process you and the school board/superintendent use to evaluate your
relationships?

8. What would you share with a new superintendent/school board member regarding the most
effective strategies for building rapport and a positive environment?

9. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding superintendent/school board
relationships?

157
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

Appendix D
Superintendent Survey

1. Please select the age that best describes you:
a. 35 years or younger
b. 36-40 years
c. 41-45 years
d. 46-50 years
e. 51-55 years
f. 56-60 years
g. 61-65 years
h. 66 years older
2. What is your gender
a. Female b. Male
3. How long have you been in your current position?
4. Is this your first superintendency? (If yes, please skip to number 6)
5. Excluding your current position, how many districts have you led as superintendent?
6. What grade level does your district serve?
7. From your perspective, what experience has been most positive in shaping your
relationship with the board?
8. From your perspective, what experience has been the most challenging in shaping your
relationship with the board?
9. Do you utilize the services of a consultant to assist you with board study/training
sessions? (If no, please go to question 11)
158
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

a. Yes b. No
10. Which consultant do you use?
11. What do you see as the key characteristics for building a positive relationship with your
school board? Please rank in order of importance with (1) being the most important and
(7) the least important.
_____ Frequent communication
_____ Understanding the political context of the individual
_____ Connecting on a personal level
_____ Collaboration
_____ Use of board study sessions/retreats
_____ Transparency
_____ Treating the board equally
12. My relationship with the Board President is different than that of other school board
members.
_____ Strongly disagree
_____ Disagree
_____ Slightly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Strongly agree
13. My relationship with the board is important in assisting me to set the instructional vision
for the district.
_____ Strongly disagree
_____ Disagree
159
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

_____ Slightly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Strongly agree
14. I consult and collaborate with the Board of Education on all decisions I make.
_____ Strongly disagree
_____ Disagree
_____ Slightly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Strongly agree
15. How often do you communicate with your board president?
_____ At least twice daily
_____ Daily
_____ At least two times per week
_____ Weekly
_____ Less than one time per week
16. How often do you communicate with the board?
_____ At least twice daily
_____ Daily
_____ At least two times per week
_____ Weekly
_____ Less than one time per week
17. How do you communicate with the school board? Please rank in order of frequency with
(1) being the most frequent mode of communication and (5) the least frequent.
160
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

_____ Phone
_____ Text
_____ E-mail
_____ Mail
_____ Personal visit
18. The school board respects and values my position as the instructional leader of the school
district.
_____ Strongly disagree
_____ Disagree
_____ Slightly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Strongly agree
19. It is important to clearly define roles of the board members.
_____ Strongly disagree
_____ Disagree
_____ Slightly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Strongly agree
20. How do you manage conflict with the board?
21. How do you manage conflict when it exists between board members?
22. How do you evaluate your relationship with the school board?
23. During the last year, our board study sessions/retreats have focused on CCSS
implementation.
161
SCHOOL BOARD-SUPERINTENDENT RELATIONSHIPS

_____ Strongly disagree
_____ Disagree
_____ Slightly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Strongly agree
24. The implementation of CCSS has been a frequent conversation with my school board.
_____ Strongly disagree
_____ Disagree
_____ Slightly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Strongly agree
25. How would you characterize your current relationship with the school board?
_____ Excellent
_____ Very good
_____ Good
_____ Poor
_____ Very poor
26. Please feel free to share any additional comments that you feel are relevant to this study.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The superintendency in urban districts remains a challenging leadership position. Data on the tenure of superintendents in urban districts reflects the need to understand relationships with the school board as urban superintendents serve less time in their position. The average length of tenure, according to recent data from the Council of Great City Schools found the average length of tenure for current superintendents in urban districts is 3.18 years, down from 3.64 years four years ago (Freedburg, 2014). The purpose of this study was to identify strategies successful superintendents use to build positive relationships with their board that in turn promote student achievement. A mixed method approach was utilized for the study. Twenty-five superintendents across California participated in the quantitative survey portion of the study, with four superintendents and four board members participating in qualitative interviews. Board members interviewed had either served as the Board President or as the longest tenured member of the school board. A unique purposeful sampling method was applied to selecting qualitative participants in order to gain insight from successful superintendents and school board members. Findings from the study indicated successful superintendents employ strategies to develop effective relationships with their school board and establish structures to guide relationships and improve student achievement. This study helped further the research on strategies to build successful relationships and create systems to assist superintendents in building relationships with their school board.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts: a case study

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

Superintendent strategies and behaviors: building and promoting trust and strong relationships during the entry period in California

PDF

California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Local governance teams: how effective superintendents and school boards work together

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

Perception of the preparation, recruitment, and retention of California school district superintendents

PDF

Strategies for relationship and trust building by successful superintendents: a case study

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

PDF

Latinas in the superintendency: the challenges experienced before and after obtaining the superintendency and strategies used for success

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Barriers women face while seeking and serving in the position of superintendent in California public schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Sims, Mark (author)

Core Title School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/04/2016

Defense Date 02/22/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationships,School boards,superintendents

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email m.allen.sims13@gmail.com,marksims@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-225489

Unique identifier UC11278104

Identifier etd-SimsMark-4223.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-225489 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SimsMark-4223.pdf

Dmrecord 225489

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sims, Mark

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