Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 1
THE IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE TRAINING PROGRAM
ON CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
by
Lena Aghoian Richter
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Lena Aghoian Richter
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my amazing family. First and foremost, I thank my
parents, Mary and Zaven Aghoian, for instilling in me the importance of an education,
hard work, and determination. I am eternally grateful for all that they have sacrificed and
compromised to ensure that I attained my most desired aspirations. It is with their uncon-
ditional support, encouragement, and love that I have been able to accomplish all that I
have throughout my life. They are my role models and my greatest inspiration.
My wonderful husband, Peter, has unconditionally encouraged and supported me
throughout this entire journey. Without his unconditional support, encouragement, and
patience, this journey would not have been possible. I thank him for believing in me and
allowing me to pursue my dreams. He was my greatest strength even through the most
trying times. From the many, many nights and weekends spent away studying at Star-
bucks, Borders, or the library, to my constant absence from family events, he always
cheered me on with encouraging words, “We’ll be fine, do what you gotta do,” or “We’ll
do what we have to do to get you through.” Now it is his turn!
My beautiful son and daughter, Garren and Gabriella, have inspired and encour-
aged me throughout this entire endeavor. They are my hope, my motivation, and most of
all, my inspiration to do better. I thank them for their love, support, and most of all,
patience! I hope that my achievement will show them that their potential is boundless. If
you dream it and believe it, you can achieve it! My message to them is to dream big, aim
high, and not let anyone or anything stand in the way!
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 3
I am forever grateful and indebted to each and every one of these people for all
that they have done for me over these past 3 years. This would never have been possible
without each and every one of them. I love them all!
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 4
Acknowledgments
I thank and acknowledge all those who have helped make this dissertation possi-
ble:
First and foremost, I thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael F. Escalante, for
encouraging me to further my education and to pursue the Ed.D. degree at USC. I am
grateful and honored to have received his support, guidance, and encouragement
throughout the program, as well as in my professional career. His insight and expertise
have been invaluable and I thank him for taking the time to share them with me. I am
truly indebted and thankful for all that he has done to help me along this amazing
journey.
I thank Dr. Pedro Garcia for his willingness to serve on my dissertation commit-
tee. His immeasurable encouragement and support since my very first class are greatly
appreciated. I am so very fortunate and honored to have had him as a professor and I
value our friendship.
I thank Dr. Michel Doll for her willingness to serve on my dissertation committee.
Her encouragement, support, and feedback throughout the writing of this dissertation
have been invaluable. I appreciate the time she spent in guiding and supporting me.
I thank the Rossier School of Education for allowing me the opportunity to
develop as an educational leader. I especially thank the professors of the Rossier School
of Education with whom I have had the honor of meeting throughout the program. The
knowledge and expertise that they have shared is priceless.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 5
I thank my thematic group members for their support and collaboration over the
past year. Last but not least, I thank my colleagues and friends, Mercedes and Marco, for
their encouragement, support, and camaraderie. Their support, inspiration, and encour-
agement during the most difficult times are incalculable. Their ongoing encouragement,
motivation, and humor gave me the strength to make it through this process. I will miss
“study” sessions at APU with Mercedes Gomez and her imaginary friends who often
came to study with us as well as Marco Nava who always kept us grounded and focused
when we were easily distracted and frustrated. I am fortunate to have such amazing
colleagues and friends! They were the best cheerleaders and made this chapter in my life
an unforgettable experience. Go team MLM!
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 6
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 4
List of Tables 9
Abstract 10
Chapter 1: Overview to the Study 11
Background of the Problem 14
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 17
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations 19
Delimitations 19
Assumptions 20
Definitions 20
Academic Performance Index (API) 20
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) 20
Board of Trustees 21
California School Board Association (CSBA) 21
Masters in Governance (MIG) 21
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 21
Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) 21
School Board 22
School District 22
Superintendent 22
Organization of the Dissertation 22
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 23
History of School Boards 24
School Board Roles and Responsibilities 29
Leadership 33
School Board Leadership 36
School Board Member Relations 39
School Board/Superintendent Relations 41
Accountability 44
School Board Training 46
Theoretical Frameworks 54
Four-Frame Leadership Model 55
The Lighthouse Inquiry 58
California School Board Association 62
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 7
Chapter 3: Methodology 66
Research Team 67
Research Design 69
Participants/Sample Population 70
Instrumentation 73
Data Collection 76
Data Analysis 79
Ethical Considerations 80
Chapter Summary 80
Chapter 4: Research Results 81
Participants 83
Survey Participants 84
Interview Participants 84
Results for Research Question 1 86
Self-Motivation 87
Increasing MIG Participation 91
Summary of Results for Research Question 1 93
Results for Research Question 2 93
Student Achievement 94
Unified Team 98
Roles and Responsibilities 101
Summary of Results for Research Question 2 106
Results for Research Question 3 107
MIG as a Mandate 108
Cost as a Deterrent 111
Summary of Results for Research Question 3 113
Chapter Summary 113
Chapter 5:Conclusion 116
Summary of Findings 117
Research Question 1 118
Research Question 2 119
Research Question 3 120
Implications for Practice 122
Recommendations 125
Conclusion 126
References 128
Appendices
Appendix A: Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and MIG Observation
Protocol 134
Appendix B: Research Questions/Survey/Interview/MIGOP Protocol Grid 135
Appendix C: Interview Guide: School Board Member 139
Appendix D: Interview Guide: Superintendent 140
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 8
Appendix E: MIG Observation Protocol 141
Appendix F: Board Member Recruitment Letter 145
Appendix G: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 146
Appendix H: Information Sheet: School Board Member 147
Appendix I: Information Sheet: Superintendent 149
Appendix J: Board Member Survey 151
Appendix K: Superintendent Survey 154
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 9
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Primary Factors Influencing School Board Member Participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) Training: Self-Motivation and
Encouragement by Colleagues 88
Table 2: A School Board’s Culture Highly Encourages Participation in
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training 90
Table 3: Availability of an Online Masters in Governance (MIG)
Certification Program Would Encourage More School Board
Members to Participate 91
Table 4: School Board Members Who Have Completed Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training Demonstrate an Increased Focus
on Student Achievement During School Board Meetings 95
Table 5: School Board Members’ and Superintendents’ Rankings of the
California School Board Association (CSBA) Eight Characteristics
of Effective Governance 97
Table 6: School Board Members Who Completed Masters in Governance
(MIG) Training Exhibit a More Collaborative Working Relationship
With Their Fellow School Board Members 99
Table 7: School Board Members With Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Are More Likely to Accept the Majority Decision of the Board Even
If They Hold the Minority View 100
Table 8: Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Clearly Delineates the Roles
and Responsibilities of School Board Members and Superintendents 102
Table 9: The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Clearly Differentiates
Between Policy Making and Administrative Management 103
Table 10: The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Program Should Be
Mandated in California 109
Table 11: Subsidized or Free Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Programs
Would Encourage More School Board Members to Participate 112
Figure 1 Framework alignment of Bolman and Deal, California School
Boards Association, and Lighthouse Inquiry 69
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 10
Abstract
This study examined the impact of professional development on school board
practices and behaviors as identified in relevant literature as an essential means to effec-
tive governance. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program offered by the California School Board Association
influenced a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective leadership and
governance. This study included qualitative data gathered from 226 MIG-trained school
board members and 100 superintendents from 6 southern California counties. Data from
surveys, interview guides, and observation protocols were collected, disaggregated, and
coded in relation to the study’s research questions. Findings indicated that the MIG
training program offers a comprehensive governance model that equips school board
members with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, thus enabling them
to govern effectively. However, considerations need to be given to adjusting the MIG’s
current structure and schedule to better accommodate school board needs and increase
participation. Findings also indicated that MIG training positively affected school board
governance and should be instituted as a funded or subsidized California state mandate.
This study lends itself to considerations of legislation for subsidized school board training
as a means to effective California school board governance.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 11
Chapter 1
Overview to the Study
The job of a public school board member can prove to be a challenging role. Over
the past few decades the role of school boards has evolved to encompass a significantly
more complex description of responsibilities than ever before (Bianchi, 2003; Bracey &
Resnik, 1998; Danzberger, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Petersen & Short, 2001;
Timar, 2003). Today, local school boards assume a daunting task of providing effective
district leadership to an ever-changing social and academic arena. As a district’s gov-
erning body, the school board must be well prepared with knowledge and skills to
address the challenges inherent in the changing dynamics of public school systems.
Therefore, it is critical for school boards to stay abreast of changing educational issues, as
well as clearly understand the complexities and responsibilities of their role (California
School Boards Association [CSBA], 2007; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001; Petronis,
Hall, & Pierson, 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In order to navigate the intricacies of
evolving educational issues and challenges, it is imperative for school boards to gain spe-
cific knowledge and skills to perform effectively the various aspects that their role as a
school board encompasses. Ongoing targeted professional development in these various
aspects can equip school boards with the necessary knowledge, skills, and conventions of
specific practices and behaviors conducive to effective district governance (Bianchi,
2003; Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001;
Petronis et al., 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 12
In the United States, more than 95,000 school board members serve to govern the
nation’s 15,000 local public school districts (Land, 2002; Thomas, S., 1994). Currently in
the state of California alone, more than 5,000 school board members govern more than
1,000 public school districts serving more than six million students (CSBA, 2007; NSBA,
n.d.). Although each board member with divergent leadership styles and perspectives,
collectively the board is a single governing body that ensures a commonality of vision
and purpose. Working together as a governing team, school boards and the superinten-
dent engage in collective decision-making practices that promote compliance with rigor-
ous accountability measures and advancement of district visions (Houston & Bryant,
1997).
Today’s school board members assume a wide range of complex and paramount
responsibilities. School boards are responsible for multimillion-dollar enterprises, often
serving as a community’s largest employer, overseeing a large number of facilities, as
well as transportation systems, food services operations, and monumental fiscal budgets
(CSBA, 2007). Given such a wide range responsibilities with which school boards are
entrusted, the potential need for professional development in the key areas of board
responsibility is evident (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Historically, the role of school boards was comprised of primarily managerial
duties, commanding expansive administrative authority over local schools. During the
1800s, as colonization spread rapidly across the country, the need for a separate educa-
tional government system arose to oversee the increasing number of schools. Separate
districts were formed with local school board oversight and management. As educational
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 13
governance became more centralized, school boards were further entrusted to oversee all
aspects of governance within their respective school districts (Danzberger, 1994; Land,
2002).
In an age of increasing accountability, never before has a stronger focus been
placed on local school boards to effectuate school reform efforts than now (CSBA, 2007;
Thomas, S., 1994). Recently, local school boards have become tethered by state and
federal mandates rendering them increasingly accountable for providing quality district
leadership and promoting student achievement (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Evi-
dence of initial accountability measures began to emerge in the mid-1980s with the pub-
lication of A Nation at Risk, an educational reform movement that held schools
accountable to higher standards. Shortly thereafter, California followed suit with a legis-
lative bill in 1999 titled the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). The PSAA was
aimed at ensuring that all student achievement improve consistently each year. The fed-
eral government enacted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001, mandating aca-
demic proficiency by all students in both English Language Arts and Mathematics by the
year 2014. This placed an increasing demand on school boards as they were now urged to
make effective governing decisions aimed at improving the quality of education and
overall student achievement.
As school boards struggle to meet a wide range of complex and challenging
demands imposed by state and federal legislation, they are held accountable for informed
decision making regarding the quality of education and the advancement of student
achievement. With the public taking a more active role and interest in the attainment of
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 14
accountability goals, school board members are being pressured and influenced by both
political and personal agendas. However, ensuring effective governance requires a school
board to govern as a collective body of trustees, as opposed to separate individual
trustees. This proves quite challenging, given the varied perspectives of individual board
members. The school board must work collectively as a united governing board to be
effective and propel districts forward (Land, 2002).
Background of the Problem
Over the past few decades, public opinion of America’s public educational system
has steadily deteriorated. Increasing numbers of Americans continue to share the belief
that the quality of education in the United States pales in comparison to that of neigh-
boring countries (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Although recent state and federal reform
initiatives have attempted to address the discontent in the nation’s public school systems,
attention has shifted slowly to focus on local school boards as leaders of educational
reform (Danzberger, 1994). The role of school boards has significantly evolved over
recent decades to encompass a wide range of district operations. Coupled with rigorous
legislative and community accountability demands over recent years, the standard of
effective school board leadership has become increasingly more difficult to achieve.
In a time of increasing accountability standards instituted by state and federal
legislation, school boards continue to face unprecedented challenges. Today, local school
boards are held highly accountable for providing quality district governance in all facets
of district operations, as well as addressing expanding state and federal accountability
measures. School board members are often elected to oversee and make decisions
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 15
regarding a wide array of complex and multifaceted challenges that command a deep
understanding of various laws, fiscal accountability, policy making, and program
development, as well as various other social and educational demands about which they
have little to no knowledge. These challenges call for informed and educated school
boards that are well equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to demonstrate
effective leadership practices and successful school board governance. School boards
often serve without sufficient and appropriate training. Without appropriate training,
school boards are often left ill prepared to make informed decisions regarding critical
district operations, leaving them unequipped to provide effective district governance
(Bianchi, 2003). Knowledge and skills in the areas of critical district operations are
pivotal to the success of a district and warrant adherence to effective board governing
practices and behaviors. How do districts ensure school board commitment to pursue
training in efforts to prepare and equip school boards with the knowledge and skills
necessary to govern their schools?
Statement of the Problem
In the highly complex and rapidly changing world of public education, never
before has quality school board leadership been more necessary. With increased public
scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and
advancements in technology, school
board members must understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an
effective district environment (Johnson, 2011). School board members must demonstrate
professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities (CSBA, 2007).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 16
Since the duties of school boards encompass a wide range of duties, collaboration, com-
munication, and school board training are imperative for effective school board gover-
nance (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
Currently, 23 states nationwide mandate various degrees of school board training
programs (Bianchi, 2003; NSBA, 2012). Although the CSBA offers the MIG, a ground-
breaking training program designed to equip school board members and superintendents
with knowledge and skills necessary for effective district leadership, participation is
optional.
This study examined the impact of the MIG training program on effective gov-
ernance practices and behaviors that lend themselves to characteristics of successful
school districts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training program
offered by the CSBA influences a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance. This study determined whether school board members
adhered to a specific skill set of behaviors and practices characteristic of effective gov-
ernance as a result of participation in the MIG training program. The MIG training
program is comprised of nine modules that define the roles and responsibilities of school
boards. The modules are predicated on providing school boards with the knowledge and
skills necessary to engage in informed decision making while keeping all efforts focused
on student learning. The MIG training modules offer professional development in nine
areas: (a) foundations of effective governance, (b) setting direction, (c) human resources,
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 17
(d) policy and judicial review, (e) student learning and achievement, (f) school finance,
(g) collective bargaining, (h) community relations and advocacy, and (i) governance inte-
gration.
Three theoretical frameworks served as the lens from which the study examined
the impact of the MIG training program on school board governance. Bolman and Deal’s
four-frame model for effective leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008) was used to examine
the process in which school boards engage for effective district governance.
Delagardelle’s (2008) Lighthouse Inquiry; Key Areas of Board Performance was used to
identify critical conditions necessary for effective leadership school boards to cultivate
through extensive knowledge and skills of district operations. CSBA’s Professional Gov-
ernance Standards (CSBA, 2007) were utilized to identify and describe effective behav-
iors and practices that school board members utilize when providing district leadership.
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed collaboratively by the research
team to guide this study to determine whether a correlation exists between the MIG
training program and effective school board governance.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact school board
governance?
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 18
Significance of the Study
The role of school boards has evolved significantly over recent decades. The
spectrum of district responsibilities has widened, leaving school boards increasingly
accountable for nearly all aspects of district operations. The emergence of rigorous leg-
islative accountability measures and changes in student demographic populations have
left local school boards with the daunting responsibility of providing effective district
leadership that satisfies both state and federal mandates, as well as district and com-
munity needs. Today, it is imperative that school board members be well prepared with
the knowledge and skills to render them effective in addressing current and future
demands. The significance of this study was to examine the impact of the MIG training
program, a comprehensive professional development program comprised of nine modules
aimed at providing school boards members with the knowledge and skills to engage lead-
ership behaviors and practices that induce effective district governance.
The findings from this study contribute to the current literature that delineates a
specific repertoire of behaviors that effective leaders exhibit. The findings of this study
will provide school boards with findings to identify the necessity for the MIG training
program as a necessary means of ensuring effective district governance. This study con-
tributes insight and knowledge to the educational arenas and state policy makers regard-
ing the impact of school board training. This insight will provide groundbreaking
empirical evidence by which to analyze existing school board training programs. The
findings from this study may encourage state policy makers to enact legislation
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 19
mandating professional development training programs that will equip school board
members with the knowledge and skills critical for effective district governance.
Limitations
Limitations of the study include the following:
1. The study was limited to the school board members and superintendents who
participated voluntarily.
2. The study was limited to the number of participants surveyed and interviewed.
3. Participant responses were subjective and reflected personal viewpoints.
4. Participant responses were not representative of all school board members and
superintendents.
5. The study was limited due to time constraints for survey and interview comple-
tion.
6. The validity of the study was limited to research instrumentation reliability.
7. The study was limited to the districts located in southern California due to geo-
graphical constraints.
Delimitations
Delimitations of the study include the following:
1. The study was delimited to districts with ADA ranging from 2,000 to 50,000.
2. The study was delimited to districts demonstrating a 21-point growth minimum
in Academic Performance Index (API) over the previous 3 years.
3. The study was delimited by absence of consideration of socioeconomic status.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 20
4. The study was delimited by selection and participation of elementary, second-
ary, and unified school districts.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made with regard to the findings of the study:
1. The instruments utilized were valid and reliable.
2. Participants were truthful in their survey and interview responses.
3. School boards had a direct governance impact on their districts.
4. MIG training improved school board practice.
5. MIG training improved school board effectiveness.
6. MIG training program improved school board and superintendent relations.
7. Information provided by the CSBA was current and accurate.
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined.
Academic Performance Index (API)
A single number, ranging from 200 to 100,0 that represents a school’s or local
educational agency’s (LEA) performance level, as measured by the results of statewide
testing.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
The total number of days of student attendance divided by the total number of
school days in a regular calendar school year.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 21
Board of Trustees
The representative district governing body entrusted with the responsibility of
local school district governance (CSBA, 2007).
California School Board Association (CSBA)
A collaborative organization aimed at providing guidance, resources, and training
for school board members and communicating and advocating the perspectives of school
districts throughout California (CSBA, 2007).
Masters in Governance (MIG)
A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of nine modules aimed
designed to improve governance and leadership by providing the necessary knowledge
and skills to support an effective governance structure (CSBA, 2007).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
An act of Congress enacted in 2001 to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, a government flagship aid program for disadvantaged students, requiring
states to set high standards and give assessments in basic skills in order to receive federal
school funding.
Public School Accountability Act (PSAA)
Enacted in 1999, a comprehensive accountability system holding students,
schools, and districts accountable for improving student performance. PSAA is aligned
with academic content standards and includes the Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) assessments. Student progress is measured by API.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 22
School Board
A three-, five-, or seven-member board consisting of nonpartisan citizens who
live within a given school district’s boundaries and are appointed or elected by cor-
responding residents to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance
(CSBA, 2007).
School District
A local education agency (LEA) overseen by an elected local board of education
whose primary responsibility is public school operations.
Superintendent
An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district who is accountable
to the school board.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduc-
tion to the study through a brief background description of the problem under study, a
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the study’s limitations and delimita-
tions, assumptions, and definitions of the study’s key terms. Chapter 2 provides a review
of literature related to the purpose of the study. Chapter 3 delineates the research meth-
odology utilized in the study, including research design, participant sampling, research
instruments, and data collection and analysis procedures. Chapter 4 presents the study’s
findings and a comprehensive analysis of collected data. Chapter 5 presents a summary of
the study, conclusions, considerations, implications, and recommendations for future
research and practice.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 23
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
For centuries, school boards have claimed ownership of providing educational
leadership, guidance, and support to the public that they serve (Campbell & Green, 1994;
Kirst, 1994). In the field of public education, school boards are charged with providing
the fundamental framework for governing education (Campbell & Green, 1994; Kirst,
1994; Land, 2002; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; Usdan, 1994). They epitomize the
nation’s democratic system by seeking to represent and uphold and advance the public’s
best interest. School boards govern local schools and serve as critical decision makers
who shape a district’s success. As a district’s governing body, school boards are required
to be highly knowledgeable of the multifaceted responsibilities and operations of school
districts in which they govern (Bianchi, 2003; Gemberling, Smith, & Villani, 2000;
Morehouse, 2001; Petronis et al., 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Over the past few decades, the work of school boards has become much more
intricate, requiring a wide range of knowledge necessary for the vast range of district
operations. In the age of increasing accountability, state and federal mandates have only
added to the answerability of school boards to provide effective leadership and perpetuate
the advancement of student achievement. As the role of local school boards continues to
evolve, the need for comprehensive professional development programs equipping school
boards with the knowledge and skills necessary for effective district governance becomes
imperative.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 24
In the ever-changing dynamics of public education, school boards have become
increasingly more responsible for the task of improving student achievement (Campbell
& Green, 1994; Goldhammer, 1964; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; McCloud & McKenzie,
1994). Today’s school boards encompass a wide range of responsibilities that include, but
are not limited to, setting the district’s vision, developing district policies and programs,
employing personnel, overseeing fiscal solvency and facilities operations, and hiring and
evaluating the superintendent (Campbell & Green, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002;
McCloud & McKenzie, 1994). Given these challenging responsibilities, it is imperative
that school boards receive professional development relevant to their pivotal roles.
This chapter begins with a review of the history of local school boards. It provides
an overview of the evolution of the inherent roles and responsibilities of local school
boards in public education, including effective leadership theories, behaviors and
practices, critical relationships between school boards and superintendents, and the
expanding layers of accountability continuously inundating the work of school boards.
The chapter concludes with an examination of the literature regarding the necessity and
merits of the CSBA’s MIG training program in relation to effective school board gover-
nance.
History of School Boards
School boards, comprised of publicly elected individuals, are responsible for
overseeing and governing local school districts (Land, 2002). It is important to examine
the origins and history of school boards to understand how early fundamental decisions
regarding the responsibilities of district governance have evolved and shaped the current
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 25
school boards and their structures. Historically, school boards have been regarded as the
proprietors of public education. Over the past 200 years, however, school board struc-
tures and their roles and responsibilities have evolved significantly (Kirst, 1994; Land,
2002; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994). The evolution of this structure of governance traces
back over 200 years ago to Massachusetts to a system of general governance overseen by
members of the local government structures (Land, 2002).
Demands for a local educational governance structure surfaced in the early 1800s
when a rise in settling immigrant families began to emerge (Danzberger, 1994; Land,
2002; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As population size began to
increase, a need for separate educational governance systems to oversee the number of
increasing districts and schools became evident (Land, 2002; McCloud & McKenzie,
1994; Usdan, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As a result, educational governance became
separate from general governance, leading to the decentralization of governance.
Increases in centralized local school boards soon followed to oversee and govern local
educational systems (Land, 2002). In 1837, in attempts to provide states with a more
extensive role in education, Massachusetts established the first State Board of Education
and Office of State Superintendent (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Although estab-
lishment of these governing structures was intended to provide the state with a greater
role in education, local school boards maintained the majority of control over their
schools. This control was partially due to the lack of public confidence and trust in a
distant administrative body, often political in nature, reflecting public preferences and
satisfying local needs (Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 26
As the population continued to grow, local taxes were utilized to fund establish-
ment of new schools and separate school districts (Land, 2002, Wirt & Kirst, 2005). By
1891, Massachusetts approved legislation that granted each district authority over its
local schools (Land, 2002). Individual districts were granted flexibility to govern their
schools free of administrative control from the State Board of Education.
This system of institutionalized separation of educational governance from overall
general governance spread swiftly across the colonies, resulting in progressive increases
in the number of established school boards across the nation between 1800 and 1900.
Although governance structures varied significantly from district to district nationwide,
the primary responsibilities of local school boards remained to manage and govern public
education (Land, 2002).
In the late 1800s, school board members were generally elected by local wards
neighborhoods. Inherent disparities in neighborhood demographics led to inequities in
educational opportunities for students, as well as perceptions of various political influ-
ences. Response to these perceived inequities prompted the immediate involvement of
elite professionals and businessmen to improve and sustain equitable local educational
governance systems (Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
In the early 1900s, a pivotal shift toward a more centralized form of educational
governance took place. This shift served as the last major reform in educational gover-
nance specific to school board function and composition. The intention of the reform was
predicated on three major factors: the creation of local, smaller school boards; elections
of school board members at large; and separation from general governance and free of all
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 27
political influence (Kirst, 1994). This shift centralized local educational governance by
providing a central board for individual districts with a professional superintendent as the
chief executive officer (Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As a result, the
primary focus of school boards evolved to concentrate more on policy-making responsi-
bilities and less on administrative and management responsibilities (Land, 2002; Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). Concurrently, the role of the superintendent, previously dictated by school
boards, expanded to include more district administration and management responsibilities
(Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Massachusetts’s inceptive structure of
separate education governance set precedence as the framework for the current structure
of governance of public schools by local school boards today (Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002).
Although this shift in governance granted local school boards the autonomy to
demonstrate flexible governing structures within local districts, a slight decrease in gov-
erning authority ensued as expanding state and federal control in public education
increased (Land, 2002). The 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education
warranted federal government involvement in public education to oversee desegregation.
Similarly, as state and federally funded categorical programs enhanced fiscal account-
ability through the Elementary Special Education Act of 1970 and migrant education,
government involvement in public education grew. Most notably, NCLB indisputably
expanded and strengthened state and federal involvement in public education with
meticulous and rigorous accountability mandates (Bracey & Resnick, 1998; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004; Land, 2002; Lashway, 2002; Timar, 2003).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 28
Over the past two centuries, the role of school boards has continued to encapsu-
late a broader spectrum of responsibilities; however, little change has been observed in
demographic composition (CSBA, 2007; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Today, locally elected or
appointed citizens and businessmen continue to define the demographic composition of
local school board structures (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Today,
locally elected or appointed citizens and businessmen continue to define the demographic
composition of local school boards (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Currently, more than 95,000 school board members serve on approximately
15,000 local public school boards in the United States (CSBA, 2007). Local citizens are
eligible candidates for school boards with little to no requirements for training or experi-
ence. Accordingly, it is not uncommon that membership on local school boards is the first
time for elected individuals are called to serve in a civil office capacity. School board
candidates may be either elected or appointed to a governing board of a school district by
meeting specified requirements. Individuals choosing to run for school boards are man-
dated to meet only minimal eligibility requirements and candidacy requires no experi-
ence, training, or knowledge in the field of education. Aspiring school board candidates
must meet only the following requirements: be 18 years of age or older, hold state citi-
zenship, demonstrate current residency in the school district, be a registered voter, and be
eligible hold a civil office (CSBA, 2007; Kolb & Strauss, 1999). The majority of school
board members are selected by the public through city or district-wide elections to serve a
4-year term (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). School boards typically consist of five to
seven members. Depending on the school district, school boards may have three to seven
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 29
members. It is not uncommon for suburban school districts with smaller student popula-
tions to have three board members and larger suburban school districts to have seven or
more members (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002).
School districts in California range from small rural districts with fewer than 20
students to larger urban districts serving more than 700,000 students (CSBA, 2007).
Approximately 5,000 school board members govern more than 1,000 public school
districts in California, ranging in size from very small to very large and serving notably
diverse student populations (CSBA, 2007). Three distinct structures delineate California
school districts: Elementary, High School, and Unified districts. Elementary districts are
comprised of Grades Kindergarten through 6 or 8, high school districts serve Grades 9
through 12, and unified districts serve Grades Kindergarten through 12. California’s
public school system is the largest in the nation and draws nearly 40% of the state’s
budget, making operations of public schools a multimillion-dollar enterprise (CSBA,
2007; NSBA, n.d.).
The responsibility of providing district governance to the largest public school
system can prove to be a daunting task. At minimum, California school boards must be
well versed in the various components of district operations. Without the appropriate
knowledge, skills, and training in these critical components, this responsibility can prove
to be a challenging if not futile endeavor for school boards.
School Board Roles and Responsibilities
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not
entrusted to the United States by the Constitution, nor disallowed by it to the states, are
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 30
reserved to the states respectively, or to its people. Therefore, by definition, because the
Constitution does not delineate the responsibilities of education to a given entity, the
responsibility falls on the shoulders of the states.
Today, local school boards are responsible for a wide array of complex, multi-
faceted challenges that command a deep understanding of various laws, fiscal account-
ability, and various other social and educational demands. Danzberger (1994), Kirst
(1994), and Land (2002) claimed that, although the primary duties and responsibilities of
present school boards gravitate around policy making, school boards are equally
responsible for overseeing district employment, financial and educational accountability,
public relations, and the hiring and evaluation of the superintendent. In anticipation of
these challenges, school board members must be highly cognizant of their roles and have
a deep understanding of their responsibilities (Campbell & Green, 1994; Danzberger,
1994; Hess, 2002; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002,). However, interpretation of school
board roles and responsibilities are often unclear and ill defined, making the task of
providing effective leadership a difficult one.
The role of the school board is all encompassing and is the most critical and
complex in providing overall district leadership (Danzberger, 1994; Kolb & Strauss,
1999; Land, 2002; Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek, 2007; Ziebarth, 2002). Today, local gover-
nance systems for school districts remain increasingly complex and involve multiple
decision-making bodies, each responsive to specific issues and responsibilities
(Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Therefore, there is a need for school boards to be well
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 31
versed in their responsibilities and possess a clear understanding of their roles and
responsibilities.
Campbell and Green (1994) suggested that the primary role of school boards is to
govern local school districts effectively. To accomplish this, the respective roles and
responsibilities of school boards must be clarified and clearly delineated (Campbell &
Green, 1994; Schmitz, 2007; Ziebarth, 2002). However, after more than 200 years, these
specific roles and responsibilities of school boards are yet to be clearly defined in any
formal or uniform fashion (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002; Campbell & Green, 1994; Kirst,
1994; Schmitz, 2007; Thomas, J. Y., 2001; Ziebarth, 2002). In order to effectively
perform their roles and responsibilities, school boards must command a deep under-
standing of the complexities of their roles and remain abreast of emerging critical
educational issues and demands (Campbell & Green, 1994; Leithwood et al., 2008;
Marzano & Waters, 2006).
According to Campbell and Green (1994), citizen control of local government
represents the foundation of American democracy. Citizen-controlled governance serves
the interest of the public. It represents core values, priorities, and perspectives of its
people (Danzberger, 1994; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002). Therefore, the role of
school boards must be to act and serve in the true interest of their public. Furthermore, as
elected officials, school board members represent the educational values, perspectives,
and priorities of their community (Ziebarth, 2002).
Goldhammer (1964) identified six specific roles of school boards commonly
expected by local communities:
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 32
1. Promoters of the public interest in education. School boards are expected to be
promoters of the public’s interest in education by advancing values and visions of the
community.
2. Defenders and upholders of accepted values of the community. School board
members are expected to represent community interests and values void of personal or
political influence.
3. Appellate body to hear complaints and grievances. School board members are
expected to maintain an open avenue of communication regarding community concerns,
without bias or self-interest.
4. Close supervision over professional personnel. School boards are expected to
maintain constant supervision over the recruiting, hiring, and placement of district per-
sonnel.
5. Conservators of resources. School boards are expected to be conservators of all
resources and to maintain fiscal solvency.
6. Promoters of individual rights and interests. School boards are expected to
operate in an impartial and unprejudiced manner to ensure that community interests and
values are upheld.
Early 20th-century educational reform efforts began to reshape school boards to
mimic corporate business structures. As a result, school boards began to oversee most
aspects of local district and school operations (Kirst, 1994). The role of school boards
began to encompass a multitude of duties and responsibilities confounded by various
community demands, state and federal mandates, and collective bargaining associations
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 33
(Campbell & Green, 1994; Land, 2002; Schmitz, 2007). This left school boards with the
charge to oversee a wide range of responsibilities that encompassed a multiplicity of
functions. As a result, school board operations began to echo many of the judicial,
executive, and legislative functions of government (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
School boards assume a legislative role as they engage in policy development and
budget allocation. These actions underpin and dictate the expectations and regulations
that drive district visions. School boards assume an executive role as they set district
policy including, but not limited to, appointment of professional personnel, as well as
expenditures for curricular materials, facilities, and operations. School boards function in
a judicial role as they engage in investigations necessitating action or judgment regarding
district issues (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The roles described above are not hierarchically played out nor do they represent
any order of importance. However, these roles can prove difficult for school boards that
lack training to address this wide spectrum of responsibilities. As school boards continue
to be charged with a wide range of responsibilities for district operations, the need to
acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to fulfill these responsibilities effectively
becomes apparent. Without the appropriate knowledge and skills, school boards are left
ill equipped to make quality decisions regarding critical educational operations and
issues.
Leadership
For the past 150 years, school boards have represented the keystone of America’s
public education system (Land, 2002). They exist to serve as a single governing body
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 34
charged with the responsibility of providing sound educational leadership to the nation’s
public school systems (Land, 2002; Marzano & Waters, 2006). However, effective lead-
ership is not readily defined nor easily acquired (Leithwood et al., 2008; Marzano &
Waters, 2006). With a wide spectrum of responsibilities and divergent community
demands, school boards must be able to provide effective district leadership in efforts to
attain community and district visions. Moreover, a rise in state and federal accountability
measures, coupled with the ever-changing dynamics of public education, has heightened
the demand for effective school board leadership (Land, 2002; Leithwood et al., 2008;
Marzano & Waters, 2006).
According to Northouse (2010), leadership is a commodity that is highly sought
by many yet remains difficult to define and attain. Over the years, researchers have rumi-
nated over the definition of leadership, only to find a vast range of proposed definitions
and theories that have defined leadership as either a character trait or as a knowledge-
based theory (Campbell & Green, 1994; Elmore, 2000; Leithwood et al., 2008;
Northhouse, 2010).
Northouse (2010) suggested that leadership is a complex process that involves
multiple facets. Northouse (2010) defined leadership as a process that encompasses mul-
tiple approaches and styles whereby individuals influence a group to work toward and
achieve a common goal. Embedded within his explanation, Northouse provided four
essential components of leadership. First, he suggested that leadership is a nonlinear
interactive process that requires two or more people: those who lead and those who
follow (Northouse, 2010; Petersen, 2002). Second, Northouse (2010) suggested that
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 35
leadership involves the power of influence. This component differs from the first in that
the definition of leadership as a process suggests a fluid interaction between leaders and
followers, while the power of influence denotes how leaders influence those whom they
lead. Third, Northouse proposed that leadership involves influencing groups to work
collectively toward a common purpose. Fourth, Northouse suggested that leadership is
perpetuated through commitment to attention toward common goals.
Elmore (2000) offered a similar conceptual theory of leadership that supports and
parallels Northouse’s theory of leadership. In his article “Building a New Structure for
Leadership” Elmore (2000) suggested that leadership is the result of an individual’s will
and knowledge and cannot be defined by specific character traits or professional titles.
Elmore claimed that leadership tends to be romanticized in American’s educational
culture because the public subscribes heavily to the trait theory of leadership. He argued
that individuals define success as advancement as a result of personal characteristics and
qualities that most do not possess, rather than as a result of effort, skill, and knowledge
(Elmore, 2000). Agreement to this type of leadership falls prey to inherent flaws as it
assumes that effective leaders are great leaders simply by character trait or title. Good
leaders are effective because they possess the knowledge, will, and perseverance to influ-
ence others positively to work toward a desired goal (Northouse, 2010). Elmore (2000)
suggested that deromanticizing this theory of leadership would have a significantly posi-
tive effect on quality of education.
Each year, as leaders in the field of education, school boards are held increasingly
accountable for providing effective district leadership. With increasing community and
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 36
legislative accountability measures, school boards must be able to demonstrate effective
district leadership by navigating varying challenges and demands, utilizing multiple lead-
ership styles and approaches. Therefore, school boards must possess the knowledge and
commitment to work collectively with others toward common goals. Without appropriate
and strategic professional development to acquire the necessary knowledge, school
boards are left ill equipped to engage in strategic leadership and overall district gover-
nance.
School Board Leadership
As stewards of district leadership, school boards must be prepared to engage in
multiple leadership approaches and behaviors that are regulated by knowledge, skill, and
circumstance (Elmore, 2000; Northhouse, 2010). To accomplish this, effective leaders
utilize a combination of fundamental leadership approaches, each conducive to the
contexts in which they solicit (Leithwood et al., 2008). Effective leaders engage in a
specific skill sets of distinct yet fluid leadership approaches, each dictated by varying
circumstances (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007;
Leithwood et al., 2008; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
Over the years, those who have attempted to shed light on the theory and devel-
opment of leadership have professed that the concept of leadership does not offer a
simple or straightforward definition (Northouse, 2010). However, research has suggested
that all good leaders draw upon a certain repertoire of basic leadership behaviors and
practices and the execution of these practices positively impacts performance and
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 37
advances desired goals (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008;
Thomas, S., 1994; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
The role of school boards encompasses a specific repertoire of decision-making
practices that are rudimentary to effective leadership and educational systems (Campbell
& Green, 1994; Leithwood et al., 2008; Walters & Marzano, 2006). Recent research sug-
gests that effective school boards utilize these specific decision-making practices to foster
effective district governance (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Leithwood et al.,
2008; “Let's Redefine,” 1992; Marzano & Waters, 2006). Adherence to these specific
practices contributes positively to the quality of the school organization and student per-
formance levels (Leithwood et al., 2008; Marzano & Waters, 2006). These practices are
key to the effectiveness of school board governance and include the following explicit
decision-making practices: (a) building and setting a vision, (b) creating an effective
organizational structure, (cc) establishing accountability, and (d) ensuring advocacy
(Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Houston & Bryant, 1997; Leithwood et al.,
2008; Thomas, S., 1994; Walters & Marzano, 2006).
The establishment of a shared long-term vision is essential to overall school
district effectiveness. Therefore, establishing a common vision is key to the backbone of
school board governance (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Houston & Bryant,
1997; Leithwood et al., 2008; “Let's Redefine,” 1992; Marzano & Waters, 2006). It is
essential that school boards establish a shared vision that infuses the collective values and
priorities of their community to drive all aspects of district programs and operations.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 38
School boards must establish and maintain a basic organizational structure that
cultivates a system of learning and excellence. This involves establishment of an infra-
structure that is strengthened initially by strategic and informed decision making that
includes, but is not limited to, approval of annual budgets and development and adoption
of policies in efforts to foster a culture that commands excellence (Campbell & Green,
1994; CSBA, 2007; Houston & Bryant, 1997; Leithwood et al., 2008; “Let's Redefine,”
1992; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
Effective school boards demonstrate an adherence to the establishment of systems
and processes that ensure accountability to the community (Campbell & Green, 1994).
This is accomplished through the practice of ongoing informed decision making that
demonstrates compliance with state and federal mandates, emphasis on improvement of
student achievement through fiscal accountability, program effectiveness, and continuous
analysis of student outcomes (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Houston &
Bryant, 1997; Leithwood et al., 2008; “Let’s Redefine,” 1992; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
School boards demonstrated an unwavering commitment to improving student
learning (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008; Marzano &
Waters, 2006). This commitment is perpetuated through collaborative relationships
between districts and communities that promote district visions (Campbell & Green,
1994; CSBA, 2007; Houston & Bryant, 1997; Leithwood et al., 2008; “Let's Redefine,”
1992; Marzano & Waters, 2006).
The four critical decision-making practices described above are central to the fun-
damental role of local school boards. Although adherence to these key practices is
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 39
critical, commitment to their practice can positively impact the effectiveness of school
board governance and the overall quality of education.
School Board Member Relations
In recent years, as rigorous accountability measures have continued to surface,
local school boards have faced increasing pressure to engage in effective district gov-
ernance practices aimed at advancing district visions and improving student achievement
(Danzberger, 1994; Hentchske & Wohlstetter, 2004; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002;
Marzano & Waters, 2006; Petersen & Short, 2001; Thomas, S., 1994; Timar, 2003). With
no signs of abating, increasing demands from a plethora of educational stakeholders
challenge local school boards to demonstrate quality leadership inclusive of district and
community priorities. With membership ranging from three to five, varying personal
agendas and perspectives can stifle a board’s ability to engage in effective decision-
making practices and behaviors. Therefore, it is imperative that school boards recognize
the importance of operating and governing as a unified board of trustees, rather than as
individual trustees (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002).
Research on school boards suggests that boards have often fallen prey to criticism
by the public for their inability to work as a team, eschew special interests, and remain
exclusive of political influence (Land, 2002). Although school boards represent a singular
governing body, each is comprised of individual trustees who work collectively to
provide district leadership. Authority to act on behalf of a school district is bestowed
solely on the board as a whole. Outside of this governing body, individual board
members do not have the authority to make decisions for a district or school. As such,
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 40
given the wide range of responsibilities with which school boards are entrusted, collec-
tive decisions may often be difficult to achieve (Davies, 1949). Commonly, it is not until
school board members are called to serve that they clearly understand the parameters of
their roles and responsibilities. Often, school board members seek election for personal
and political gain and may be elected without any real knowledge of their individual roles
and responsibilities in relation to the board as a whole (McAdams, 2003; Morehouse,
2001).
School boards operate and govern as a singular entity (Land, 2002). Therefore, it
is vital that school board members view themselves as a single governing body, not as
individual trustees (Land, 2002; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). It is imperative that
school board members work collectively with each other to attain the majority opinion
when advancing board decisions. It is critical to the overall effectiveness of the board that
members establish and maintain a professional working relationship and trust that each
operates as a member of the team rather than as a separate entity. School boards members
who operate as individual trustees, influenced by political and personal agendas, can be
counterproductive and can potentially stifle the overall effectiveness of the board.
School boards assume a collective responsibility and commitment for district
leadership. Therefore, establishing a collaborative working relationship among board
members is critical to the effectiveness of the district’s governing body (Land, 2002;
McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). Newton and Sackney (2005) delineated the
importance of school board member relationships in a study examining group knowledge
and decision-making processes inherent in the behaviors of school boards. Three school
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 41
boards were examined to determine whether the process of group collaboration signifi-
cantly influenced group knowledge and decision-making. School boards that were classi-
fied as functional were utilized to increased probability of demonstrating the above
behaviors and processes. Empirical data led to the conclusion that group knowledge and
decision-making processes of school boards were key to the effectiveness of working
together as a group and the functionality of the board as a governing body (Newton &
Sackney, 2005).
It is imperative that trustees work collaboratively as a governing entity to foster
relationships governed by trust, integrity, and commonality of direction. It is crucial that
individual trustees clearly understand their roles in relation to those of other trustees in
order to affect student achievement positively and to promote district success (Land,
2002; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001; Newton & Sackney, 2005).
School Board/Superintendent Relations
Effective district governance hinges heavily on the relationships established
between school boards and superintendents (Fusarelli, 2006; Petersen & Short, 2001). In
fact, the most important relationship associated with the successful operation of a public
school district is that of the school board and superintendent (Fusarelli, 2006;
Goldhammer, 1964; Tallerico, 1989). In the past few decades, the relationship between
school boards and superintendents has become increasingly more critical as greater focus
has been placed on effective district leadership (Thomas, J. Y., 2001). Poor relations
between school boards and superintendents can lead to potential compromises in the
boards’ ability to engage in effective district governance (Petersen & Short, 2001).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 42
One of the most important responsibilities of local school boards is that of hiring a
superintendent (Fusarelli, 2006). Once superintendents are carefully selected, they work
closely with school boards to provide united district leadership. School boards and
superintendents rely on each other to provide information and guidance to facilitate
effective district leadership. It is an intimate relationship that, if strong, allows each to
work strategically through tensions inherent in such a governing relationship (Tallerico,
1989).
As mentioned earlier, a strong working relationship between school boards and
superintendents is essential for providing effective district leadership (Thomas, J. Y.,
2001). In fact, the relationship between school boards and superintendents is cited as one
of the most important determinants of effective district governance (Petersen & Short,
2001). Therefore, it is critical that school boards and superintendents establish a partner-
like relationship that produces effective leadership (Petersen & Short, 2001; Petronis et
al., 1996; Thomas, J. Y., 2001). J. Y. Thomas (2001) suggested that the dynamics of this
relationship is the most important factor in a school board’s ability to provide effective
district governance. Although research provides little insight about the dynamics of this
relationship, it suggests that the relationship between school boards and superintendents
is critical in determining overall district success (Petersen & Short, 2001; Petronis et al.,
1996; Tallerico, 1999; Thomas, J. Y., 2001; Marzano & Waters, 2006). When working
relationships between the board and superintendent are strong, a team-like partnership is
created, improvement efforts succeed, and district visions advance (Byrd, Drew, &
Johnson, 2006; Fusarelli, 2006; Thomas, J. Y., 2001). When a working partner-like
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 43
relationship is not established, efforts fail and district visions are compromised (Byrd et
al., 2006; Petersen & Short, 2001; Thomas, J. Y., 2001).
J. Y. Thomas (2001) surveyed school boards and superintendents on issues and
challenges that inhibited their ability to carry out their perspective functions. The data
suggested that the superintendent-board relationship was the dominant factor in their
ability to provide effective leadership. As a district’s governing body, it is imperative that
school boards and superintendents create and sustain a collaborative working relationship
through clearly defined contextual roles that drive and perpetuate the district visions.
Brenner, Sullivan, and Dalton (2002) suggested that a strong leadership team is
essential in cultivating a collective district vision that places priority on student achieve-
ment. The relationship between superintendents and school boards is instrumental in cre-
ating a shared community vision that supports student achievement and sets the direction
for the district’s vision (Brenner et al., 2002). Engaging in clearly defined practices per-
petuates behaviors of effective leadership, allowing school boards and superintendents to
form a unified governing body that works to advance district visions. Furthermore,
adherence to these practices adds significant value to the overall educational system
through clear, sound, and unwavering leadership (Marzano & Waters, 2006).
The professional working relationship between school boards and superintendents
is one of the most powerful determinants of effective district governance (Bianchi, 2003;
Brenner et al., 2002; Byrd et al., 2006; Fusarelli, 2006; Petersen & Short, 2001; Petronis
et al., 1996; Tallerico, 1999; Thomas, J. Y., 2001; Marzano & Waters, 2006). The key to
effective district governance lies in the relationships that are established and sustained
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 44
between school boards and superintendents. A lack of clarity of school board member
and superintendent roles and responsibilities may serve to inhibit effective school board
governance. Efforts must be directed toward developing a trusting relationship that aims
at keeping student achievement at the forefront of all priorities (Bianchi, 2003). Unstable
relationships between school boards and superintendents can significantly stifle
advancement toward district visions and hinder school board effectiveness (Bianchi,
2003; Fusarelli, 2006).
Accountability
Accountability has recently become an inescapable household term in the field of
public education (Gemberling et al., 2000). From teachers holding students accountable
for learning and parents holding schools accountable for teaching, to state and federal
governments holding states accountable for student achievement, accountability has
found its place in public education institutions. Over the past few years, accountability
has come to be defined by student performance levels and is viewed as a shared responsi-
bility of all stakeholders to improve student performance (Gemberling et al., 2000). Over
the past two decades, increasing accountability measures have led to the emergence of
various government reform initiatives. Most of today’s state and federal reform initiatives
are predicated on rigorous accountability measures (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). The
urgency for this accountability came about in the mid-1980s with the manifesto A Nation
at Risk, a national response to major flaws in the educational system. With the demand
for increased accountability, public focus shifted to student performance as the founda-
tion for school accountability (Timar, 2003).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 45
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) explained accountability as an economic
framework that describes a contractual relationship between “providers” of a service and
“directors,” entities granted authority to reward or sanction the providers. In 1999, the
California legislature enacted the PSAA (directors) imposing accountability criteria for
K–12 education (providers). The legislature stated that “it is in the best interest of the
people and this state to assure that each child receives a high quality education” (as cited
in Timar, 2003, p. 180).
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) via
enactment of NCLB placed yet another layer of accountability standards on public school
systems. The federal mandate (director) set new standards for teacher quality and student
learning, holding schools (providers) accountable for demonstrating growth in student
achievement levels. Sanctions (by directors) threatened schools that failed to demonstrate
adequate growth, and loss of federal funds threatened states that failed to comply with
strict accountability measures (Timar, 2003). Today, rigorous and unrealistic account-
ability measures continue to underpin the educational system and perpetuate the contrac-
tual relationship between directors (state and federal mandates) and providers (school
districts).
Gemberling et al. (2000) claimed that effective district leadership by school
boards facilitates and cultivates a share accountability process that directly improves the
quality of public education through certain key characteristics, as delineated in The Key
Works of School Boards (Gemberling et al., 2000). School board accountability is driven
with a laser-like focus on student achievement and is defined by the actions and decisions
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 46
directly impacting student achievement. School boards are accountable for a variety of
responsibilities, including but not limited to developing and sustaining rigorous curricular
programs, maintaining fiscal solvency, and hiring a superintendent, yet their success is
predominantly measured by student achievement levels. As the field of education contin-
ues to be inundated by state and federal mandates, never before has the need for effective
school board governance been greater.
Today, as school boards continue to face new challenges, increasing state and
federal mandates, and changing student populations, the need for formal training
becomes arguably greater. In addition to performing assumed district responsibilities,
school boards have become increasingly more accountable for student achievement as
quantified by high-stakes testing measures. Although empirical evidence linking school
board practices with student achievement levels is scant, there is sufficient evidence that
school board leadership has a significant impact on student achievement (Gemberling et
al., 2000). Therefore, accountability for improving the quality of educational systems
must start at the top. It must begin with those who have authority coupled with
knowledge and skills to bring about desired change.
School Board Training
In the highly complex, rapidly changing world of public education, school boards
are held accountable for effective leadership more than ever before (Bianchi, 2003;
Danzberger, 1994; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002; Loeb et al., 2007; Roberts &
Sampson, 2011; Ziebarth, 2002). As schools continue to be held accountable for
improving student performance, growing focus is being placed on school boards to
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 47
provide effective district leadership that centers on student achievement (Bianchi, 2003;
Gemberling et al., 2000; Petronis et al., 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Today’s
school board members assume a wide range of complex and paramount responsibilities.
In addition to maintaining a focus on increasing student achievement, establishing district
goals, ensuring effective program development, maintaining financial solvency, over-
seeing facilities and operations, policy making, and hiring and evaluation of a superinten-
dent are only a few of the many diverse and intricate responsibilities that school boards
assume (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Petronis et al., 1996). School boards must be
well prepared with the skills, information, and behavior that are critical to a governance
team in order to provide effective school district leadership. Because board members are
elected individuals with no necessary degree of formal professional development or edu-
cation, members often lack training to understand the full scope of their duties (Roberts
& Sampson, 2011).
Professional development in the areas of these responsibilities is vital and should
not be compromised. Because policies and operations of school boards have a profound
impact on the effectiveness of improvement initiatives and the overall success of a school
district, formal, intentional training programs intended to enhance school governance are
needed (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Petronis et al., 1996). Roberts and Sampson
(2011) argued that school board competency and effectiveness are paramount to the
success of a school district. “School board members need to take required professional
development in all areas of public schooling so that quality decisions can be made for
children’s education” (p. 701).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 48
With increasingly complex layers of accountability, it is imperative that school
boards be well versed in the multiple facets of school board responsibilities. Unprepared
and untrained school boards can paralyze school board effectiveness and disrupt the
overall cohesiveness of the governing team (Bianchi, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). School
boards that lack basic knowledge of district operations, fiscal accountability, and state
and federal laws can interrupt or even stagnate advancement of school board governance
efforts (Morehouse, 2001).
In his article “School Board Training, Voluntary vs. Mandatory” Bianchi (2003)
argued that, in the era of demanding accountability, higher standards and increasing state
and federal statutes, mandatory training becomes increasingly critical. Increasing state
and federal mandates, increasing accountability measures, and demanding public needs
often lead board members to feel overwhelmed and inadequately prepared to provide
effectual district governance. Bianchi (2003) argued that many school boards are ill pre-
pared to take on the complex challenges stemming from rigorous state and federal
legislation and community demands. As a result, the number of school board members
who pursue initial or repeated boardsmanship may significantly decrease. Bianchi argued
that this decrease in school board service could potentially erode public confidence in
school boards and interrupt overall school board effectiveness.
McAdams (2003) suggested that school board training is essential to substantial
district leadership. He argued that “a trained board is a better board, but training does not
guarantee good governance” (p. 1). Although training does not guarantee good gover-
nance, it does guarantee a board that is better prepared to address critical issues and
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 49
challenges that are inherent in public education. Recent research suggests that school
board training is beneficial to school board governance and overall district leadership
(Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). McAdams suggested that “training
almost always improves a board, and sometimes it can make it a great board” (2003, p.
1). Conversely, untrained and unprepared board members can paralyze district efforts and
offer little contribution to effective school board governance (McAdams, 2003).
Training for school boards serves as the essential building blocks of effective
governance. Because school boards directly affect the success of a district, it is unargu-
ably imperative that they stay well informed about pressing current issues, demands, and
legislation. Participation in a one-time training program may not sufficiently prepare
school boards to accommodate districts’ immediate needs or the increasing demands of
state and federal mandates. Although a trained board does not guarantee effective gov-
ernance, the need for mandatory school board training is imperative to address the
specific roles and responsibilities of a governing school board (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams,
2003). Moreover, school boards must engage in ongoing training that specifically
addresses the issues and needs of the district at present, equipping school boards with the
knowledge and skills necessary to accommodate changing needs and challenges.
An effective board is a united board (Land, 2002; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse,
2001). School board members work collectively as a governing team and should there-
fore participate collectively in training programs to ensure a commonality of vision,
purpose, leadership, and working relationships among members. Training should be
required for new and veteran board members alike so that all members receive consistent
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 50
information and training to allow them to function effectively as a cohesive governance
team (Bianchi, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). Because new board members require, at mini-
mum, a year or two to acclimate themselves to state and federal laws, regulations, and
policies that guide district operations, mandatory school board training would be benefi-
cial in providing them the knowledge and skills to partake constructively in their central
role as policy makers (Bianchi, 2003). “Through schooling in leadership, team building,
communication, and roles and responsibilities, boards will be better able to focus on the
vital basics of policy-making” (Bianchi, 2003, p. 2).
School boards and superintendents together comprise a district’s governing team.
Therefore, joint participation in professional development training programs should be
required (McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). According to the NSBA (2010), in
approximately 88% of all instances, school boards turn to superintendents for information
and decision making. Hence, joint participation in school board training should be
encouraged to ensure high-quality, informed decision-making practices that foster a
commonality in governance practices (McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001).
Currently, various training programs are readily available in the United States to
enhance school board members’ awareness and understanding of the complex and multi-
faceted roles of a governing board (Petronis et al., 1996). Many newly elected board
members voluntarily participate in such training programs, rendering them better pre-
pared to serve (Morehouse, 2001). Although most states offer a variety of approved
training programs for school board members, participation is not always mandatory
(Bianchi, 2003).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 51
Morehouse (2001) argued that “training should be mandatory for all school board
members” (p. 1). “It is in the best interest of the children and education as a whole to
have board members trained, at the very least, in their fundamental duties and responsi-
bilities, board-man-ship and professional ethics” (p. 68). Nonetheless, only a few districts
mandate school board training (McAdams, 2003). Nationwide, only 23 states (excluding
California) require mandatory school board training (NSBA, 2012). Mandatory training
for boards would provide assurance of board competency and professionalism and
increase public confidence in school boards (Bianchi, 2003). Furthermore, mandatory
board training would keep boards abreast of changing issues and legislation and provide
newly elected and re-elected board members the knowledge and skills essential to a gov-
erning board (Bianchi, 2003).
Research by Roberts and Sampson (2011) regarding the relationship between
school board training and student achievement found that states that mandated school
board training received higher overall educational ratings than did states that did not
mandate training. The study gathered responses from state school board directors and
compared them with Education Week’s 2009 rating of state education systems. From the
26 responding states, findings indicated that states that mandated school board training
received a grade of B or C, while states that did not mandate school board training
received a grade of a C or D (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). More important, the findings
suggested that school board members should participate in mandated professional devel-
opment in all facets of public schooling so that school boards can engage in effective
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 52
decision making that results in assurance of quality education for all students (Roberts &
Sampson, 2011).
Although mandated training is key to effective governance, the content of the
training is of most importance. Mandated school board training must be targeted at
inducing a skill set of leadership behaviors that promote effective governance practices.
Petronis et al. (1996) explained that the primary goal of school board training should be
to emphasize effective strategies and behaviors that will allow boards to fulfill their
rudimentary responsibilities. Upon completion of the training, school boards should be
well versed in the knowledge and skills that will allow them to execute their roles and
responsibilities effectively. In addition, school boards must recognize the importance of
their roles as a primary support to a district’s vision. To assist school boards in under-
standing these roles, Petronis et al. suggested five essential correlates that must be
included in board training programs: (a) instructional leadership, (b) instructional focus,
(c) high expectations, (d) climate/culture, and (e) measurement/accountability.
Although training programs are not the national standard, the trend for mandatory
school board training continues to be a topic of focus (Bianchi, 2003). Nationwide, few
states mandate training for school boards, with many others having recently passed leg-
islation on mandatory school board training (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; More-
house, 2001; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). While one cannot easily quantify the impact of
school board training on the success of a district, the value of school board training com-
pared to its cost should be considered. Several states have recently identified the value
and need for school board training (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In Arkansas, newly
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 53
elected board members are mandated to participate in a minimum of 9 hours of profes-
sional development training, while board members serving more than a year must receive
a minimum of 6 hours of training (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Similarly, school board
members in Texas are required to participate in 18 hours of professional development
within the first year of service and 8 hours annually thereafter (Roberts & Sampson,
2011). The cost of mandatory school board training programs is often funded by the state,
local school districts, or a combination of the two (Bianchi, 2003).
In today’s age of accountability, professional development for school employees
in all capacities is essential. Teachers, administrators, and district personnel participate in
ongoing professional development for the purpose of improving their effectiveness.
School boards that are entrusted with the pivotal responsibility of providing overall
district governance should also be expected to participate in professional development
opportunities. California is one of many states that afford school boards and superinten-
dents voluntary professional development for just these reasons. The MIG, a compre-
hensive professional development comprised of nine essential modules, defines the roles
and responsibilities of school boards and equips them with the knowledge and skills to
keep all efforts prioritized on student learning (CSBA, 2007). School board members
who participate in the MIG must take 60 hours of professional development and complete
the program within 2 years of enrollment (CSBA, 2007). Each of the nine modules is
offered in various locations throughout the state and requires a full day of participation.
Upon completion of program requirements, participants receive the CSBA’s MIG certifi-
cate.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 54
As new accountability measures continue to monopolize educational institutions,
the need for a comprehensive governance model equipping school board members with
the knowledge and skills that are obligatory for effective governance emerges. The MIG
program is designed specifically to equip board members and superintendents with skills
to underpin an effective and efficient governance framework. It consists of nine modules:
Foundations of Effective Governance, Setting Direction, Human Resources, Policy and
Judicial Review, Student Learning and Achievement, School Finance, Collective Bar-
gaining, Community Relations and Advocacy, and Governance Integration.
As the landscape of educational governance continues to evolve and expand, the
need for mandatory school board training escalates. Once responsible for undemanding
managerial duties, today’s school boards are held accountable for a wide range of
complex and continuously changing responsibilities and demands. This is no more evi-
dent than in the state of California, where student populations and demands vary widely
from district to district. To address these disparaging demands, school boards must be
equipped with specific governance practices to be effective so they can transfer and apply
these practices to new populations and challenges. Only until school boards are well pre-
pared to address current and future educational challenges and responsibilities will the
need for mandated formal professional development training persist.
Theoretical Frameworks
To study the impact of school board training on the governing practices of school
boards, prominent literature sources cited earlier provided three theoretical frameworks
that served as lenses by which to narrow the research focus of this study. First, effective
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 55
leadership was defined as delineated in Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model of
effective leadership. Next, distinguished best practices of school board governance were
profiled, using research from Delagardelle’s (2008) Lighthouse Inquiry. Third, essential
characteristics of the MIG training program were outlined as described by the CSBA
(2007) Professional Governance Standards.
Four-Frame Leadership Model
Bolman and Deal (2008) provided a four-frame leadership perspective for leaders
as they encounter perplexing issues, bureaucratic challenges, and demanding decision
making. The four frames are described as representing a “mental map” to characterize
leadership behavioral approaches (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This mental map proposes that
effective leaders must demonstrate the ability to navigate and shift strategies of approach
for varying tasks and situations to achieve desired results. Bolman and Deal’s four frames
are structural, political, human resources, and symbolic.
The structural frame works under the assumption that organizations must have
clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Bolman and Deal (2008) described the struc-
tural frame as a blueprint for expectations, exchanges, and interactions. This frame lends
itself to placing individuals within an organization in appropriate positions to maximize
the effectiveness and impact of the organization. The structural frame is not a one-size-
fits-all organization structure. It is a strategically customized structure designed specif-
ically to accommodate an organization’s culture, visions, and goals. Organizations that
lack a clear structural design may prove susceptible to collapse. The structural frame
outlines the importance of cultivating an organizational infrastructure that supports and
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 56
advances the goals and visions of the district and community. As a district’s governing
body, the school board works from within the structural frame when engaging in effective
decision-making practices to cultivate an organizational structure that supports com-
munity and district priorities.
Bolman and Deal (2008) argued that an organization’ most valuable asset is its
people. The human resources frame centers on building human capital. By enhancing
human capital, organizational leadership is also enhanced. The human resources frame
focuses on cultivating relationships between organizations and individuals in efforts to
foster highly efficient and motivated organizations. The premise behind the human
resource frame is that the relationships between individuals and organizations serve as a
pivotal factor in determining the effectiveness or success of an organization. Vital
resources such as people, skills, energy, and commitment are critical resources that can
dictate the success or demise of an organization. The human resources frame outlines the
importance of building and cultivating professional relationships. School boards work
from the human resources frame when building trust and professional relationships with
stakeholders to perpetuate the advancement of district goals and visions.
The political frame portrays organizations as arenas where a constant power
struggle for attainment of interests occurs. The political framework epitomizes the
process of negotiations between divergent parties in efforts to gain alliance through
politically influenced decision making in the best interest of the organization, irrelevant
of differences in opinions and interests. Although a school board acts as a single gov-
erning body, each board is comprised of individual members with divergent political and
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 57
personal interests. Cognizant of differing views and interests, school board members
working from within the political frame strategically engage in decision-making practices
that focus on district visions and goals through cultivation of professional constituents
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The symbolic frame focuses on the symbolic elements of an organization. Within
the symbolic frame, practices, beliefs, rituals, and culture transform divergent interests
into an organization with a united purpose and common goals. In a time of increasing
accountability, school boards are increasingly challenged to provide leadership and
direction to an arena filled with uncertainty and ambiguity. School boards working from
within the symbolic frame are able to create and sustain an organization that fosters
cohesiveness, direction, and clarity. Thus, school boards are better able to create a district
that works collectively toward a shared vision (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
As school boards continue to be challenged by a wide range of complex responsi-
bilities, it is imperative that they be highly cognizant of the strategic decision making
necessitated by various demands (Campbell & Green, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Kirst,
1994; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002; Loeb et al., 2007; McCloud & McKenzie,
1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005; Ziebarth, 2002). Leaders must be able to maneuver con-
sciously and strategically through the four frames when confronted with an array of
issues and challenges. As school boards continue to face these challenges and increasing
accountability demands dictated by various sources, their ability to navigate the four
frames described above is essential to an effective district governance system.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 58
The Lighthouse Inquiry
More than ever before, school boards are held increasingly accountable for
student achievement. Surprisingly, to date, little research has been conducted on the link
between school board leadership and student achievement. Delagardelle’s The Light-
house Inquiry: Key Areas of Board Performance (2008), conducted by the IASB in 2001,
was the first of four studies providing valuable insight to existing research on school
board leadership and student achievement and served as the focus for the second frame-
work of the present study. The purpose of the Lighthouse Inquiry study was to determine
whether certain school boards generated higher levels of achievement than others. The
study was also aimed at identifying patterns of organizational behavior and practices that
may have contributed to higher levels of student achievement and whether those behav-
iors could be described and learned by other districts. The study examined school
board/superintendent teams in high-achieving and low-achieving districts to determine
whether a correlation existed between school board governance practices and student
achievement. Results of the study led to the conclusion that school boards in high-
achieving districts differed significantly in knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors from school
boards in low-achieving districts and positively contributed to the improvement of overall
student achievement (Delagardelle, 2008).
The Lighthouse Inquiry included interviews with 159 board members, superinten-
dents, and staff members in high-achieving and low-achieving school districts. The
researchers used the terms moving and stuck, borrowed from Susan Rosenholtz, to
characterize school renewal as falling on a continuum (Delagardelle, 2008). Schools that
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 59
were labeled as moving demonstrated escalated and above-norm student achievement
levels, whereas schools characterized as “stuck” demonstrated stagnant and below-norm
student achievement levels. Student achievement was quantified by standardized
achievement test data from 1996 to 1998. Findings from the Lighthouse Inquiry identi-
fied seven conditions for productive change that significantly influenced overall student
achievement: building a human organizational system, creating and sustaining initiatives,
a supportive workplace, staff development, data and information support, community
involvement, and integrated leadership. The IASB characterized board members in
moving districts as maintaining an inherent focus on the improvement of student
achievement. Board members’ priorities lay in unwavering commitment to improving
student learning despite external influences and challenges. Board members in “stuck”
districts attributed improvement efforts to external factors such as rigorous state
mandates and often viewed external challenges as excuses rather than as incentives to
improve student learning (Delagardelle, 2008).
The ability to create and sustain initiatives encourages an organization to perpetu-
ate improvement efforts (Delagardelle, 2008). Board members in moving districts pro-
moted improvement efforts by working collectively with the superintendent and staff
toward shared improvement. In “stuck” districts, “Board members believed the superin-
tendent ‘owns’ information, and indicated it was the superintendent’s responsibility to
learn, interpret information and recommend solutions to problems” (Delagardelle, 2008,
p. 8).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 60
Establishing and sustaining a supportive workplace is key to the success of any
organization. In moving districts, board members recognized and cultivated individual
skills as a means to build internal capacity. Board members in these districts publicly
recognized and celebrated degrees of contributions and successes of staff and community
members, fostering a collaborative working environment that promoted student achieve-
ment. In contrast, board members in “stuck” districts recognized little value in building
human capital and believed that student achievement would be positively affected by
addition of professional staff members (Delagardelle, 2008).
Professional development is an essential component for improving student
achievement. In moving districts, board members’ priorities were advancement of con-
tinuous focus on districtwide collective professional development efforts directly aligned
to district goals and visions (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008;
IASB, 2001; Leithwood et al., 2008; Thomas, S., 1994; Marzano & Waters, 2006). In
contrast, stuck districts’ board members demonstrated difficulty in maintaining a com-
prehensive professional development plan. In fact, professional development was
regarded as a separate component of district improvement efforts.
Accountability for student achievement is driven by a focus on student achieve-
ment data (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; IASB, 2001;
Leithwood et al., 2008; Thomas, S., 1994; Marzano & Waters, 2006). In moving districts,
board members adhered to a general practice of using student achievement data as a
driving force behind decision-making practices. Board members in stuck districts
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 61
consistently utilized student achievement data as the driving force behind all decision-
making practices.
Building human capital is key to sustaining a desired organization. In moving
districts, board members exhibited commitment to cultivate parent and community
involvement (Campbell & Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; IASB, 2001;
Leithwood et al., 2008; Thomas, S., 1994; Marzano & Waters, 2006). Frequent oppor-
tunities for community members to become actively involved in schools and districts
were communicated and offered. Board members in stuck districts demonstrated minimal
parent involvement opportunities and exerted minimal effort to facilitate parental and
community involvement.
Integrated leadership exemplifies a dynamic leadership defined by advancement
of student achievement through shared goals and visions (Campbell & Green, 1994;
CSBA, 2007; IASB, 2001; Leithwood et al., 2008; Thomas, S., 1994; Marzano & Waters,
2006). In moving districts, board members integrated leadership opportunities across all
professional levels capacities, with the goal of improving student achievement. In
contrast, board members in stuck districts exhibited leadership independent of varying
professional capacities and held limited expectations for disparate student populations.
Delagardelle’s Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) found that the beliefs and
behaviors of school boards in high-achieving districts were emphasized by the presence
of the seven conditions for productive change and were significantly different from the
beliefs and behaviors of school boards in low-achieving districts. When compared to the
low-achieving or “stuck” districts, high-achieving or “moving” districts’ school board
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 62
knowledge, understanding, and adherence to the seven conditions for productive change
served as the impetus for effective change and district-wide reform efforts focused on the
improvement of student learning.
California School Board Association
The CSBA (2007) posits that citizen oversight is the foundation of democracy in
the United States. Over years, transformations in purpose and composition have
refashioned the role of school boards to encompass a multitude of various duties and
responsibilities (Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). However, relationships
that board members cultivate and sustain with one another, with the superintendent, with
staff, and with the public have a profound impact on overall board effectiveness (CSBA,
2007).
Effective school boards exhibit common leadership characteristics that serve as
fundamental principles of effective board governance (CSBA, 2007). A series of profes-
sional governance standards adopted by the CSBA reflect the fundamental principles of
board structures, processes, and behaviors that define an effective governance system.
These principles include but are not limited to the following professional governance
standards and served as the focus of the third framework for this study: (a) keep the
district focused on learning and achievement for all students; (b) communicate a common
vision; (c) operate openly with trust and integrity; (d) govern in a dignified and profes-
sional manner, treating everyone with civility and respect; (e) govern within board-
adopted policies and procedures; (f) take collective responsibility for the board’s collec-
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 63
tive performance; (g) periodically evaluate its own effectiveness; and (h) ensure oppor-
tunities for the diverse range of views in the community to inform board deliberations.
Over the past few decades, state and federal involvement in public school systems
has gradually escalated the key work of school boards to focus on student achievement
(Gemberling et al., 2000). Maintaining an unwavering focus on student learning exempli-
fies school board governance structures, processes, and priorities and serves as the most
pivotal of the eight professional governance standards (CSBA, 2007). Maintaining a
strong focus on student learning across all district levels strengthens board priorities and
serves as the impetus for all decision-making practices (CSBA, 2007).
Communicating a common vision is essential for effective board governance.
Effective governance teams include school board members and superintendents who
continuously operate as a single governing body. Each member of the governance team
contributes to the advancements of effective governance, void of individual interests and
biases. Only when operating in such a way can school board members and superinten-
dents perpetuate the advancement of common visions and effective governance systems.
Trust and integrity represent the pillars that underpin and support effective gov-
ernance systems. Effective governance systems include school board members and
superintendents who exemplify effective leadership by engaging in governing practices
with trust and integrity. Each trusts that the others utilize integrity and honesty to foster a
governance team that focuses on the advancement of shared, not individual, goals. Gov-
ernance teams that operate without trust and integrity can be ineffective and susceptible
to failure.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 64
School boards embody a multitude of governance systems (CSBA, 2007). How-
ever, as united governance teams, school boards adhere to behaviors and practices that
reflect civility and respect. School board members focus on establishing respectful
working relationships that keep student learning at the forefront of all decision-making
practices. The dynamics of these relationships are strengthened through adherence to
board-adopted policies and procedures. Effective school board leadership is dictated
through decision-making practices that are guided by board-adopted policies and proce-
dures.
Although composed of individual members, the public school board operates as a
unified board of trustees, assuming a collective responsibility for board performance.
Individual trustees act on behalf of the board as a whole in the best interests of students.
Decisions are made by unified boards of trustees, rather than by individual trustees who
may hold a minority opinion or interest.
School board effectiveness is critical to school district operations and positively
influences the district’s success. School boards engage in periodic self-evaluation to
assess progress toward district visions (CSBA, 2007). With increasing accountability
measures, school boards are held progressively accountable for publicly demonstrating
advancement toward district goals through student assessment data, attendance and drop-
out rates, fiscal solvency, community involvement, and various other district-related
measures.
Representing and upholding community values and perspectives is essential to the
work of school boards. Therefore, community representation is equally important to the
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 65
school board effectiveness. School boards focus on ensuring opportunities for community
involvement and communication to inform board deliberations and guide district reform
efforts (CSBA, 2007).
The eight professional governance standards described above can have a signifi-
cant impact on a school board’s ability to govern with credibility to cultivate a culture
that works diligently toward a common vision and to keep all efforts focused on improv-
ing student achievement. They are fundamental principles that define the CSBA’s profes-
sional standards and provide the pathway to effective school board governance. The three
frameworks described above served as lenses through which the purpose of this study
was fulfilled.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 66
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training program
offered by the CSBA influences a board’s ability to adhere to beset practices for effective
leadership and governance. The first two chapters of this dissertation provided an over-
view of the study and literature of the history of school boards, current roles and respon-
sibilities, conceptual theories of leadership, school board accountability, and the need for
mandatory school board training.
The following research questions were developed by the team to guide this study
to determine whether a correlation exists between school board training and successful
school districts.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact school board
governance?
Chapter 3 provides a comprehensive description of the study: (a) research team,
(b) design of the study, (c) instrumentation development and design, (d) data collection,
and (e) data analysis. Embedded in this research study will be an extensive analysis of the
responses provided by school board members regarding their perceptions of the effec-
tiveness of mandatory school board training.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 67
Three theoretical frameworks for this study was used to guide the analysis of col-
lected data for a comprehensive examination of the behaviors and practices in which
effective school boards engage as a result of the MIG training program. Bolman and
Deal’s (2008) four-fame model for effective leadership was used to identify effective
leadership processes to which school boards adhere when providing district leadership.
Delagardelle’s (2008) The Lighthouse Inquiry: Key Areas of Board Performance was
used to identify strategic organizational conditions that school boards cultivate for effec-
tive district governance. The CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards were
examined to identify effective leadership behaviors and practices to which school boards
adhere when providing district leadership. These frameworks facilitated development of
the research questions, survey questions, interview guides, and observational protocol, as
well as the purpose of this study.
Research Team
The research team for this study consisted of 10 doctoral candidates from the
Rossier School of Education of the University of Southern California. Under the direct
guidance and direction of Dr. Michael Escalante, Dissertation Chair, the team developed
and designed this study. The team examined and synthesized several conceptual frame-
works, including but not limited to Bolman and Deal (2008), Delagardelle (2008), and the
CSBA (2007). These conceptual frameworks, summarized in Figure 1, provided the lens
to examine the impact of the MIG training program on effective school board gover-
nance.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 68
Figure 1. Framework alignment of Bolman and Deal, California School Boards Associa-
tion, and Lighthouse Inquiry. Sources: Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership, by L. G. Bolman & T. E. Deal, 2008, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass;
School Board Leadership: The Role and Function of California’s School Boards, by
California School Boards Association, 2007, retrieved from www.CSBA.org/; “The
Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the Improvement
of Student Achievement, by M. Delagardelle, 2008, pp. 191-224, in T. Alsbury (Ed.), The
Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation, Blue Ridge, PA:
Rowman & Littlefield.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 69
Research Design
A qualitative case study design was utilized to gather and analyze data directly
addressing each research question. Utilizing a qualitative approach allowed an in-depth
and detailed examination of the phenomenon of study (Patton, 2002). This study was
aimed at identifying effective governance skills present in school board members of suc-
cessful school districts, as well as uncovering evidence that the MIG training program
encouraged and equipped school board members and superintendents to exhibit a skill set
of behaviors indicative of effective governance. The study involved the collection of
qualitative data from the following three research instruments: (a) the school board and
superintendent surveys, (b) the interview guide, and (c) the MIG training modules obser-
vation protocol.
The three research instruments were developed and aligned to the study’s three
research questions and were specifically designed to garner in-depth information specific
to the impact of the MIG training program on effective leadership practices and behaviors
directly correlated to the frameworks discussed in Chapter 2: (a) Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four-frame model for effective leadership, Delagardelle’s (2008) The Lighthouse
Inquiry: Key Areas of Board Performance, and CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance
Standards.
The team worked collaboratively to develop the surveys, interview guide, and
observation protocol to gather data on effective behaviors and practices of MIG-trained
school board members and the impact of the MIG training on overall district governance.
These are explained in detail in this chapter. Utilization and analysis of these multiple
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 70
data sources allowed for triangulation of collected data to increase the validity and credi-
bility of findings (Patton, 2002).
The survey component of this study was conducted via U.S. mail and an online
version with school board members and superintendents identified as serving in a suc-
cessful school district as demonstrated by their district’s API scores over the previous 3
years. To facilitate completion of the surveys, an online version was made available to
school board members and superintendents upon request.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with MIG-trained school board members
and their corresponding superintendents. The purpose of the interviews was to gain an
understanding of effective school board governing practices and behaviors as a result of
the MIG training program.
Research team members attended one or more of the MIG training modules to
gain understanding of the MIG training program in correlation to effective school board
governance. Participation in the MIG training modules was scheduled and confirmed by
the CSBA. The MIG Observation Protocol (MIGOP) was utilized to document qualitative
data garnered through observation and participation in the attended MIG training
modules.
Participants/Sample Population
For this study, a purposeful sample selection was utilized. According to Patton,
purposeful case sampling allows in-depth inquiry of a phenomenon by focusing on
information-rich cases for study by affording an in-depth understanding of a phenome-
non, rather than empirical generalizations (Patton, 2002). The phenomenon under study
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 71
in this research study is the impact of the MIG training program on school boards’ adher-
ence to best practices of effective governance. Intensity and criterion sampling strategies
were utilized to select study participants. According to Patton (2002), intensity sampling
consists of information-rich cases that intensely exhibit the phenomenon under study. For
this case study, information-rich cases were defined as school boards the majority of
whose members had completed MIG training. Criterion-sampling strategies were utilized
to ensure that the participants met predetermined criteria; thus, random sampling strate-
gies were not utilized.
For the purpose of this case study, participants were required to meet the follow-
ing specific criteria developed by the research team. First, criteria for the selection of the
participants focused on elementary, secondary, and unified school districts deemed as
“high achieving” in six counties: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange County, San
Diego, Riverside, and Ventura. For the purpose of this study, high-achieving school
districts were defined as districts that had been deemed “successful” according to NCLB
accountability measures. API was used as the criterion for measuring district success.
Districts reflecting an API score of 800 or higher for spring 2011 were considered to be
successful. Districts reflecting an API score between 700 and 799 were required to have
demonstrated a minimum 21-point growth in API over the previous 3 years to meet the
specified criterion.
Second, the criteria for the selection of school districts were such that each district
was required to have an average daily attendance (ADA) of 2,000 to 50,000 students.
This criterion allowed the research team broader contextual parameters in which to study
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 72
school board governance practices. The research team agreed that student poverty levels
offered no significant influence on a school board’s governance practices, so no consid-
eration was given to socioeconomic status.
Third, the criteria for the selection of the participants focused on school board
members serving in the selected school districts. Documentation of school board
members having received MIG training was obtained from the CSBA. This documenta-
tion guided the selection of school board members to focus solely on those who had
earned the MIG. Upon receipt of information from CSBA, the research team identified
school board members from each of the six counties who had demonstrated full comple-
tion of the MIG. Once categorization of school board members was completed, the
research team focused solely on school districts in which at least one school board
member had completed the MIG training program. Because the purpose of the study was
to determine whether the MIG training program affected impacts school board gover-
nance, the team agreed that it was imperative that each district have at least one school
board member who had completed the MIG training program.
Districts meeting this criterion were representative of elementary, secondary, and
unified districts. Districts demonstrating school board members’ partial completion of the
MIG training program were not considered for the purpose of this study and were dis-
carded. No consideration was given to the superintendents’ status of completion of the
MIG training program. The research team concluded that school boards in which at least
one school board member had completed the MIG training program would yield justifi-
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 73
able data regarding the impact of the training on the adherence to effective board
practices.
Instrumentation
Qualitative data instruments were developed by the research team to triangulate
collected data and strengthen the validity of the study. Research team members worked
collaboratively to develop the following instrumentation: (a) school board member and
superintendent surveys, (b) school board member and superintendent interview guides,
and (c) the MIGOP. Synthesis of the theoretical frameworks and research questions dis-
cussed earlier served to guide development of all data instruments. Each data instrument
was developed through the lenses of the conceptual frameworks of Bolman and Deal
(2008) four frames of effective leadership, Delagardelle’s (2008) The Lighthouse
Inquiry: Key Areas of Board Performance, and the CSBA (2007) Professional Gover-
nance Standards to discern effective behaviors and practices of school board governance.
To ensure the collection of data relevant to the purpose of this study, the research team
developed the Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and the MIG Observation Proto-
col that outlined alignment of survey questions, interview questions, and MIGOP indica-
tors to the study’s three research questions (Appendix A). Alignment of the data collected
via the three aforementioned data instruments to the study’s three research questions is
delineated in the Data Protocol Grid (Appendix X).
The research team mailed the survey packets to school boards and superintendents
in the six counties that had met established criteria. The survey packets included recruit-
ment letters and surveys for both school board members and superintendents. The
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 74
recruitment letters afforded school board members and superintendents the opportunity to
show willingness to participate in future interviews by documenting consent. The super-
intendent’s recruitment letter invited the superintendent’s assistance for encouraging
school board members to complete the survey.
The research team worked collaboratively to develop the school board mem-
ber/superintendent survey questions. The superintendent and school board member
surveys each consisted of 23 questions that required open-ended responses and/or a
scaled response with four choices increasing in value (strongly disagree to strongly
agree). The research team utilized the three frameworks and three research questions to
guide the development of each survey question. Aligning the survey questions to the
frameworks and research questions allowed the research team to gain insight into the
school boards’ and superintendents’ perspectives of the impact of the MIG training
program on school board relationships and governance behaviors as exhibited through
governing practices.
The surveys for both the school board member and the superintendent were
developed to be identical in nature. The survey questions were presented in identical
order for all participants for the purpose of strengthening data continuity and eliminating
bias posed by the nature of the questions. The purpose of developing the two surveys as
identical in design was to glean the perspectives of school board members and superin-
tendents on the impact of the MIG training on school board governance. Survey questions
for school board members were developed specifically to garner the school board mem-
bers’ perspectives of the impact of the MIG training program on school board members’
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 75
ability to adhere to practices and behaviors characteristic of effective governance. Survey
questions for the superintendents, although identical in design, were structured differently
to garner the superintendents’ perspectives of the impact of MIG training on school board
members’ ability to adhere to practices and behaviors characteristic of effective gover-
nance. To facilitate survey completion, online duplicates of the surveys were available
upon request.
Upon completion of the survey protocol, structured interview guides were devel-
oped by the research team to add detail to the information gathered via surveys. The team
agreed to interview qualifying school board members and their corresponding superin-
tendents to ensure triangulation of data. The three theoretical frameworks and research
questions were used to guide the development and structure of the interview guide. The
team worked collectively with the assistance of the dissertation chair to develop the
interview questions that constituted the interview guides. Interview guides for school
board members (Appendix C) and superintendents (Appendix D) were identical in
content and format. Similar to the survey questions, school board members and superin-
tendents received the same interview questions arranged in identical sequential order.
The interview questions open ended to probe school board members’ perspec-
tives, thoughts, and beliefs regarding the impact of the MIG training program on effective
practices and behaviors particular to effective governance and how these practices and
behaviors were manifested within board governance. The use of interview guides yielded
opportunity for further inquiry to gain insight into individual perspectives of the impact
of the MIG training program on school board governance. According to Patton (2002),
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 76
“The interview guide provides topics or subject areas within which the interviewer is free
to explore, probe, and ask questions that will elucidate and illuminate that particular
subject” (p. 343).
In addition to the survey questions and interview guides, the research team
worked collaboratively to develop the MIGOP (Appendix E) to gather observation data
during participation in the MIG training modules. The theoretical frameworks described
in Chapter 2 were used to guide the development of each of the 13 indicators of effective
governance included in the MIGOP. Observations aligned to each of the 13 indicators
were documented using a 4-point Likert-type scale with increasing values (strongly dis-
agree to strongly agree) and one indicating not observed (N/O).
Data Collection
Data collection commenced in July 2012, using the data instruments described in
this chapter. A qualitative design approach was employed to collect and analyze research
data. Utilizing a qualitative design methods approach permitted the research team to
explore data gathered from inquiry of the phenomenon of study with depth, detail, and
context (Patton, 2002). The phenomenon of study was the effect of the MIG training
program on school boards’ adherence to select behaviors characteristic of effective gov-
ernance.
Participation in this study was strictly voluntary. Participants received recruitment
and information letters developed by the research team, describing the purpose of the
study, confidentiality of data collection, participant anonymity, opportunity to indicate
consent to participate, and research member contact information. As required by the
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 77
Institutional Review Board (IRB), all participants were required to provide written
consent of their agreement to participate in the study.
The data collection process began with the distribution of survey packets assem-
bled by the research team in July 2012. School board members having demonstrated
completion of the MIG training as evidenced through data provided to the research team
by CSBA were mailed a survey packet via U.S. mail services in July 2012. Survey
packets were mailed to qualifying school board members and their corresponding super-
intendents in 10 districts within each of the previously identified counties having met the
criteria discussed earlier in this chapter. The packets included (a) a school board or
superintendent recruitment letter (Appendix F or Appendix G), (b) a school board
member or superintendent information letter (Appendix H or Appendix I), (c) a school
board member or superintendent survey (Appendix J or Appendix K), and a return-
addressed envelope.
Included in the recruitment letter, school board members and superintendents
were able to indicate consent to participate in a structured formal interview. Participants
received survey packets that include surveys for both school board members and super-
intendents, depending on title of the participant. Return-addressed envelopes were made
available to school board members and superintendents upon request.
Once completed surveys had been collected and sorted, follow-up structured
interviews were scheduled in September 2012. Interview participants were identified
based on school boards demonstrating MIG certification and those indicating consent to
be interviewed as indicated on the surveys. School board members and their
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 78
corresponding superintendents were contacted via U.S. mail and email to explain the
structured interview component of the study and to invite them to participate. All formal
structured interviews were scheduled at the convenience of the school board members
and superintendents in order to promote participation.
The purpose of the interviews was to provide further inquiry regarding school
board and superintendent perspectives of the impact of the MIG training program as it
relates to board governing practices. The research team, consisting of 10 members, will
conduct the scheduled interviews September/October 2012. Each research team member
conducted individually scheduled interviews with two school board presidents and their
corresponding superintendents from 2 of the 10 selected districts.
Formal structured interviews with both school board members and their cor-
responding superintendents, following the interview guide presented in Appendix F,
commenced with a brief introduction of the interviewer, a brief overview of the purpose
of the study, and an overview of the structured interview process. The purpose of the
structured interviews was to garner detailed in-depth information regarding the impact of
the MIG training program on school board behaviors and practices distinctive to effective
governance. Data from the interview process were tape recorded and transcribed by the
research team with prior documented consent from each participant to eliminate vari-
ances and biases.
Upon approval and invitation from the CSBA, each research team member was
afforded the opportunity to participate in one or more of the MIG training modules
offered in southern California in fall 2012. The purpose of the observation was to gain
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 79
understanding of the MIG training program in relation to effective school board gov-
ernance. The MIGOP was utilized to gather qualitative data from observation and partici-
pation in each of the attended modules.
All information and data collected from the study will be maintained in the prin-
cipal investigator’s home and office for 3 years in an effort to maintain confidentiality
and participant privacy. Names and identifiers of participants were used in this study. All
audio data collected from the interview guides were destroyed immediately after
transcription.
Data Analysis
Data collected from surveys, interviews, and the MIGOP, coupled with the
research literature reviewed in Chapter 2, allowed for triangulation of the data. According
to Patton (2002), triangulation allows for analysis of a combination of multiple data
sources to increase accuracy and strengthen the validity of research findings. Triangula-
tion of data sources allowed each data collection method to reveal different aspects of
empirical evidence by gaining understanding of the impact of the MIG training program
on school boards’ adherence to practices and behaviors characteristic of effective gov-
ernance. Data were collected and analyzed in reference to the study’s three research
questions. Methodological triangulation of the data was conducted to strengthen the
validity of the findings. Methodological triangulation involves the use of multiple meth-
ods to analyze and study a single program (Patton, 2002).
Data gathered from all districts in the six identified counties were compiled and
disaggregated by the research team members. Data collected via survey questions,
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 80
interview guides, and the MIGOP were analyzed to identify common patterns and themes
in relation to their correlation to the study’s three research questions. Data collated from
the three aforementioned research instruments were compiled, coded, and examined to
gain an in-depth understanding of school board members’ perspectives of the impact of
the MIG training program on board members’ practices and behaviors characteristic of
effective governance.
Ethical Considerations
All research team members participated in IRB protocols. As part of the protocol,
research team members completed the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI). The
purpose of the CITI training is to train researchers to consider all ethical considerations of
a study prior to its commencement and to ensure that, as a result of the study, participants
are immune from potential physical or emotional harm.
Chapter Summary
This chapter describes the research methods selected by the research team.
Guided by the frameworks, research questions, and literature review, the research meth-
odology provides detailed descriptions of the research design, study participants/sample
populations, development and implementation of research instrumentation, data collec-
tion and analysis procedures, and ethical considerations.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 81
Chapter 4
Research Results
The role of a public school board member can prove to be a challenging and
daunting task. This has been demonstrated to be particularly true over the past few
decades as the role of school boards continues to encompass a significantly more
complex array of responsibilities governed by mounting accountability measures
(Bianchi, 2003; Bracey & Resnik, 1998; Danzberger, 1994: Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002;
Peterson & Short, 2001; Timar, 2003). Today, school board members are responsible for
overseeing a wide variety of district operations, including setting policy, establishing
vision, ensuring effective program development, overseeing facilities and operations,
maintaining fiscal solvency, and hiring and evaluation of a superintendent (Bianchi,
2003; McAdams, 2003; Petronis et al., 1996). School board members who lack the
knowledge and skills necessary to perform their specific roles and responsibilities for
providing substantial district leadership can often immobilize effective district leadership
and impede the cohesiveness of a governance team (Bianchi, 2003; Morehouse, 2001).
Given the intricate business of public education today, school boards must be
highly cognizant of their responsibilities and posses a clear understanding of their roles in
order to provide effective district governance (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Roberts
& Sampson, 2011). Mandatory training to equip school board members with the essential
knowledge and skills essential to effective district governance is imperative (Bianchi,
2003; McAdams, 2003). However, school board training in California is not mandated.
The MIG training program, a voluntary professional development program offered by the
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 82
CSBA, provides new and veteran school board members with a clearly outlined gover-
nance framework that lends itself to assembling effective and efficient governing
practices and behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training program
offered by the CSBA influences a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance. The study examined the perspectives of school board
members and superintendents representative of six southern California counties: Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Diego, and Riverside.
This chapter presents an extensive analysis of qualitative data collected individu-
ally and collectively by the study’s 10 research team members. A discussion of the over-
all findings of the study is presented as part of collaboration by the research team. For the
purpose of this study research literature was reviewed, surveys were collected and
inventoried, personal interviews were conducted and transcribed, and observations were
analyzed to triangulate findings. Data collected from the four data sources were coded
and examined to identify common themes or patterns for the purpose of further study.
The chapter concludes with a summary of significant findings of the study in relation to
the following three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 83
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact school board
governance?
The research team utilized the study’s three research questions to guide the col-
lection, examination, and triangulation of the aforementioned four data points. The fol-
lowing data instruments, described in detail in Chapter 3, were used in the collection of
data: (a) review of research literature, (b) school board member and superintendent
surveys, (c) school board and superintendent interviews, and (d) MIGOP. Triangulation
of the study’s multiple data points was conducted for the purpose of increasing the valid-
ity and reliability of the study’s findings (Patton, 2002).
Participants
The research team examined all elementary, high school, and union districts in the
following six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Diego, and
Riverside. Due to the location of the research team, school districts in southern California
were selected to allow accessibility for further inquiry if needed. Purposeful sampling
was used to guide selection of the identified districts and participants (Patton, 2002). All
districts within the six aforementioned counties met the criteria delineated in Chapter 3:
(a) ADA of 2,000–50,000, (b) positive academic growth as measured by a minimum API
of 800, with districts under an 800 API demonstrating a minimum 21-point growth in
API over the 3 previous years, and (c) minimum of one school board member having
completion the MIG training program.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 84
Survey Participants
From the identified six counties, the research team selected 100 districts for
further inquiry. Within the 100 districts, 226 school board members were identified as
having completed the MIG training program. Each research team member selected 10
districts; MIG-trained school board members and their corresponding superintendents in
those districts were mailed surveys and an information letter stating the purpose of the
study. The option to indicate consent to an interview at a future date was included on the
information sheet. The research team mailed 226 school board member surveys and 100
superintendents surveys, of which 86 school board surveys (38% return rate) and 61
superintendent surveys (61% return rate) were returned were completed and returned.
Interview Participants
Upon receipt of the completed surveys, each research team member identified two
matching pairs of school board members and superintendents with whom to conduct
further inquiry. Matching pairs consisted of one school board member and their cor-
responding superintendent, both having indicated consent to the interview on the
information sheet.
For the purpose of maintaining confidentiality, names of all participants and
districts were altered. Any resemblance to an individual or school district is strictly coin-
cidental. The individual participants in this case are herein referred to as superintendent
Robert, superintendent William, school board member George, and school board member
president Diane. Participating school districts are referred to as Rose Valley Unified and
Hillside Unified.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 85
Rose Valley Unified is a small suburban K–12 school district in Los Angeles
County. There are three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school,
serving approximately 4,500 students. In 2012, Rose Valley earned an API score of 916,
representing an increase of 4 API points from the previous year. Rose Valley’s API
scores have shown significant growth over the previous 3 years: 911, 912, and 916,
respectively.
Superintendent Robert has been in the field of education for more than 35 years.
He was appointed superintendent of Rose Valley Unified in 2009. Throughout his years
in the field of education, Robert has served in various administrative capacities at site and
district levels, including Director of Curriculum and Instruction and Deputy Superinten-
dent. He is currently serving his fourth year as superintendent of Rose Valley.
School board member George has served on Rose Valley’s school board since
2003. George is an emergency room physician by profession. He has served on the board
for more than 9 years, working closely with two former superintendents of Rose Valley
Unified. Although George completed the MIG training program in 2005, he continues to
participate in professional development workshops offered by the CSBA.
Hillside Unified is a small suburban K–12 school district located in a significantly
affluent region of Los Angeles County. The district has nine elementary schools, three
middle schools, and three high schools, serving approximately 12,000 students. Although
in the previous year Hillside Unified had demonstrated a slight decline in academic
growth, the district demonstrated substantial academic growth over the previous 3 years:
882, 893, and 890, respectively.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 86
Superintendent William has been in the field of education for more than 17 years.
He was appointed superintendent of Hillside Unified schools in 2012. His experience in
the educational arena is defined by various administrative positions at the school and
district levels. Superintendent William’s previous administrative capacities at the district
level included Assistant Superintendent of Personnel and Deputy Superintendent of
Schools. Superintendent William earned a doctorate in education in 2003 from the Uni-
versity of California, Los Angeles. This is William’s first year as superintendent of Rose
Valley Unified, as well as his first year in the district.
School board president Diane has been involved in the field of education in vari-
ous capacities for more than 12 years. She has spent these years highly involved with
Parent Faculty Associations and Parent Teacher Associations. She was elected to the
board in 2008 and is currently serving as president. She completed the MIG training
program in 2010.
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete the MIG training program?
School board members are charged with the monumental responsibility of over-
seeing and making decisions regarding a wide range of multifaceted challenges that
necessitate a deep understanding of policy making, fiscal accountability, program
development, various laws, and various other demands (Campbell & Green, 1994;
Danzberger, 1994; Hess, 2002; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002). Often, school board
members are elected with little to no knowledge or training and may lack the skills and
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 87
knowledge necessary to understand and operate under the full scope of their duties
(Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Delagardelle’s (2008) The Lighthouse Inquiry: Key Areas
of Board Performance found that school districts that perpetuated an awareness of
improvement and exhibited a willingness to seek knowledge demonstrated higher levels
of student achievement. Data analysis for Research Question 1 revealed two prominent
themes related to factors affecting the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program. First, motivating factors affecting the decision stemmed largely
from self-motivation and encouragement from fellow school board members and super-
intendents. Second, school board member participation rates in the MIG training program
would significantly increase with the availability of more frequent and localized training
programs with less stringent time constraints for program completion.
Self-Motivation
Analysis of data from three data instruments identified self-motivation and
encouragement by fellow school board members and superintendents as significant moti-
vating factors affecting the decision of school board members to complete the MIG
training program. Survey participants were asked to indicate the primary factor that influ-
enced school board members to participate in MIG training. Survey results showed that
school board members and superintendents alike indicated self-motivation as being a sig-
nificant factor influencing school board members’ decisions to participate in the MIG
training program: 52 of 83 school board members and 21 of 58 superintendents indicated
that their motivation to purse MIG training had stemmed from an inherent desire to
acquire knowledge. Also, 20 of 83 school board members and 20 of 58 superintendents
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 88
indicated encouragement by fellow school board members as significantly affecting a
school board member’s decision to participate in MIG training. Table 1 summarizes the
results from school board members and superintendents.
Table 1
Primary Factors Influencing School Board Member Participation in Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training: Self-Motivation and Encouragement by Colleagues
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Primary factor f % f %
Self-motivation 21 34 52 60
School board expectation 12 20 20 23
Encouraged by other board members 20 33 8 9
Other 2 3 3 3
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
Interview data further suggested self-motivation as a significant factor affecting
school board members’ decision to pursue the MIG training. During his interview, school
board member George agreed, “So I think it’s an individual initiative . . . an individual
decision, just the process of trying to seek education. I think it is a trait that is really
important in a school board member.” School board president Diane supported the influ-
ence of personal initiative: “It’s something I wanted to do . . . so I was just open to doing,
learning, going, being, and meeting people.” The interview data showed that school board
members possessed a genuine desire to learn and that this inherent desire fueled pursu-
ance of the MIG training program.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 89
Further analysis of the survey data indicated that both school board members and
superintendents encouraged fellow school board members to participate in the MIG
training, with 83 of 84 school board members and 57 of 61 superintendents indicating
agreement. In fact, 63 of the 83 school board members strongly agreed.
Survey results supported the data by indicating that, in addition to encouraging
school board members to participate in MIG training, both school board members and
superintendents strongly recommend the training. All 83 school board members indicated
that they would strongly recommend the MIG training to fellow board members, and 58
of 60 superintendents agreed. The nearly unanimous results from this survey question
strongly denoted the influence of fellow MIG-trained school board members but also
accentuate the benefits of MIG training.
Survey results for both school board members and superintendents suggested that
district or board expectations for professional development fostered a culture that encour-
aged MIG training: 66 of 84 school board members and 51 of 60 superintendents agreed
that the culture of the school board played a significant influential role in encouraging
school board members to pursue MIG training (Table 2).
Data collected from the interviews endorsed survey results, suggesting that
encouragement by school board members and superintendents not only played a signifi-
cant role in influencing school board members’ decisions to pursue MIG training but also
fostered a cultural expectation for MIG participation. When specifically asked whether
receiving the MIG training was a cultural expectation in his district, school board
member George replied, “Currently, yes . . . now it’s a cultural expectation.” Referring to
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 90
Table 2
A School Board’s Culture Highly Encourages Participation in Masters in Governance
(MIG) Training
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 21 34 37 43
Agree 30 49 29 34
Disagree 9 15 17 20
Strongly disagree 1 2 1 1
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
his fellow board members, he added, “They may not all have it, but their intention is to
and many of them are in the process.” School board president Diane shared that MIG
participation has become a cultural expectation within her district for both school board
members and superintendents. “As a former board member, I would highly encourage
superintendent William to attend along with new school board members.” She added that
her district “is a culture of support for this. . . . I think it is the culture of our district.”
Data from surveys and interviews suggested that a school board member’s deci-
sion to participate in the MIG training program stemmed predominantly from the innate
desire to learn and encouragement by fellow school board members. As a result, both
factors fostered an etiquette in which MIG participation was not only expected but also
viewed as part of the district and school board culture.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 91
Increasing MIG Participation
In addition to identifying ways in which school board members were encouraged
to participate in the MIG training program, survey data indicated that school board
member and superintendent participation would significantly increase with increased
accessibility to training and greater leniency in restrictive time constraints for completion.
Results from both the school board and superintendent surveys suggested that an increase
in local offerings of the MIG would significantly encourage more school board members
to participate. Survey results showed that 58 of 81 school board members and 53 of 61
superintendents agreed that providing more accessibility, specifically an online certifica-
tion program option, would substantially increase school board member participation in
MIG training. Table 3 provides a summary of these results.
Table 3
Availability of an Online Masters in Governance (MIG) Certification Program Would
Encourage More School Board Members to Participate
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 21 34 19 22
Agree 32 52 39 45
Disagree 8 13 21 24
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 2
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 92
Personal interviews were conducted to identify ways in which to make the MIG
more accessible to school board members for the purpose of increasing participation.
Interview questions included the following: What would make the MIG training more
accessible to all school board members? What would it take to make all school board
members want to be trained? Interview responses from both school board members and
superintendents indicated that increasing the number of local MIG offerings and remov-
ing restrictive time constraints would allow school board members the flexibility for par-
ticipation and completion of MIG training. Superintendent Robert validated the
importance of more localized offerings of the MIG with less time constraints:
I think it is a fairly inflexible schedule and a bit time commitment. The MIG is a
very intensive commitment of time. I think that is the biggest issue with program
participation and completion. Two board members who began the program did
not complete it and I know it was really the time management issue. It really
needs to be more localized, perhaps an online option.
Superintendent Robert said, “Another factor may be extending the period of time
complete it. It could be like a degree program. If you need more time, you are allotted it
by making it a 3- or 4-year option instead of a 2-year option.” School board member
George supported Robert’s argument by stating that having only 2 years to complete the
MIG training and having to travel across the state for many of the modules posed the
largest hindrance to participation and, more important, for completion. “The locations
and the timing are the two biggest obstacles. Time constraints and geographical distance
provide formidable obstacles for MIG completion.” School board president Diane noted
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 93
the impediment of having to travel long distances to participate in the MIG: “Yes, yes.
Location, location, location.”
Data gathered from the surveys and interviews strongly suggest that, with the
removal of limited training locations and restrictive time constraints, school board
members would be more likely to pursue MIG training.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The results for Research Question 1 revealed that school board members have a
genuine desire to learn and seek training to gain the knowledge and skill necessary for
effective school board governance. In addition to an individual initiative to learn, school
board members are often encouraged by fellow school board members and superinten-
dents to pursue the MIG training. The combination of individual motivation and encour-
agement by colleagues fostered a culture in which participation in the MIG training
program has become a district expectation. However, although the results show that
school board members are motivated to pursue the MIG training, overall participation
would significantly increase with more local offerings and the removal of restrictive time
constraints for completion.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, Does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
Having determined the importance of increasing accessibility and eliminating
restrictive time constraints for MIG completion, the research team examined how the
MIG training program served to encourage and equip school board members with the
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 94
knowledge and skills necessary to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance. In
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames of effective leadership, clearly defined roles, poli-
cies, and procedures are emphasized in the structural frame as being pivotal behaviors for
effective leadership. Collaboration, diplomacy, and the importance of operating openly
with trust and integrity with a strong focus of student achievement were identified as
being key to effective governance in Bolman and Deal’s (2008) political frame, as well as
in CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards. Analysis of data from Research
Question 2 revealed three common themes in school board governance in relation the
MIG training program. First, the MIG training program encouraged school board
members to maintain an ongoing focus on student achievement as the driving force
behind all board operations and decision-making practices. Second, the MIG training
program equipped school board members with the knowledge and skills to operate as a
unified governing body. Third, the MIG training program clearly delineated the roles and
responsibilities of school board members, enabling them to govern effectively.
Student Achievement
Results for Research Question 2 showed that school board members who were
MIG trained consistently used student achievement as the primary driving force behind
all school board operations and decision-making practices. Survey data indicated that
MIG-trained school board members encouraged fellow school board members to keep
student achievement at the forefront of all decision making.
Survey data indicated that MIG-trained school board members maintained a pro-
nounced focus on using student achievement as the driving force behind all board
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 95
deliberations and operations. Results showed that 71 of 81 school board members and 58
of 61 superintendents agreed that MIG-trained school board members demonstrated an
increased focus on student achievement during all board deliberations. Table 4 provides a
summary of school board member and superintendent responses.
Table 4
School Board Members Who Have Completed Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Demonstrate an Increased Focus on Student Achievement During School Board Meetings
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 14 23 24 28
Agree 44 72 47 55
Disagree 3 5 9 10
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
School board members and superintendents were asked whether MIG-trained
school board members encouraged fellow school board members to use data consistently
to make informed decisions regarding student achievement. The purpose of this question
was to determine the importance of student achievement in relation to school board gov-
ernance. Results showed that 75 of 83 school board members and 50 of 59 superinten-
dents agreed that MIG-trained school board members encouraged fellow school board
members to use data for informed decisions regarding student achievement.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 96
Although both school board members and superintendent indicated student
achievement as a priority, this factor was not mentioned until they were asked to rank the
importance of CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards. Both school board
members and superintendents ranked Focus on Student Achievement, Common Vision,
and Operate Openly with Trust and Integrity as the three most important characteristics.
However, although both ranked student achievement within the top three, school board
members ranked student achievement as the most important characteristic for effective
governance, reaffirming that student achievement was the board’s top priority and was
continuously utilized as the driving force for decision-making practices. Table 5 summa-
rizes the most significant results from school board members and superintendents.
School board president Diane affirmed this finding by referring to the CSBA’s
Professional Governance Standards. “As school board members, our goal is really to find
dynamic learning experiences for our students. You know that is a principle, right?” She
later reiterated that the MIG training has empowered her to focus continuously on student
achievement. “I felt a lack of focus for a while, so now we’re going to really be focused
on what’s important: student learning, student achievement.” Superintendent William
endorsed Diane’s statements: “As Diane said, generally the health of this board is strong
and their focus is on kids and supporting kids.” As a veteran school board member,
George corroborated school board member Diane’s statement, arguing that the purpose
and importance of using data were simple: “It is to promote high academic achievement.”
During observation of two MIG training modules, Setting Direction and Gov-
ernance Integration, student achievement was kept at the forefront of discussions and
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 97
Table 5
School Board Members’ and Superintendents’ Rankings of the California School Board
Association (CSBA) Eight Characteristics of Effective Governance
Rank Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
1 Operate with Trust and Integrity Focus on Student Achievement
2 Common Vision Operate with Trust and Integrity
3 Focus on Student Achievement Common Vision
4 Govern in a Dignified Manner Govern in a Dignified Manner
5 Board Policy Board Policy
6 Collective Responsibility for
Board Performance Collective Responsibility for Board
Performance
7 Evaluate Its Own Effectiveness Opportunities for Diverse Community
Views
8 Opportunities for Diverse Evaluate Its Own Effectiveness
Community Views
Source: School Board Leadership: The Role and Function of California’s School Boards,
by California School Boards Association, 2007, retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/
media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx
used as a lens to guide and define the various activities. During one of the activities, par-
ticipants were asked to identify three words that defined what they wanted for their
students or children. That, coupled with the constant conversations regarding student
achievement, demonstrated the significance of student achievement in relation to student
achievement.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 98
Responses related to Research Question 2 suggested that student achievement is
an essential characteristic of effective governance. MIG-trained school board members
recognized student learning as a board’s top priority and utilized student achievement as
the pivotal driving force behind all board operations and decision-making processes.
Unified Team
Establishing a collaborative working relationship is critical to the effectiveness of
a unified governing team. Because school boards operate as a single governing body, it is
highly important that they view themselves as a unified board of trustees, not as individ-
ual trustees (Land, 2002; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). Analysis of the survey
data suggested that MIG-trained school board members developed a more collaborative
relationship with their fellow school board members, guided by trust and integrity. Data
from school board surveys indicated that 77 of 83 agreed that MIG-trained school board
members developed a more collaborative working relationship with their fellow school
board members. Also, 52 of 61 superintendents surveyed agreed that school board
members who had completed the MIG training developed a more collaborative relation-
ship with fellow school board members. Table 6 summarizes these results.
Analysis of survey results indicated that school board members who were MIG
trained trusted that the board operated openly as a unified team and were more willing to
accept the majority of decisions even if they held opposing views. The specific survey
question asked whether school board members who were MIG trained were able to
accept the majority decision of school boards even if they held the minority view. Survey
responses indicated that 74 of 83 school board members and 55 of 61superintendents
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 99
Table 6
School Board Members Who Completed Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Exhibit
a More Collaborative Working Relationship With Their Fellow School Board Members
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 21 34 34 40
Agree 31 51 43 50
Disagree 9 15 5 6
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
agreed that they would be more willing to accept the majority decision of the board even
if they were not in agreement. Table 7 summarizes these results.
It was evident that from both the surveys and interviews that the MIG training
encouraged school board members to establish and foster a working relationship guided
by unity and trust irrelevant of individual differences and perspectives. School board
president Diane defined the dynamic of her relationships with fellow board members by
stating, “We respect each other’s opinions. We respect the vote. The vote stays at the dais
and we just proceed.” When asked whether she had ever voted in disfavor of her views,
Diane emphasized the importance of trusting board members to operate as a collective
board and not by individual interests: “That’s critical because you act as individuals. I
mean you are individuals but you act as a group, which is an important distinction.”
School board member George supported Diane’s statement:
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 100
Table 7
School Board Members With Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Are More Likely to
Accept the Majority Decision of the Board Even If They Hold the Minority View
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 24 39 30 35
Agree 31 51 44 51
Disagree 6 10 8 9
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
It also emphasizes that you’re an individual an individual on a board and it’s the
board that matters. I think a lot of people run for school board having a natural
tendency to say what it is they’ll accomplish and then they’ll get on the board and
realize that they’re just one out of five or one of seven and they can’t accomplish
anything. The board is what accomplishes it.
When asked whether school board members holding the minority view were
understanding and willingly accepted the majority decision, superintendent Robert said,
“Yes, they are very respectful of each other’s opinions. They don’t always have 5-0
votes, but when they express a minority opinion, it’s with full understanding that they
will have an opinion but support the will of the board as a whole.”
Data collected during observation of one of the MIG training modules suggested
that focus was centered on governing strategies and behaviors that cultivated a unified
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 101
team. During one activity, participants were asked to chart the major events that had
unfolded within the decade in which they were born. Upon completion of the activity,
responses were shared, highlighting the various events that shaped the lives and perspec-
tives of participants. The activity helped participants to understand varying individual
perspectives and allowed them to take into consideration individual perspectives when
working as a unified team to develop a common vision.
Data from surveys, interviews, and MIG training module observations suggested
that school board members understand their individual roles in relation to the board as a
whole. A deep understanding of these roles foster and perpetuate a board’s ability to
work as a unified team premised on trust and integrity.
Roles and Responsibilities
Today, local school boards are held increasingly accountable for a wide range of
challenges that command a deep understanding of their roles and responsibilities
(Danzberger, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002). Lack of clarity and understanding of roles
germane to school boards may often hinder effective governance. Therefore, having
clearly delineated roles and responsibilities is central to the effectiveness of a governance
team (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994, Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002).
Data from the surveys affirmed that a school board’s understanding of their spe-
cific roles and responsibilities in relation to the superintendent contributes significantly to
the overall effectiveness of a governance team. Survey data showed that all 83 school
board members agreed that MIG-trained school board members were able to distinguish
clearly the difference between their roles and those of the superintendent. Superinten-
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 102
dents’ responses supported those of the school boards members, with 48 of 61 agreeing.
Table 8 summarizes these results.
Table 8
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Clearly Delineates the Roles and Responsibilities
of School Board Members and Superintendents
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 23 37 57 66
Agree 25 41 26 43
Disagree 12 20 0 0
Strongly disagree 1 2 0 0
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
School board president Diane and corresponding superintendent William asserted
that an understanding of specific roles and responsibilities of school board members and
superintendents stemmed from the MIG training. School board president Diane remarked,
That is the purpose. I think of each part of the modules is to remind us what our
roles as leaders and not managers are. And I think that is really helpful for col-
laboration and to remind us all. And I think it has given me clarity as far as my
role or the role of the board.
School board member George affirmed Diane’s remark, “The other thing is you
have to at all times recognize what your role is . . . and the MIG training helps you recog-
nize those roles.”
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 103
School board members and superintendents alike indicated that, with clear dis-
tinction and understanding of roles and responsibilities, school boards were better able to
focus on the primary role of policy making. Data from the surveys showed that 77 of 81
school board members and 58 of 59 superintendents agreed on the importance of clearly
differentiating the roles of school boards and superintendent. These data showed that
operating within clearly delineated roles and responsibilities had a significant impact on
improving the overall effectiveness of school board governance. Table 9 summarizes
these results.
Table 9
The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Clearly Differentiates Between Policy
Making and Administrative Management
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 27 44 47 55
Agree 31 51 30 35
Disagree 1 2 4 5
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
School board member George explained that the MIG serves as a constant
reminder for adhering to clearly specified roles and responsibilities indicative of effective
governing practices and behaviors.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 104
I think it served as a constant reminder that there is a very clear dividing line
between what the school board does and what the district administration does.
There is a temptation and opportunity that always presents itself to cross these
lines. Certainly, administrators are interested in good policy, but they don’t make
policy.
Survey responses to Item 12 reinforced the impact of clearly defined roles on a
board’s governing abilities. School board members and superintendents were asked
whether the MIG training had positively affected their board’s ability to govern effec-
tively. All 83 school board members and 51 of 61 superintendents agreed that MIG
training had positively affected the board’s ability to govern effectively.
Survey data showed that, in addition to having a positive impact on school
boards’ governing practices and abilities, the MIG training has a positive impact on the
overall effectiveness of board meetings. Results indicated that 81 of 82 school board
members and 48 of 59 superintendents agreed that the MIG training greatly contributed
to the overall effectiveness of board deliberations. This was evident during an interview
with school board member George when he shared how the MIG training had equipped
him with a governance model by which to govern effectively.
There are times when some of the things that we are discussing seem to be cross-
ing the governance administrative line. I know that it’s not always a dark black
line or even a recognizable black line, but there are times when I am reminded of
the of the Masters in Governance training. I will even cite that in Masters in Gov-
ernance this is how we would handle this issue and from a governance perspective
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 105
this is how I believe this should be handled. Often, that will change the dynamic
of the discussion and seems to change the way the board not only behaves within
the discussion but the decisions that they make.
When superintendent Robert was asked whether the MIG training had affected
decision making and governing practices within his district, he responded,
Yes, I do believe it has, especially for the one school board member I think I will
say is the ‘poster boy’ for this training. He really helps to steer the board members
and discussions into a very clear understanding of their governance role. And I
think because he so well puts that into practice, I think it’s had an impact on how
board members make decisions and how they view their role.
Data from the interviews suggested that hindrances of personal interests and per-
spectives interfering with professional school board relationship were removed when
roles were clearly defined and understood. School board president Diane identified the
MIG training as aiding in the removal of such hindrances.
The extent that MIG defines roles, responsibilities, that helps take some of the
personalization out of things, which is one of the things that can go south on you.
The MIG probably defines the roles . . . and part of the role, of course, being big
picture focus.
Diane’s superintendent, George, also indicated that having clearly defined roles
allows school board deliberations to be fluid and efficient.
Diane comes in with the MIG information and says, “Remember your roles.” And
that plays a direct link to the governing practices; it assures a cleaner process. So
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 106
that helps define clarity on what our roles are and what high-functioning boards
look like. To the extent you’re high-functioning, an element of that is certainly
collaboration.
Superintendent Robert agreed.
We have very harmonious board meetings. We have board members who abso-
lutely respect the process of how board meetings should be run; they collaborate
very well, they respect their role vis-à-vis the superintendent very well.
For each of the MIG training modules observed, specific roles and responsibilities
of a governance team were clearly delineated. In the Setting Direction module, trainers
emphasized that setting a common direction for a district is a school board’s top priority.
In the Governance Integration module, trainers presented an activity in which participants
identified and defined the roles and responsibilities distinct to school board and district
administration in relation to student achievement and learning, finance, human resources,
and policy and judicial review.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
Data collected from surveys, interviews, and the MIGOP for Research Question 2
suggested that the MIG training program provided school board members with an effec-
tive governance model that promoted an increasingly collaborative and effective unified
governance team that centered their work around student achievement.
First, the MIG training program encouraged school board members to advocate
continually on behalf of students by keeping student learning at the forefront of all
decision-making processes. Second, the MIG training encouraged school board members
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 107
to operate as a unified governance team by cultivating collaborative working relation-
ships guided by trust and integrity. Third, the MIG training program afforded school
board members with a governance model from which to govern effectively through
clearly delineated roles and responsibilities.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, In what ways could mandating the MIG training
program impact school board governance?
Current literature suggests that school board training should be mandatory for all
school board members (Bianchi, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). In a highly complex and
rapidly changing world of public education, school board members must be well prepared
with the skills and information necessary for effective school district leadership (Bianchi,
2003; Danzberger, 1994; Kolb & Strauss, 1999; Land, 2002; Loeb et al., 2007; Roberts &
Sampson, 2011; Zeibarth, 2002). Although school board training and professional devel-
opment programs are widely available nationwide, only 23 states, excluding California,
mandate it (NSBA, 2012). CSBA currently offers the MIG training; however, school
board member participation is optional.
The findings for Research Questions 1 and 2 demonstrated that school board
members have the desire to pursue the MIG training program and find the training
program to be highly effective in equipping school board members with the knowledge
and skills necessary for effective governing practices. Understanding the importance of
such a valuable training program, Research Question 3 was focused on determining ways
in which mandating the MIG training program would affect school board governance.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 108
Analysis of the data collected for Research Question 3 suggested two emerging themes:
(a) The MIG training program positively affects school board governance, and (b) related
costs of the MIG training program may serve as a significant deterrent to imposing such a
mandate.
MIG as a Mandate
Mandating professional development for school board members would ensure that
board members are well prepared and able to perform their roles and responsibilities
(Bianchi, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). Mandating training would also ensure that school
board members, both newcomers and veterans, would receive consistent, up-to-date
information, enabling them to operate and function as a cohesive governing team
(Bianchi, 2003). Roberts and Sampson’ s (2011) review of a study conducted by
Education Week in 2009 revealed the importance of mandated school board training. The
study found that states that mandated school board training received a grade of a B or C,
while states that did not mandate training received a grade of C or D, strongly suggesting
a need for mandated school board training (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Survey data showed that school board members and superintendents identified
that mandating the MIG training would positively affect school board governance. All 84
school board members surveyed agreed that all school board members would benefit
from completing the MIG, with 71 of the 84 strongly agreeing. Likewise, 57 of the 61
superintendents surveyed indicated the importance of school board members completing
the MIG training program, with 44 of the 61 strongly agreeing.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 109
Survey results further indicated benefits of the MIG training program when par-
ticipants were asked whether the MIG training program should be mandated in Califor-
nia. Similarly, 59 of 83 school board members and 49 of 60 superintendents agreed that
the MIG training program should be a California state mandate. Table 10 summarizes
these results.
Table 10
The Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Program Should Be Mandated in California
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 26 43 34 40
Agree 23 38 25 29
Disagree 10 16 18 21
Strongly disagree 1 2 5 6
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
During the interview, superintendent Robert was asked whether the MIG training
should be a state mandate. He answered, “We have extremely harmonious board meet-
ings. . . . I have been in several districts and I’ve seen a lot of different board meetings
and the way people conduct business, and this is an exceptionally high level. . . . I think
the MIG is a factor.”
Likewise, data from superintendent Robert’s interview supported mandating the
MIG training program. He remarked, “Absolutely. It’s an important job. It is not some-
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 110
thing that comes natural.” School board member George elaborated on the value and
benefits of mandating the MIG for school boards with varying perspectives:
Even a declaration that we adhere to this governance model . . . we can discuss it
when we are renewing our policies but you are going to lose. . . . We are still
going to adhere to this model. You may not practice it well but we’re going to
keep trying to remind people that this is the model that we have.
Data collected from both surveys and interviews clearly showed that both school
board members and superintendents felt strongly that the MIG positively affected school
board governance and should be a California state mandate. However, it is important to
note that, although these school board members and superintendents were in favor of
mandating the MIG, Robert and George shared similar assessments of the implications of
imposing such a mandate. Robert noted, “I’m not sure if it [a mandate] would hold up. I
think if you mandate something that people do not take advantage of willingly, then it is
much less likely to be effective in their practice.” Similarly, George responded,
Should it be done? Absolutely. It is an important job. It’s not something that
comes naturally. Mandating something is very different from saying something
should be done. Again, people can defy mandate and the people who would defy
the mandate or reluctantly follow through the mandate aren’t the people it would
benefit. Should it be done, expected, should there be a culture where this is just
the proper thing to do and people recognize it? Absolutely!
Taking into consideration potential resistors to mandated training, the data
strongly suggested that mandating the MIG training would outweigh the potential resistor
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 111
of cost and provide school board members with a sound governance model that leads to
effective governing practices and behaviors.
Cost as a Deterrent
Funding for current mandated school board member training programs is typically
covered by local school districts (Bianchi, 2003). Given today’s economic climate, this
can prove to be quite challenging as many districts struggle to maintain fiscal solvency.
However, findings related to Research Questions 1 and 2 suggested that the benefits of
school board training and professional development outweigh the cost of training.
Analysis of data related to Research Question 3 showed that school board
members and superintendents agreed that cost could be a potential deterrent for school
board participation in the MIG training program. Survey participants were asked whether
more school board members would participate in MIG training program if it were subsi-
dized or free of cost. Analysis showed that 61 of 79 school board members and 43 of 60
superintendents agreed that more school board members would be willing to participate
in the MIG training program if the cost were subsidized or free. Table 11 summarizes
these results.
Interview questions asked school board members and superintendents to identify
anticipated potential conflicts with such a mandate. In his interview, superintendent
Robert substantiated the survey data stating, “I think it would have a serious impact if we
[district] had to pay for the training for our board members, particularly in times of
budget difficulty. We could manage, but it would definitely be a cost factor.”
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 112
Table 11
Subsidized or Free Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Programs Would Encourage
More School Board Members to Participate
Superintendents (N = 61) Board members (N = 86)
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 15 25 28 33
Agree 28 46 33 38
Disagree 15 25 15 17
Strongly disagree 2 3 3 3
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants.
Cost factors identified in the interviews expanded beyond registration costs to
include significant related costs, such as travel and lodging. School board member
George agreed that mandating the MIG training could be a significant deterrent,
particularly, for smaller districts such as their own, where funding is not as abundant as in
larger more diverse school districts. “It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for
some of these trainings and if you do lodging at the districts’ expense . . . it can be a fair
amount of money.” However, school board members and superintendents alike acknowl-
edged that the benefit of participation in professional development outweighed the costs.
Superintendent Robert supported expenditures for professional development stating,
“This is critical. This is important for us to be better in governance. It is money well
spent.”
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 113
This was corroborated in George’s statement following the discussion of school
board professional development costs. He concluded, “You can save a lot of money by
not doing it, but what is the cost of not doing it?” Data related to Research Question 3
suggested that mandated professional development is critical to equipping school boards
with a knowledge base and skills set for effective district leadership. However, cost con-
tinued to be identified as a significant deterring factor for MIG training.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Data gathered for Research Question 3 suggested that the MIG training program
had a positive impact on school board governance and should therefore be a California
state mandate. Mandating the MIG would positively affect a board’s ability to govern
effectively, ensuring that board members are well equipped with the knowledge and skills
to perform their roles and responsibilities (Bianchi, 2003; Morehouse, 2001). Although
survey results and interview data showed that mandating the MIG could be expensive and
serve as a potential deterrent to participation, the results strongly suggested that the bene-
fits of the MIG training outweigh all potential costs.
Chapter Summary
This chapter addressed three critical questions regarding professional develop-
ment and school board governance: (a) What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete the MIG training program, (b) does the MIG training encourage
and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and (c)
in what ways could mandating the MIG training affect school board governance?
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 114
Data analysis included review of current literature, school board and superinten-
dent surveys and interviews, and the MIGOP. The data generated by all instruments were
triangulated and compared to current research literature and theoretical frameworks dis-
cussed in Chapter 2.
Analysis of responses to the survey and interview items and observations related
to the study’s three research questions revealed that individual motivation and encour-
agement by colleagues were the most influential factors influencing school board
members’ decision to pursue the MIG training. Providing a variety of accessibility
options and removing geographical constraints would allow school board members the
flexibility to accommodate training schedules and timelines, resulting in higher MIG par-
ticipation rates. This increase in participation would lead school board members to gain a
better understanding of their roles and responsibilities in efforts to work collaboratively
as an effective unified governing team. Governing within clearly defined roles and
responsibilities with an unwavering focus on student achievement has been demonstrated
to be central to the key works of school boards (Gemberling et al., 2000).
The MIG training program equipped school board members with the knowledge
and skills set necessary to adhere to behaviors and practices of effective governance.
Mandating the MIG in California would provide an assurance that all school board
members, regardless of demographic locations and populations, would operate and
govern according to the governing principals set forth by the CSBA’s MIG training. In
dismal fiscal climates, mandating the MIG could prove to be an significant expense for
school board members. Because MIG modules are offered in a variety of locations across
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 115
California, travel costs, lodging, and other related costs could serve as a deterrent to par-
ticipation. Data from this study suggest that alternative funding sources are essential for
increasing participation and imposing such a mandate.
The themes identified related to the three research questions suggest the following
findings: (a) Adjustments should be made to the current MIG training program structure
to accommodate school board needs, (b) the MIG training program equips school board
members with a coherent governance model that enables them to govern effectively, and
(c) the MIG training program positively affects school board governance and should be a
funded state mandate.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 116
Chapter 5
Conclusion
In the ever-changing arena of public education, the role of school boards has
evolved to encapsulate a significantly more complex description of challenging responsi-
bilities (Campbell & Green, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; McCloud & McKensie, 1994;
Usdan, 1994). Continually compounded by increasing state and federal mandates, local
school boards are faced with an escalating array of complex multidimensional challenges
that command a thorough understanding of various laws, fiscal accountability, and com-
munity and educational demands (Danzberger, 1994; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002). In order
to address these challenges effectively, school boards must be well prepared and
equipped with the knowledge, information, and skills necessary to provide quality district
leadership that gravitates around student achievement. Untrained and unprepared school
boards may be ill equipped to address the complicated challenges the face the domain of
public education.
Current literature demonstrates the importance of training for school board
members (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Petronis, 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Only 23 states, excluding California, mandate numerous variations of school board
training. The MIG training program is a comprehensive professional development
program offered by the CSBA. Because participation is voluntary, many school board
members are left to serve with little to no training regarding knowledge and skills neces-
sary for addressing current and future challenges in the educational arena. In today’s
highly complex and rapidly changing landscape of public education, the need for training
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 117
is imperative for school boards to fulfill their roles to ensure that, truly, no child is left
behind.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training program
offered by the CSBA influences a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance. The research team examined school boards’ behaviors and
practices through the lenses of the conceptual frameworks and theories of Bolman and
Deal’s four frames of effective leadership (2008), Delagardelle’s The Lighthouse Inquiry:
Key Areas of Board Performance (2008), and the CSBA’s Professional Governance
Standards (2007). These three frameworks guided development of three research
questions:
1. What factors impact the decisions of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact school board
governance?
This chapter provides a discussion of the findings reported in Chapter 4, implica-
tions for practice, recommendations for future research, and conclusions.
Summary of Findings
The results of this study suggested three significant findings. First, adjustments to
the MIG training program should be considered to meet the needs of school board
members and yield higher participation rates. Second, the MIG training program equips
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 118
school board members with a coherent governance model enabling them to govern effec-
tively. Third, the MIG training program positively influences school board governance
and should be instituted as a funded or subsidized state mandate.
Research Question 1
Findings related to Research Question 1 identified various factors that influence a
school board member’s decision to complete the MIG training program. Data suggested
that the MIG training program should be adjusted to fit the needs of school board
members and to increase participation rates. School board members demonstrated an
inherent desire to gain new knowledge and a willingness to participate in the MIG
training. They indicated that encouragement by colleagues had played a significant role
in their decision to pursue the MIG training program. This finding aligns to
Delagardelle’s (2008) study, which showed that, in school districts with high levels of
student achievement, school board members placed focus on providing ongoing support
for professional development as a means and willingness to learn. Delagardelle identified
the ongoing commitment to districtwide professional development as a key area of school
board performance.
Although school board members are willing to pursue MIG training, inconvenient
training locations, scheduling, and obligatory time constraints served as potential inhibi-
tors for fellow school board members who were contemplating participation. The MIG
training program is currently offered throughout the state of California. Each of the nine
modules is offered at specific times and locations across the state, with a 2-year comple-
tion timeline. Participation, if not completion, proved difficult for school board members
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 119
who, aside from serving on the board, maintain demanding professional careers. There-
fore, adjustments should be made to the MIG training program to make it more con-
ducive to the needs of school board members who want to pursue training.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined whether the MIG training program encouraged
and equipped school board members with the knowledge and skills necessary to adhere to
behaviors characteristic of effective governance. Data from the study indicated that the
MIG training program improved school board effectiveness by equipping school board
members with a governance framework from which to operate that focuses on the central
works of school boards: working as a unified team through clearly defined roles and
responsibilities with an unwavering focus on student achievement.
School board members in this study exhibited an adherence to effective governing
practices and behaviors that maintained student learning at the fore of all board opera-
tions and decision-making practices and served as the driving force that kept all efforts,
operations, and decision making focused on what was best for students (Campbell &
Green, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; Leithwood, et al., 2008; Thomas, S1994;
Marzano & Waters, 2006). The MIG training equipped school board members with a
thorough understanding of their specific roles and responsibilities, enabling them to
govern effectively. As a result of the MIG training, school boards demonstrated an
increased adherence to specific roles and responsibilities throughout all board operations
and decision-making practices. Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model for effective leader-
ship (2008) emphasizes the importance of clearly defined structures and procedures in the
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 120
effectiveness of an organization. CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards (2007)
identifies governing within board-adopted structures, policies, and procedures as funda-
mental principles of effective school board governance. With a clear understanding of
their roles and responsibilities, school boards worked as a unified governance team
toward advancement of student achievement. School board members focused on and
adhered to making policy rather than administrative management. Board members
understood that decisions were made by the board of trustees, rather than individual
trustees and used student achievement as the driving force behind all decision-making
practices. As a result, board deliberations and operations were fluid, collaborative, and
guided by the constant focus on student achievement.
These findings are supported by research from Delagardelle’s The Lighthouse
Inquiry: Key Areas of Board Performance (2008), which found that, when board
members had a clear understanding of their specific governance role as policy makers,
working collaboratively to ensure deliberate policy development, their districts were
more likely be considered successful.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was designed to determine in what ways mandating the MIG
training program would affect school board governance. Relevant research suggested that
the MIG training program equipped school board members with the knowledge and deci-
sion-making practices necessary for effective governance (Bianchi, 2003; Morehouse,
2001; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Data from this study indicated that the MIG training
program positively influenced school board governance by equipping school board
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 121
members with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities in order to perform
their duties effectively. Responsible for a vast range of responsibilities, MIG -trained
school board members demonstrated an adherence to behaviors and practices characteris-
tic of effective governance: developing and communicating a common vision, governing
within board-adopted policies as a unified board of trustees, operating with trust and
integrity, and engaging in informed decision-making practices that center around
improving student achievement. This finding lends itself to the structural frame in
Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model for effective leadership (2008), as well as
Delagardelle’s The Lighthouse Inquiry: Key Areas of Board Performance (2008) and
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards (2007), which outline an organizational
structure essential to the attainment of effective leadership. The MIG training program
afforded school boards a governance model in which clearly delineated rules, policies,
and procedures drive effective governance.
Data analysis revealed that, although the MIG positively influenced school board
effectiveness, the cost of training posed a substantial fiscal impact on board members and
school districts alike. In addition to registration fees, food, travel, and lodging expenses
proved to be expensive for completion of all nine MIG modules for school board
members who were required to travel across the state for one or more of the MIG training
modules. As a result, the costs associated with training discouraged participation.
Data from this study identified the merits of MIG training and showed that the
benefit of the training supersede potential costs. To ensure that school board members
statewide are prepared to fulfill their roles and address the complexities of their
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 122
responsibilities as well as current and future demands, participation in the MIG training
program is imperative.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study validated the importance of the MIG training program for
school board members facing unprecedented changes in the public school forum. The
MIG training program offered school board members a governance framework from
which a deep understanding of the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and practices necessary
for providing effective leadership in all facets of district operations is acquired.
School board members’ adherence to these specific behaviors and practices posi-
tively contributed to the overall effectiveness of the board’s governing and decision-
making practices. The findings from this study offer insight and implications for current
and aspiring school board members, professional educational associations, and state
legislators.
This study provided insight and implications for the CSBA, which is predomi-
nantly responsible for providing formal training to school board members. As results of
the study indicated, school board members demonstrated the motivation to pursue the
MIG training; however, restrictive training schedules served as barriers to participation.
Consideration should be given to adjusting the MIG training program to afford school
board members flexibility to participate in various training opportunities without restric-
tive completion timelines. Integration of an online component would remove the element
of limited training offerings and allow school board members the flexibility to partake in
the MIG training at times that are conducive to school board needs. In efforts to increase
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 123
participation, the CSBA should consider restructuring the current MIG training schedule
without restrictive timelines for completion, which would make participation more
accessible to school board members across the state. Integration of an online option,
without a firm timeline for completion, could provide school board members the auton-
omy of scheduling training around personal needs instead of having current training dates
and times dictate participation. Consideration should also be given to various hybrid
models of the MIG training program that integrate a combination of online and locally
offered training opportunities. With such a model, school boards would be able to par-
ticipate in training venues that best fit their needs without compromising training content
and completion.
Adjustments should be made to the MIG training program to alleviate or remove
restrictive timelines for completion. The MIG’s binding timeline for completion makes it
difficult for school board members to complete the training program within a 2-year
period when training dates and locations are not conducive to participation. School board
members serve terms of 4 years. Extending the timeline for MIG completion would
incentivize school board participation and keep school boards abreast of new knowledge
and skills necessary to provide effective governance in the ever-changing dynamics of
education. School board members have demonstrated a genuine willingness to pursue
MIG training; therefore, consideration should be given to extend or remove completion
timelines to promote participation and completion rates. Offering a schedule conducive to
school board members’ personal lives would encourage participation and completion of
the MIG training.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 124
School board members would be more likely to participate in the MIG training
program if steep costs of participation were subsidized or dismissed. This finding
provided additional insight and implications for the CSBA and school districts alike. The
CSBA offers the MIG training program to all school board members as a means to effec-
tive governance. As a result, the CSBA should accelerate MIG participation by defraying
or subsidizing associated costs by incorporating related expenses into its annual member-
ship fees. Numerous mandated school board training programs nationwide are currently
funded by the state, local districts, or a combination of the two (Bianchi, 2003). In current
fiscal climates, where funding sources are dwindling at exponential rates, potential costs
of mandating the MIG training could prove to be a nonviable option for many districts
that are struggling to maintain fiscal solvency. Therefore, institution of such a decree
would necessitate a partially or fully funded state mandate.
Also suggested by the results of this study are insight and implications for school
districts. The top priority of a district’s governance team is student achievement. There-
fore, it would be in the district’s best interest to provide a governance team that is well
equipped with the knowledge and understanding of their specific governance roles in
efforts to provide sound district leadership that is premised on student achievement. Indi-
vidual school districts should require school board members to participate in some or all
of the MIG modules as a preservice training program to understand their specific roles
and responsibilities prior to taking office as school board members. Moreover, whether
school board members participate in the MIG training before or after taking office,
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 125
individual school districts should encourage school board members to attend the MIG
training by sponsoring the cost of attendance.
As indicated by the results of this study, mandating the MIG training program
would, to a greater extent, increase overall school board effectiveness. Legislation should
be enacted to ensure that all school boards are well prepared and possess the knowledge
and skills essential to effective school board governance.
Recommendations
Findings from this study can serve as a springboard for future studies examining
the correlation between school board training and effective governance. Because the
study focused on the CSBA’s MIG training program, future studies should include a
larger and more diverse sample population representative of the regional makeup of Cali-
fornia. Also, due to the fact that this study took place in California, where school board
training is optional, the study should be replicated in states where school board training is
mandated to determine whether a correlation exists between training and effective gov-
ernance. Furthermore, because 23 states mandate some variation of school board training,
future studies should be conducted comparing the MIG training program to other man-
dated and nonmandated state training programs to determine their impact on school board
governance.
Studies should be conducted to examine the perspectives of non-MIG-trained
school board members to determine whether a correlation exists between training and the
adherence to effective governing practices. Future studies should include perspectives of
all stakeholders; administrators, teachers, students, parents, and community members to
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 126
determine whether a relationship exists between school board training and effective
district leadership.
Future studies should be considered to examine the correlation between MIG-
trained and non-MIG-trained school boards in relation to API. Specifically, an examina-
tion of MIG-trained and non-MIG-trained school board members in low-achieving
districts could determine whether adherence to specific behaviors and practices indicative
of effective governance are exhibited and whether these behaviors have a direct impact
on student achievement.
Conclusion
In an increasing era of accountability, the role of local school boards has rapidly
evolved over the years in response to numerous reform initiatives and complicated chal-
lenges and demands placed on the shoulders of public education (Bianchi, 2003; Land,
2004; McCloud & McKenzie, 1994; Wirt, 1994). Findings from this study make it strik-
ingly clear that the MIG training program affords school board members the leadership
principals and decision-making practices necessary to persevere in the face of educational
reform, advocate for students, and perpetuate advancement of student achievement.
The MIG program is an indispensable training program that equips school board
members with a deeper understanding of their roles and responsibilities to fulfill duties
central to school board governance. While school board members demonstrate a genuine
willingness to participate in the MIG training program, restrictive training schedules
often impede participation. The MIG training program must include a more flexible
schedule conducive to accessibility and participation.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 127
With the rapidly changing dynamics of public education today, never before has
the need for mandatory school board training been greater. Mandating the MIG training
program would positively impact school board governance by ensuring that school
boards are well prepared to provide effective governance. With the assurance of a state
mandate, the MIG would guarantee that school board members across the state are well
prepared with the essential knowledge and skill necessary to effectively fulfill their roles
and responsibilities. However, given the high cost of the training, alternate funding
sources would need to be secured if California were to impose such a mandate.
The need for mandatory school board training is a concept whose time has come.
With 23 states recognizing the demand for mandated school board training, California
cannot afford not to follow suit. School reform initiatives should start with mandated
MIG training for school board members to ensure that school boards are better prepared
to govern effectively. The CSBA’s MIG training program is critical to the effectiveness
of school boards and epitomizes the fundamental work of school boards: developing a
common vision, governing with trust and integrity as a unified team, and maintaining
student achievement at the forefront of all decision-making practices (Campbell & Green,
1994; CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Leithwood et al., 2008; Marzano &
Waters, 2006).
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 128
References
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2002). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. TQ Technos Quarterly, Journal of the Agency for Instructional Tech-
nology, 11(4). Retrieved from http://schoolmatch.com/articles/TQJAN03.htm
Bianchi, A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. New York State
School Boards Association. Retrieved from http://www.nyssba.org/
clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leader-
ship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bracey, G. W., & Resnick, M. A. (1998). Raising the bar: A school board primer on
student achievement. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. El Paso, TX:
University of Texas at El Paso, Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
Byrd, J. K., Drew, C. & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent turnover:
Lessons from the field. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University
Council of Educational Administration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 493287)
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and
function of California’s school boards. Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/
media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in
the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391-395.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 129
Danzberger, J. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 367-373.
Davies, D. C. (1949). The challenges of school board membership. New York, NY:
Chartwell House.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The
future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191-224). Blue
Ridge, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Fusarelli, B. C. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity,
conflict, and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44-
57.
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards: A guide-
book. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. New York, NY: Center for Applied Research
in Education.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004, Spring-Summer). Cracking the code of
accountability. Urban Education, pp. 17-19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and chal-
lenges of district governance. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Associa-
tion.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 130
Houston, P., & Bryant, A. (1997). The roles of superintendents and school boards in
engaging the public with the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 756-759.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2001, April). The Light House Inquiry: School
board/superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences
in student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Johnson, P. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a changin’. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1-20. doi:10.1177/1555458911413887
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75,
378-381.
Kolb, R. F., & Strauss, R. P. (1999). State laws governing school board ethics. Retrieved
from ftp://amusing.mit.edu/afs/andrew/supa/wpapers/1999-8.pdf
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in rela-
tion to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72,
229-278.
Lashway, L. (2002). The superintendent in the age of accountability. ERIC Digest, 161,
1-6.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Let’s redefine local school boards. (1992). Education Digest, 58(3), 21.
Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: School finance and
governance in California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 131
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2006). School district leadership that works. Denver, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7-9.
McCloud, B., & McKenzie, F. D. (1994). School boards and superintendents in urban
districts. Phi Delta Kappan 75, 384-385.
Morehouse, W. R. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Adminis-
trator, 58(2), 68-70.
National School Boards Association. (n.d.) Why school boards? Five reasons for local
control of public education. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-
Leadership/Governance/WhySchoolBoards/WhySchoolBoards.txt
National School Boards Association. (2010). Mandated Training for Local School Board
Members survey. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/
Surveys/MandatedTraining.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2012). Mandated training for school board
members. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
Newton, P. J., & Sackney, L. (2005). Group knowledge and group knowledge process in
school board decision making. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 434-457.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 132
Petersen, G. (2002). Singing the same tune: Principals’ and school board members’ per-
ceptions of the superintendent’s role as instructional leader. Journal of Educa-
tional Administration 40(2), 158-171.
Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). The school board president's perception of the
ditrict superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 533-570.
Petronis, J., Hall, R. F., & Pierson, M. E. (1996). Mandatory school board training. An
idea whose time has come. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED
400625)
Roberts, K., & Sampson, P. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Manage-
ment 25, 701-713.
Schmitz, S. J. P. (2007). Qualifications and readiness of school board trustees and impli-
cations for training (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Montana State Univer-
sity, Bozeman, MT.
Tallerico, M. (1989). The dynamics of superitendent-school board relationships: A
continuing challenge. Urban Education , 24, 215-232.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The
quest to define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University &
Howard University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 133
Thomas, S. (1994). The changing local community school board: America’s best hope.
Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 387-390.
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Pea-
body Journal of Education, 78(4), 177-200.
Usdan, M. D. (1994). The relationship between school boards and general purpose gov-
ernance. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 374-376.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
Zeibarth, T. (2002). The roles and responsibilities of school boards and superintendents:
A state policy framework. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 134
Appendix A
Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and MIG Observation Protocol
Survey Questions and Research Question Alignment
Research Question Survey Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to
complete the Masters In Governance training program?
7, 9, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23
2. Does Masters In Governance training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 17, 18, 20
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
10, 11, 14, 15
Interview Questions and Research Question Alignment
Research Question Interview Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to
complete the Masters In Governance training program?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
2. Does Masters In Governance training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance?
6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
3, 15, 16, 17
MIG Observation Protocol and Research Question Alignment
Research Question MIG Observation Protocol
Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to
complete the Masters In Governance training program?
2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13
2. Does the Masters In Governance training encourage and
equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 135
Appendix B
Research Questions/Survey/Interview/MIGOP Protocol Grid
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 136
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 137
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 138
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 139
Appendix C
Interview Guide: School Board Member
* NOTATES QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IF APPLICABLE
1. Is receiving Masters in Governance (MIG) training a cultural expectation in your school
district?
2. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school board train-
ing program?
3. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members, i.e. what
would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?
4. Have you recommended MIG training to non-trained board members? What was their
response?
5. Did you feel any pressure to complete the MIG training?
6. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (team-
work) in your district?
7. Has the MIG training impacted the decision making and governance practices in your
district?
8. Has the MIG training affected the way your board members govern? If so, please explain.
9. What indicators suggest that the MIG training was effective or ineffective?
10. How could the MIG be improved in order to enable school board members to govern more
effectively? *
11. What was the most beneficial aspect of MIG training? *
12. Which of the nine MIG modules was the most effective and why? *
13. Which MIG module failed to meet your expectations, if any? Why? *
14. Should school board training be a California mandate? Why or why not?
15. What potential conflicts, if any, would you anticipate with such a mandate?
16. What potential fiscal impact would mandating training have on your district?
Would this expenditure be supported by stakeholders?
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 140
Appendix D
Interview Guide: Superintendent
* NOTATES QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IF APPLICABLE
1. Is receiving Masters in Governance (MIG) training a cultural expectation in your school
district?
2. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school board train-
ing program?
3. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members, i.e. what
would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?
4. Have you recommended MIG training to non-trained board members? What was their
response?
5. Did you feel any pressure to complete the MIG training?
6. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (team-
work) in your district?
7. Has the MIG training impacted the decision making and governance practices in your
district?
8. Has the MIG training affected the way your board members govern? If so, please explain.
9. What indicators suggest that the MIG training was effective or ineffective?
10. Have you been trained in all nine modules of the MIG?
11. How could the MIG be improved in order to enable school board members to govern more
effectively? *
12. What was the most beneficial aspect of MIG training? *
13. Which of the nine MIG modules was the most effective and why? *
14. Which MIG module failed to meet your expectations, if any? Why? *
15. Should school board training be a California mandate? Why or why not?
16. What potential conflicts, if any, would you anticipate with such a mandate?
17. What potential fiscal impact would mandating training have on your district?
Would this expenditure be supported by stakeholders?
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 141
Appendix E
MIG Observation Protocol
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 142
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 143
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 144
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 145
Appendix F
Board Member Recruitment Letter
Date
Dear School Board Member ,
I would like to congratulate your school district for being identified as a successful district in which at least
one board member has completed the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Gov-
ernance (MIG) training program. My name is Lena A. Richter and I am a doctoral student from the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California conducting a research study under the
guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante.
As a graduate of the Masters in Governance training program, you have been invited to participate in this
study that may shed light on the impact the Masters in Governance training program on school board
members’ ability to govern effectively. It is our hope that this study will serve as a source of best practices
for school board members who strive to grow and develop as educational leaders. Thank you, in advance,
for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review and complete the information enclosed in this
packet.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your
participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any
time. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact me or Dr.
Michael F. Escalante. Thank you, in advance, for your time and participation.
Respectfully,
Lena A. Richter Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
email address email address
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (xxx) xxx-xxxx
I have read this board member recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask
questions. I consent to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits
__________________________________________________________________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 146
Appendix G
Superintendent Recruitment Letter
Date
Dear Superintendent ,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet. You
have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact of the Cali-
fornia School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program on school
board members’ ability to govern effectively. This study may serve as a source of best practices for super-
intendents who strive to strengthen and support the professional development and growth of their school
board members. Enclosed you will find an information sheet outlining the purpose of the study, as well as
additional information related to the research.
My name is Lena A. Richter and I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and guidance of
Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Your
district has been identified as a successful district, in which at least one board member has completed the
Masters in Governance training program. Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the
enclosed Superintendent Survey and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. We would also
appreciate your assistance in facilitating the process of your identified school board members in completing
the enclosed School Board Member Survey. An additional copy of the School Board Member Survey is
enclosed for your review.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your
participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any
time. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact me or Dr.
Michael F. Escalante. Thank you, in advance, for your time and participation.
Sincerely,
Lena A. Richter Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
email address email address
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (xxx) xxx-xxxx
I have read this recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to
my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 147
Appendix H
Information Sheet: School Board Member
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE ON
SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at the Uni-
versity of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one of the five
Southern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done
in completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. It is recom-
mended that you read the information below prior to consenting to participate in this study.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association (CSBA)-
Masters In Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and
advancements in technology, school board members need to understand their roles and responsi-
bilities in order to create an effective district environment. School board members must
demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board
professional growth are vital characteristics for success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists
of 23 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance.
You may be asked to participate in a 30-60 minute interview at a time and place convenient to
you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission and include
questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the interview without
audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.
POTENTIAL RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts that you
may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the question.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 148
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participation may
add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG training on effec-
tive governance practices. These findings will benefit school board members who strive to
improve conditions that lead to effective governance.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and confidential-
ity. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only the researcher and
the dissertation committee members will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored in a secure location in the investigator’s office and a password protected com-
puter.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern Califor-
nia’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any time
without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want
to answer and still remain in the study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Univer-
sity Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272 or uprib@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Lena A.
Richter at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at mescalan@usc.edu.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 149
Appendix I
Information Sheet: Superintendent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE ON
SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at the
University of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one of the five
Southern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done
in completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. It is recom-
mended that you read the information below prior to consenting to participate in this study.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association (CSBA)-
Masters In Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and
advancements in technology, school board members need to understand their roles and responsi-
bilities in order to create an effective district environment. School board members must
demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board
professional growth are vital characteristics for success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists
of 23 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance.
You may be asked to participate in a 30-60 minute interview at a time and place convenient to
you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission and include
questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the interview without
audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.
POTENTIAL RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts that you
may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the question.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 150
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participation may
add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG training on effec-
tive governance practices. These findings will benefit school board members who strive to
improve conditions that lead to effective governance.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and confidential-
ity. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only the researcher and
the dissertation committee members will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored in a secure location in the investigator’s office and a password protected com-
puter.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern Califor-
nia’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any time
without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want
to answer and still remain in the study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Univer-
sity Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272 or uprib@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Lena A.
Richter at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at mescalan@usc.edu.
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 151
Appendix J
Board Member Survey
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 152
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 153
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 154
Appendix K
Superintendent Survey
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 155
MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE 156
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examined the impact of professional development on school board practices and behaviors as identified in relevant literature as an essential means to effec-tive governance. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Masters in Governance (MIG) training program offered by the California School Board Association influenced a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective leadership and governance. This study included qualitative data gathered from 226 MIG-trained school board members and 100 superintendents from 6 southern California counties. Data from surveys, interview guides, and observation protocols were collected, disaggregated, and coded in relation to the study’s research questions. Findings indicated that the MIG training program offers a comprehensive governance model that equips school board members with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, thus enabling them to govern effectively. However, considerations need to be given to adjusting the MIG’s current structure and schedule to better accommodate school board needs and increase participation. Findings also indicated that MIG training positively affected school board gov¬ernance and should be instituted as a funded or subsidized California state mandate. This study lends itself to considerations of legislation for subsidized school board training as a means to effective California school board governance.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
PDF
Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards
PDF
The significant correlation between school board member training and effective school governance
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
Asset Metadata
Creator
Richter, Lena Aghoian
(author)
Core Title
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/29/2013
Defense Date
02/22/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
effective district leadership,governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board leadership
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Doll, Michele (
committee member
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
)
Creator Email
lrichter18@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-247782
Unique identifier
UC11288146
Identifier
etd-RichterLen-1622.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-247782 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RichterLen-1622.pdf
Dmrecord
247782
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Richter, Lena Aghoian
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
effective district leadership
governance
school board leadership