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
/
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
(USC Thesis Other)
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 1
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: ITS EFFECT ON SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GOVERNANCE TEAMS
by
Kristina Turley
____________________________________________________________________
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 Kristina Turley
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to public school teachers and students. Since I have
dedicated my life to teaching, loving, learning from, and being inspired by them, it is
only fitting to dedicate this work to them. As a product of public education, it is my firm
belief that our schools are filled with inspirational teachers and students. I was one of
those students, inspired year after year by dedicated, brilliant, creative, and overworked
teachers. A love of learning is contagious, and every student deserves the best teachers to
encourage this love. This is why I have pursued the doctorate: to show my teachers the
product of their hard work and to continue the hard work that still needs to be done for
students in the classroom.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 3
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the passion and love of education and, more
importantly, the love of learning that my parents instilled in me at a very young age. This
love has gotten me where I am, and for that I am eternally grateful. The great teachers
whom I have had along the way have further cultivated my passion for education, spe-
cifically my sixth-grade teacher, Mrs. Sherman. She taught me how to challenge myself
and that it is okay to take risks. In higher education, Dr. Ruth Norton encouraged my
academic growth and became a mentor and an example of how my passion could turn
into a respected profession.
A very special thank you is given to my extended family members who have all
helped support me through this process in various invaluable ways: Kyle, Brian Jr., Katie,
Tony, Claire, Jay, Erik, Kelli, Marcia, Jerry, and Pat, the Gates family, the Gruber family,
t he S a ntos “Tw osom e ,” the Autry/Lundy family, and last, but certainly not least, my
McKinley family.
It goes without saying that my work would not have been possible without the
guidance and direction of Dr. Michael Escalante and my Trojan Family. I am forever
bonded to my dissertation colleagues —Lena, Mercedes, Becky, Marco, Vivian, and
especially my defense team, Sergio and Rocky —and the two people who would answer
my calls day or night, Letitia and Issaic. The learning, laughing, growing, and stressing
that we have done together will stay with me always. Fight on!
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 14
Importance of the Study 14
Limitations of the Study 15
Delimitations 16
Assumptions 16
Definition of Terms 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
Historical Context 21
School Boards of the 21st Century 24
School Board Member Roles and Responsibilities 26
Evolution and Challenges 27
Leadership 31
Superintendent Leadership 32
School Board Leadership 35
Accountability of School Board Members 40
Accountability for Student Achievement 41
Accountability to Voters 43
School Board Training 45
Frameworks 50
Leadership 51
Effective School Board Practices 54
School Board Training 58
Chapter Summary 61
Chapter 3: Methodology 62
Purpose of the Study 63
Qualitative Design 64
Participants 64
Sampling Strategies 65
Instrumentation 66
Document Review 66
Observations 67
Survey 67
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 5
Interviews 68
Data Collection 68
Chapter Summary 69
Chapter 4: Research Results 71
Participants 72
Results for Research Question 1 77
Cultural Motivation 78
Team Building and Shared Knowledge 80
Summary of Results For Research Question 1 85
Results for Research Question 2 85
Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities 87
Effective Strategies and Practice 90
Summary of Results for Research Question 2 93
Results for Research Question 3 94
Mandated Training 95
Mandated Training Concerns 97
Summary of Results for Research Question 3 99
Summary of Findings 100
Chapter 5: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 102
Purpose of the Study Restated 102
Findings Related to the Research Questions 104
Research Question 1 105
Research Question 2 106
Research Question 3 107
Limitations of the Study 108
Implications for Practice 108
Recommendations for Future Research 110
Conclusion to the Study 111
References 112
Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 117
Appendix B: School Board Member Recruitment Letter 118
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey 119
Appendix D: School Board Member Survey 122
Appendix E: Masters in Government Observation Protocol 125
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Superintendent and School Board Member Survey Participation 73
Table 2: Demographic Information for Ventura County Compared to California 74
Table 3: Demographic Information for Ocean Park Unified School District 75
Table 4: Demographic Information for Oak View School District 76
Table 5: Responses to the I t e m “O ur S c hool B oa rd Cult ur e Hig hl y
Enc oura ge s P a rticipa ti on in M I G T ra ini n g ” 79
Table 6: R e sponses to t he I t e m “ I Enc oura ge S c hool B oa rd Membe rs to
Attend M I G Tr a ini n g ” 80
Table 7: Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to
Participate in Masters in Governance (MIG) Training 81
Table 8: R e sponses to t he I t e m, “ The M I G Tr a ini ng C lar i f ied the R oles
a nd Responsi bil it ies of th e Gove rn a nc e Te a m ” 84
Table 9: R e sponses to t he I t e m “ M I G Tr a ini n g He lp e d to Diff e r e nti a te
Policy and Managerial Leadership Roles ” 88
Table 10: Effective School Board Practice 91
Table 11: Responses to Survey Items Regarding Mandatory Training
of School Board Members 96
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 7
Abstract
This study examines the impact that the Califor nia S c hool B oa rds A sso c iation’s (CS B A)
Masters in Governance (MIG) training program had on effective school board gov-
ernance practice. The purpose was to determine whether a relationship existed between
effective school boards and a commitment to seek and attend school board training. This
study was framed using the definition of leadership provided by Lee Bolman and Ter-
rence Deal through their 4 frames. Best practices for effective school boards were
examined using research from the Lighthouse Inquiry by the Iowa Association of School
Boards. The professional governance standards provided by CSBA were used to deter-
mine expectations for governance teams. Data for this qualitative study were collected
from survey results from 86 MIG-trained board members and 61 superintendents in suc-
cessful districts in southern California, 4 interviews conducted with school board
members and superintendents, and observations done in each of the trainings offered
through the MIG in order to answer 3 research questions: (a) factors impacting the
decision of school board members to complete the MIG training program, (b) whether
MIG training encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, and (c) in what ways mandating the MIG training could impact
school board governance. Findings from this research suggested that MIG training
supports effective governance practice by building team experiences while clarifying
roles and responsibilities. This study adds to the current research regarding effective
leadership within school districts and, more specifically, the role that training plays in
effective leadership.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 8
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
Nationally, public education is examined, scrutinized, and analyzed by politicians,
educators, parents, and local citizens. The reasons are many: the gap in student per-
formance between White students and those who are ethnic and language minorities, poor
teaching, dilapidated facilities, lack of funding, and the ever-present global education
comparisons. Because education is still the foundation of society, most citizens have a
vested interest in how children are educated. In order for citizens to make their opinions
and needs heard, locally elected school board members, who represent the citizens ’ voice,
govern schools. These school board members are charged to oversee personnel, curricu-
lum adoption, accountability systems, and fiscal and facilities issues, and other responsi-
bilities (Hill, Warner-King, Campbell, McElroy, & Monoz-Colon, 2002). Most school
board members are elected with few eligibility requirements other than age (Hess, 2002;
Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Although elected board members are not required to have
educational experience, they hold the power to regulate many of the resources that are
needed to ensure successful schools and to promote high-quality teaching and learning.
Most jobs require that the persons either begin the job with experience and
training or training is provided for new members. School governance is an exception to
this common practice. School board members are not required to have experience, and in
the state of California, they are not required to attend training for their position (National
School Boards Association [NSBA], 2010a). Although policy regarding school board
member training has changed in other states, training is not mandated in California
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 9
(NSBA, 2010a; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Often, the lack of training for school board
members is used by the public to explain the poor state of some school districts (Roberts
& Sampson, 2011). There is little research to support a definitive link between school
board training and effective governance (Hill et al., 2002; Land, 2002; McAdams, 2002)
but research that links effective leadership and teaching to professional development
(Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007; Elmore, 2000) can be used as an argument for the
need for school board members to be trained for the job that they were elected to
perform.
In answer to the need for school board training, the California School Boards
Association (CSBA) has developed an optional training program for school board
members. This training is called the Master ’s in Governance program (MIG); it consists
of nine training modules. The topics of the modules range from School Finance to
Community Relations and Advocacy. The purpose of this training is to provide superin-
tendents and school board members with a solid governance foundation, giving them the
skills and knowledge to support an effective governance structure (CSBA, 2007).
This study looks specifically at school board members in California, for whom
training is offered but not mandated (CSBA, 2007; NSBA, 2010b). More particularly, it
focuses on school board members who have been trained through the MIG. School board
member practice is analyzed to determine whether the training has led to effective gov-
ernance. In addition, the motivation of school board members to seek training is explored
and examined to determine the reasons some members seek training when it is not
mandated. Last, the lack of policy for mandated school board training is considered
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 10
through the eyes of governance teams, including school board members and superinten-
dents.
Background of the Problem
Historically, school boards have been part of the governance body that oversees
public education in the United States. This system of governance has existed for more
than 200 years in one form or another (Gemberling, Smith, & Villani, 2000; Land, 2002).
The school board is manifested as a way for local citizens to have control over their
schools and decrease the influence of state politicians who might be out of touch with
local issues (Land, 2002). As the population in U.S. public schools has grown to more
than 50 million, the role of the school board has evolved. Currently, school boards are in
control of smaller clusters of schools, giving more local authority to each school board
(Land, 2002). In addition, current school boards focus their governance on policy
making, relying on the superintendent to make educational decisions (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000; Hill et al., 2002).
During the evolution of school boards, the roles and responsibilities of school
board members have changed, yet the qualifications and criteria for becoming a school
board member have changed little (Hess, 2002). Because of the modifications made in
educational policy, moving from strict local control to centralized control due to more
state and federal guidelines for funding, the local school board maintains many roles and
responsibilities within the framework of school governance. The roles and responsibili-
ties of school board members are multifaceted. Their responsibilities include policy
making, budget allocating, hiring and firing of the superintendent, approving changes in
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 11
boundaries within districts, granting charters, making (overall) student data available for
the public at board meetings, and many others (Hill et al., 2002). In spite of these
responsibilities, there is little to no experience in education or governance necessary to
run for a school board position. This lack of adjustment in the standards for school board
members calls for a closer look at the way school boards are elected, but more important
how they are trained them to do their jobs effectively. Brenner Thurlow, Sullivan, and
Dalton (2002) argued that it is difficult for board members to monitor what they do not
understand. There is a need for board members to learn how to set meaningful goals and
objectives for school improvement. If there is a lack of basic skill and knowledge about
the job, these tools can be imparted through school board training (Brenner Thurlow et
al., 2002; Hess, 2002; McAdams, 2002).
With the increased accountability for all involved in education, it is crucial that
the governance leadership be cohesive, effective, and focused (Gemberling et al., 2000;
Waters & Marzano, 2006). This type of united relationship is not consistently observed
in all districts, making fractured boards a barrier to improved student achievement
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). School boards and superintendents in some cases have diffi-
culty in establishing clear roles and responsibilities, making their relationships fractured
and dysfunctional (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
This lack of effective leadership adds to the current problems that school boards face.
Without clear roles and responsibilities, established norms, common understanding of
policy and educational issues, it is difficult for school board members to meet the
teaching and learning needs of their school district. Training for school board members
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 12
has been shown to establish clear roles and responsibilities and to improve communica-
tion between the superintendent and school board members (Brenner Thurlow et al.,
2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
The roles and responsibilities, as well as the accountability, of school boards have
been reformed due to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; Hill et al., 2002; Land,
2002). NCLB legislation, submitted by former President George W. Bush, supported the
idea that there should be stronger accountability for teaching and learning. This legisla-
tion emphasized the need to close the achievement gap for ethnic and language minority
students (Dahlkemper, 2005). It added the mandate of high-stakes testing for any school
district that wished to receive federal funding for education (American Institute for
Research, 2003). The increased state and national funding regulations placed on local
school districts by this legislation have decreased the influence of school boards and, at
the same time, have increased their level of accountability (Hill et al., 2002). In order to
receive funding and improve achievement by students, school board members are
expected to be more and more skillful at their jobs to make the best decisions possible,
given the compounded limitations of budgets and state and federal mandates.
The NSBA (2012) reported that they support more than 90,000 local school board
members who govern 13,809 local school districts. In a national survey, only half to
three quarters of these school board members reported having been trained in the areas in
which they are expected to govern (Hess, 2002). This indicates that a national problem
exists in the form of school board training unless, of course, all school board members
are coming to their positions with the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 13
members of a school governance team. Close to half of the school board members gov-
erning school districts are ill equipped, lacking the knowledge, skills, and experience to
do their jobs effectively. Without mandates in all states, including California, the moti-
vation to seek training remains an individual decision. Because of funding decreases and
because public scrutiny magnifies discrepancies in student achievement, the effectiveness
of all who are involved in public education will continue to be a national concern
(Gemberling et al., 2000; Land, 2002).
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. Because of increased
public scrutiny, rising demands for increased accountability, and advancements in tech-
nology, school board members must understand their roles and responsibilities in order to
create an effective district environment. School board members must demonstrate pro-
fessionalism and possess the knowledge 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.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relationship exists between
effective school boards and a commitment to seek school board training. This study was
framed using the definition of leadership provided by Bolman and Deal (2003). Leader-
ship, for the purposes of this study, is defined as the “process of mutual influence fusing
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 14
thought, feeling, and action to produce cooperative effort in the service of purposes and
values embraced by both the leader and the lead ” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 339). Best
practices for effective school boards are examined using research from the Lighthouse
Inquiry (Iowa Association of School Boards [IASB], 2001). The Lighthouse Inquiry
provides case study analysis of characteristics exhibited by successful school boards.
The C S B A’ s (2007) professional governance standards were used to analyze school
board training. This training provides superintendents and school board members train-
ing in nine modules based on the roles and responsibilities of modern governance teams.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gov-
ernance?
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study is to assist school district governance teams by
determining whether there is a link between school board training in California and
effective school board practice. This study offers data for school board training programs
and identifies effective components within current training. A secondary benefit of this
study is that it will provide the CSBA feedback on their MIG training program.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 15
Determination of the MIG training ’s effectiveness and identification of possible needs for
improvement are offered in the hope of informing future training programs provided to
school board members. Links between training and practice will potentially motivate
school board members to seek training even when it is not required. Policy makers will
also benefit from this study, using the data and findings to make decisions for future
mandates and requirements for school board members. This study was designed not only
to determine whether the MIG training program encourages effective school board
member practice, but also to guide lawmakers when considering moves toward mandated
school board training.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study were the time and financial resources that would
have been required to conduct a statewide study of school board members. Due to these
limitations, this study focused on school board members in California and was further
delimited to school districts in southern California. Time constraints also limited the
number of interviews. Data collection was limited to 2 weeks. Therefore, the views of
the participants might not reflect the beliefs and practice of all superintendents and school
board members.
The research was also delimited to participants who had training at various stages
of their school governance careers. The surveys were dependent on the reflection of the
participant, assuming each participant was able to remember the MIG training experience
with accuracy. The documents reviewed did not reveal the date on which each member
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 16
was trained, leaving the possibility that the survey responses included recently trained
participants as well as participants who were trained multiple years ago.
Delimitations
Given the above limitations, the study was conducted in districts that met 2,000-
50,000 Average Daily Attendance (ADA) requirements; had elementary, secondary, and
unified schools; and had demonstrated a growth in Academic Performance Index (API) of
at least 21 points over the previous 3 years. The researcher paid specific attention to the
governance team in these districts. The superintendents were included in the study to
provide dynamic feedback and insight into school board training. Also, training materials
and documents were examined to determine the content of school board training provided
by CSBA in order to verify that the training met the criteria of effective school board
practice as defined by The Lighthouse Inquiry I study (IASB, 2001). The criterion for
selecting school districts was dependent on the majority of the governance team ’s partici-
pation in the MIG training; other training was not considered for this study. This pur-
poseful sampling was done to include as many participants as possible who had attended
school board training and had demonstrated effective governance practice.
Assumptions
Assumptions about research tools, participants, and school board training were
made. It was assumed that the qualitative instruments used were valid and reliable. In
order to support the findings, it was assumed that school board members, as participants,
had a direct governance impact on their districts. Assumptions made about school board
training were that training improves practice, school board members should commit to
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 17
training, and training has the ability to improve superintendent and school board rela-
tions. Assumptions specific to CSBA ’s MIG training were that the information provided
by CSBA was accurate and that the MIG training was research based.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): A single number, ranging from 200 to 1,000
that summarizes a school ’s or local educational agency ’s (LEA) performance level, as
measured by the results of statewide testing (American Institute for Research, 2003).
Accountability: Includes but is not limited to the requirements that all students
meet a specific level of proficiency in mathematics and English as measured by state
standardized tests. Accountability includes but is not limited to the acknowledgement
and acceptance of responsibility for contributing to achievement by students under one ’s
jurisdiction through the implementation of best practices and effective governance
(Larsen, Lipscomb, & Jacquet, 2011).
Accountability assessments: A reference to the state API, the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and
Program Improvement (PI; Gemberling et al., 2000; Larsen et al., 2011).
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. The number
of students attending every school day equals the ADA (NSBA, 2010b).
Board of Trustees: The representative body (3, 5, or 7) local elected officials
charged with the responsibility of governance of the local school district (CSBA, 2007).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 18
California School Boards Association (CSBA): An organization entrusted with
responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and training for school board members
throughout the state of California (CSBA, 2007).
Effective board leadership: The practice of school boards to not interfere with the
super int e nde nt’s obl igations to manage the school system and conduct day-to-day affairs
by avoiding micromanaging of the superintendent (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Leithwood
et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through
the development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA,
2007; Gemberling et al., 2000).
Mandate: The term used to describe a direction that is not voluntary and is
required by all members of a certain group, with specific emphasis on school board
members (Bianchi, 2003).
Masters in Governance Training (MIG): Nine separate modules of training pro-
vided by the CSBA aimed at school board members to provide the necessary knowledge
and skills to support an effective governance structure (CSBA, 2007).
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) in 2001. This legislation sets forth aggressive guidelines
for schools and school districts to meet student performance goals by 2016 (Larsen et al.,
2011).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 19
Professional development: Continuing education that keeps school board
members abreast of educational issues to increase their skills, while empowering the
organization (school district) to be forward thinking (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School board: A group of nonpartisan citizens who live within the corresponding
sc hool di strict’ s bounda ri e s and are elected to a school governing board only by residents
of that area to represent their interests (CSBA, 2007).
School board member: A person who is elected to govern schools, making up the
public portion of a school district ’s governance team. They bridge the public values into
the schools. Their decisions have long-term impact on their communities and schools
(Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School district: An education agency at the local level that exists to operate public
schools; synonymous with “local education agency (NSBA, 2010a).
Superintendent: The superintendent is the professional member of the school dis-
trict’ s g ov e rna n c e te a m. The supe rinte nde nt i s a c c ountable f or the dir e c ti on of the scho ol
district (Fusarelli, 2006; Land, 2002).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 20
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The educational system in the United States is a foundation for equality and the
betterment of all individuals in society. It is a complex system that is expected to meet
the needs of diverse learners, to constantly grow and adapt to the community, and not
only to survive but to thrive with limited resources. School board members, charged with
governing these schools, act as part of this complicated system. This chapter reviews the
literature regarding leadership and school board governance, the complexity of the role
that school board members play in effective school districts, and the role of school board
training. In order to gain a clear perspective of school board training, the following
related topics are presented: a historical review of school governance, the roles and
responsibilities of school board members, and effective leadership characteristics of
school districts. Focus is placed on the literature as it pertains to effective superintendent
and school board leadership and relationships, to school board accountability, and to
school board training as it currently exists.
Data in these areas tend to be qualitative in nature, focusing on surveys and anec-
dotal experiences of superintendents and school board members. There is very little
research directly linking school board training to school board effectiveness; however,
there is strong evidence that indicates that the effectiveness of school boards is an
important component of successful school districts (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; IASB,
2001). While school board training is mandated by some states, it is unregulated and
mostly left to the discretion of state school board associations. The CSBA is one of many
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 21
state school boards associations that offers training for school board members. Their
training, the MIG program, is offered to governance teams, but it is not mandatory.
Although the literature suggests that training is essential to effective school governance,
questions remain regarding the effectiveness of individual programs such as the MIG.
Historical Context
As the landscape of the American education system has changed, so too has the
role of the school board of education and its members. The school board of education
has evolved from a local government representative system to, in some cases, a highly
political role in local government (Land, 2002). As schooling in the United States has
changed, the school board has come to be viewed as a strong example of democracy,
strengthening citizen representation and participation in local government. Although
there are many similarities among school boards nationally, they do not all look the same,
and differences are sharpest between small districts and larger, more urban districts
(Hess, 2002). These differences are what make school boards complex and dynamic
local entities. School boards have always been a way for citizens to influence local
school governance directly. However, legislation (such as NCLB) and community pres-
sures (the demand for a closure of the achievement gap) has evolved these entities into
political bodies that are influenced not only by their local communities but also by the
federal government and by the governments of the states (Land, 2002).
According to Land (2002), school boards can be traced back more than 200 years
to Massachusetts, when selectmen were used in local government to represent the voice
of the people. As the population grew, the responsibilities of these selectmen grew as
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 22
well. This growth led to the promotion of school governance into the larger political
arena of local governance. Growth in population and the growing needs of local schools
led to the establishment of school districts. Under this new governance system, commit-
tees were appointed within individual towns to govern education. These bodies were
formed into smaller, more localized districts and funded by local taxes. Massachusetts
enacted legislation in 1891 that gave each district financial and administrative authority
of its schools. Oversight and management of public education was handled by these
boards for the first 50-60 years after the establishment of the public school system (Land,
2002).
The political system in which school board members are elected has undergone
similar changes. In the mid 1800s school board members were most commonly elected
by their local neighborhoods. As a result, members were selected on the basis of neigh-
borhood politics, which distracted from the focus on schools, which many thought neces-
sary to improve education (Land, 2002).
In the first two decades of the 20th century, there was a push to change the elec-
toral processes that governed the election of school board members. Among the many
motivators for this reform were the desire for greater responsiveness to the growing needs
of schools, for less political distraction, for less corruption of school board members, and
for the needs of the diversity of student populations to be met (Danzberger, 1994; Land,
2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). During this time, local education governance became more
centralized. Board members were elected within smaller city schools, via citywide elec-
tions. These elected positions were filled by lay people, not by professional educators or
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 23
politicians. This centralized governance structure was modeled after corporate boards
and shifted focus away from daily administration and toward policy making. The daily
administration of the school district was largely entrusted to the superintendent.
Land (2002) indicated that the scope of the school board ’s hand in governance has
changed significantly in the past 60 years. By the 1950s the authority of the national and
state government ’s influence over education began to grow, mostly due to funding
sources. In the 1950s and 1960s the national government ’s most notable influence in
local education began with the court decision of Brown v. Board of Education (as cited in
Tushnet & Lezin, 1991). This court decision, which mandated desegregation of public
schools, led to the ESEA of 1965, which tied federal funds to the integration of schools.
Under this new legislation, local school boards lost some of their control and were forced
to accede to the integration of the schools that they governed. Because of this shift in
power, albeit years later, national accountability in the form of NCLB was born.
NCLB was signed into law in 2001, tying even more funds to meeting national
and state goals (Land, 2002). Like all policy, NCLB was brought about from the stresses
and demands of the American public. The stress began with the publishing of A Nation
at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), a document proclaim-
ing the weaknesses of the American education system. The findings of A Nation at Risk
concluded, that the decline in student academic performance was a result of the educa-
tional systems in place. In other words, there needed to be more accountability for
student learning in public schools. The authors called for national reflection on the edu-
cational process, with a particular focus on content, expectations, time, and teaching. A
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 24
Nation at Risk contributed to the view that low standards and expectations for students
were an immediate problem for education. This in turn led citizens and educational
stakeholders to look to the federal government to create policy around educational
expectations, teaching, and accountability, eventually taking the form of NCLB.
The fact that the nation did not look to local school boards for these improve-
ments was very telling, implying that the federal and state government should circumvent
school board authority if progress in education were to be made (Danzberger et al.,
1987). School boards were seen positively, in the sense that local citizens felt that they
had a direct connection to the government through the school board members, yet many
educational reform movements prior to the passage of NCLB neglected the importance of
school boards. For many years school boards were deemed as having separate agendas
from federal and state educational policy makers (Danzberger, 1994). By the early
1990s, scholars began to look at the importance of federal, state, and local governing
bodies having similar agendas.
School Boards of the 21st Century
During the 1990s the NSBA looked to define the role of the school board (Land,
2002). Land (2002) suggested that, because of increased national focus on the achieve-
ment gap and on accountability for those in education, the NSBA looked to align its goals
more closely with the goals of the federal government and with those of the states.
Clearer roles and responsibilities for school board members, along with increased federal
and state accountability, have thrust the school board into the midst of the highly political
realm of American public education. The school board is no longer seen as a passive
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 25
player in the arena of education. The changes in policy and community expectations
have thrust school boards into the arena as key players in educational reform.
Research indicates that school boards of the 21st century can be distinguished by
their emphasis on student achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000; Hess, 2002; Land, 2002;
Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The evolution of education has pushed all players, including school
board members, toward a focus on increased student achievement and accountability.
School boards have made concentrated efforts to make student achievement their primary
focus. These efforts are often in response to federal and state mandates, which have
made the outcomes of high-stakes testing a measure of the success of schools and there-
fore, by association, a reflection of school boards.
Hess ’s (2002) survey of school board members indicated that school boards
tended to function with five to eight members who typically serve 4-year terms. Boards
tend to be more racially diverse than state and nationally elected officials, yet they remain
less diverse than the total national population. More males than females serve on school
boards. Surveys have found that board members tend to be better educated and have
higher incomes than most Americans. Larger district boards have fewer professionals
and businesspeople; these boards tend to have more educators, retirees, and homemakers
as members (Hess, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Currently, school boards take two forms: small district boards and large district
boards. Often, the nation focuses on and discusses the issues of these large boards, but
the smaller district boards are by far more plentiful. Only 2% of school districts enroll
25,000 or more students, the cutoff for Hess ’s (2002) definition of larger districts. Large
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 26
district boards find issues such as school violence, substance abuse, teacher shortages,
and classroom overcrowding dominating their policy discussions (Hess, 2002). In a
broad context, large district boards have more concerns than do smaller districts. Smaller
districts are more concerned with special education, educational technology, and the
quality of teachers. Not surprisingly, large and small districts are equally concerned
about funding and student achievement (Hess, 2002).
The historical research on school boards indicates that school board members
have become more important in the landscape of the American education system (Hess,
2002; Land, 2002). With increased accountability and public scrutiny, school board
members have a rising level of responsibility to their community ’s children. The formal
requirements to be a school board member have not changed much, but the job itself
continues to evolve and transform. It can be understood from the literature that school
board members today are asked to complete and accomplish tasks that school board
members of the past were not expected to assume. Because of these new governance
responsibilities, it is important that all members be well informed and have a depth of
knowledge regarding the policy decisions that they are regularly asked to make. Training
and professional development can ensure that this knowledge is available to school board
members.
School Board Member Roles and Responsibilities
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is essential to the
formation of educational governance. It gives states the right to govern that which is not
expressly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Since the Constitution
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 27
does not expressly dictate how schools should be run, freedom for each state to govern its
own schools is granted by this Amendment. The spirit of this Amendment is to make the
local governance of schools less centralized, allowing local communities to lead policy
making in their cities and states. In this sense, policy makers are more accountable to
their communities as well; local politicians are responsible for local governance.
Evolution and Challenges
The function and roles of school board members have shifted and evolved
throughout the years due to the changing population growth and political climate in the
United States (Dahlkemper, 2005; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). With the changing
function and roles of school board members, the challenge has been to define clearly their
responsibilities in the governance process. National and local organizations such as the
NSBA and CSBA have tried to give their members guidance in this area (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000). Even with these efforts, complexity and confusion remain, and
some school boards are not able to govern effectively due to conflict generated by this
lack of clarity (Danzberger, 1994).
Some argue that the school board is the closest that local citizens get to their gov-
ernment representatives; more people know a local school board member than know their
Congressperson or governor (Danzberger, 1994). Although the governance of education
has changed considerably since the 1990s, moving from a decentralized governing body
to a more centralized body, the local school board maintains many roles and responsibili-
ties within the framework of school governance (Land, 2002). NCLB has reframed the
roles and responsibilities of the school board, holding them more accountable in the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 28
process of student achievement and fiscal spending (Dahlkemper, 2005; Land, 2002).
School boards have more federal and state guidelines to follow to receive categorical
funding. Categorical funds, more commonly known as “block grants,” are restricted
funds that can be used only for specific purposes and may be conditional on the imple-
mentation of federal or state regulations or the achievement of mandated targets. In 1980
about 13% of funds were placed within these categorical restrictions, from 19 programs.
By the early 2000s categorical funding approached 40%, from approximately 100 pro-
grams (Timar, 2003).
The NSBA has defined the core decision-making functions of school boards to be
establishing a long-term vision, establishment and maintenance of the organizational
structure of the school system, establishment of accountability systems (for fiscal matters,
programs, students, and staff), and advocacy on behalf of children (Campbell & Greene,
1994; Gemberling et al., 2000). Similar functions can currently be found in the CSBA
description of their expectation of board member ’s role and responsibilities. CSBA
(2007) stated that their five major responsibilities are (a) setting the direction of schools
in the community, (b) establishing an effective and efficient structure for the school
district, (c) providing support through behavior and actions, (d) ensuring accountability to
the public, and (e) acting as community leaders. With the creation of the aforementioned
roles and responsibilities, these associations are promoting school board member practice
that encourages the governance team to work toward the same goals, focused on student
achievement (Gemberling et al., 2000).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 29
Although clear definitions of school board member responsibilities can be found,
those involved in education are aware that no two school boards function alike
(McAdams, 2002). Much confusion is due to a lack of clear state laws regulating the
governance of school boards. Most states do not have a single statute that delineates the
roles and responsibilities of the school board and the superintendent (Campbell & Green,
1994; Hill et al., 2002; McAdams, 2002). This lack of clarity often causes power strug-
gles and political battles between the school board and the superintendent, as well as
ambiguity regarding the scope of actions for which school boards are accountable (Hill et
al., 2002; McAdams, 2002). These responsibilities can include reviewing and approving
district finances, approving changes in district boundaries, granting charters, making
aggregate student data available to the public at board meetings, hiring the district ’s
superintendent, and supplying and maintaining school facilities (Hill et al., 2002).
The complexity of the school board ’s role in governance is largely due to the fact
that they are expected to serve as the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of
school districts (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). By adopting budgets, passing regulations, and set-
ting policy, they act in a legislative capacity. Board members are accountable to their
constituency, the community. Often, the community brings issues to the board that they
feel need to be “fixed.” The board has to decide for which issues they will create policy,
and which issues do not require board action. This balance is difficult. Although the
board members state that their main concern is student achievement, in reality they often
consider the needs of interest groups and their voting power (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). It is
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 30
this conflict between stated goals and pursued goals that causes individuals to question
the effectiveness of these governing bodies (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
In addition to the legislative duties of school boards, they are expected to act in an
executive capacity when they implement the policies that they have set. In most cases,
the school board oversees expenditures and contracted services, which is comparable to
the role played by corporate accountants. As executives, boards are expected to approve
employee appointments, including all positions from classroom teachers to the superin-
tendent (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The degree to which a school board executes these respon-
sibilities varies from district to district. In some cases, the school board is instrumental in
making executive decisions; in others, they are asked only to “rubber stamp ” decisions
made by superintendents and other district officials.
Along with their legislative and executive responsibilities, school boards often
serve as the judicial branch of the school district. Judicial hearings, such as student sus-
pensions, expulsions, and interdistrict transfers, are often responsibilities of the school
board (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In many cases, parents, students, teachers, and other com-
munity members use school board meetings to appeal decisions made by others. The
school board can uphold or overturn district decisions in a fashion similar to the Ameri-
can hierarchical court system.
With all of these responsibilities, it is not surprising that there is debate over the
capability of school board members to perform these tasks with complete competence
and care (Danzberger, 1994; Kolb & Strauss, 1999). As the priorities of school boards
have changed from policy making to adherence of federal and state policy, attendant with
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 31
the centralization of policy making to these higher levels of government, boards have
been required to evaluate their role. Student achievement is currently the focus of all
districts ’ mission and vision (Hess, 2002; Land, 2002), but their educational and political
competency is a widely debated topic.
Because of the complexity of the changing needs of society, specifically students,
educational governance is crucial to the continued improvement of society. With this
ambitious target in mind, it is important that school board members have a clear sense of
how they exercise their authority. The literature indicates that the roles, responsibilities,
and accountability of school board members have increased over time, yet a clear deline-
ation of these roles and responsibilities from those of the superintendent is essential for
effective practice (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994; Fusarelli, 2006; Hill et al., 2002;
Land, 2002; Thomas, 2001; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). To ensure that every school board
member understands his or her responsibilities and has the ability to carry them out,
common responsibilities and accountability are the next logical step for school gov-
ernance teams.
Leadership
The importance of effective school leadership is prevalent in educational research
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Elmore, 2000; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Educational leadership research suggests that leaders must value their role and make pur-
poseful decisions (Leithwood et al., 2008). Bolman and Deal (2003) argued that leader-
ship is a subtle, holistic “process of mutual influence fusing thought, feeling, and action
to produce cooperative effort in the service of purposes and values embraced by both the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 32
leader and the led ” (p. 339). The key players guiding the goals and practices of the
school district are naturally the superintendent and the board of education. Separately,
their leadership makes a difference, but it is often the collaborative leadership of the
school board and the superintendent that elevates student achievement. This same col-
laboration makes the school district successful in the eyes of the community. There are
many implications for school boards and superintendents working in solidarity toward
improved student outcomes. Schools that show the most success and have strong district
and school site leadership are often used in case studies seeking to identify effective
practices (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano,
2006).
The literature speaks to the importance of effective leadership from all members
of the governance team, both superintendents and school board members (IASB, 2001;
Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Although these two roles are often
different, similar leadership characteristics and practice are necessary to propel districts
forward. All members of the governance team should be focused on student achieve-
ment, and effective leadership skills drive the two roles in governance to commit to one
set of goals and to a united path to accomplishing those goals.
Superintendent Leadership
Superintendent leadership is a well-studied subject in the field of education.
Although there are no conclusive quantitative findings, patterns emerge from the qualita-
tive research. Effective superintendents support shared leadership, engaging community
members in goal setting and district initiatives (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003; Fusarelli,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 33
2006; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Strong leadership is organized
around clear visions and goals and, importantly, communicates these to all stakeholders
(Datnow et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006). After having
established these clear goals and expectations, strong superintendent leaders focus on
accountability for those goals and resource allocations to support those goals. Strong
superintendent leadership fosters the development of effective teachers through profes-
sional development and high performance expectations (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003;
Datnow et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008).
Effective superintendent leadership has been found to have a positive correlation
to student achievement. In a meta-analysis of 27 studies conducted in the 1970s that used
rigorous, quantitative methods, Waters and Marzano (2006) found a statistically signifi-
cant relationship between district leadership and student achievement. Specifically, they
found that five district-level responsibilities influence student achievement.
The first of these responsibilities is collaborative goal setting. Collaborative goal
setting is accomplished when the superintendent includes all relevant stakeholders in the
setting of district goals. This responsibility influences the relationships the superinten-
dent builds with the community and board members as well. By including stakeholders
the superintendent is able to give value to others ’ o pini ons wh ile gaining buy-in for goals
that are set for all students.
The second responsibility is nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). Through the goal-setting process, it is essential to establish
nonnegotiable goals for student achievement and classroom instruction. As the leader of
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 34
the district, there is importance placed on the superintendent and his administrative staff
to set specific achievement targets for the district, school sites, and student subgroups
(such as English learners, African American students, low socioeconomic students, etc.).
It is important that these goals be articulated to every school site and every classroom
teacher, and then supported explicitly and implicitly by administration.
Board alignment with and support of district goals is the third responsibility of an
effective superintendent (Waters & Marzano, 2006). This responsibility converges with
the responsibilities of the school board, in that it takes both the superintendent and the
school board working together on the nonnegotiable goals set for student achievement
and classroom instruction. It is important that the board not detract attention or resources
from the goals, ensuring that they are the top priority. In most cases, school boards can
do this by adopting 5-year goals for achievement. The superintendent ’s job is to lead the
board in shaping these goals and maintaining effective and collaborative relationships
with board members.
Accountability through monitoring achievement and instructional goals is the
fourth responsibility to show a positive correlation to student achievement (Waters &
Marzano, 2006). Continual monitoring of district, school, and subgroup progress toward
set goals ensures that these goals are the motivating force behind district efforts. It is
important that the superintendent expect schools to examine their progress toward goals
and analyze any discrepancies in achievement. Instructional practices should be exam-
ined as well, in order to attain goals. If goals are neglected and not monitored, effective
research-based instructional practices and student achievement may not be achieved.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 35
The fifth responsibility for effective superintendents is the use of resources to
support the goals for instruction and achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Resources
such as time, money, personnel, and materials should be used to accomplish the goals
that the district has set. There are often many financial needs throughout each school
year. It is important that the superintendent align spending with the goals set through a
commitment of spending. This commitment might call for cutbacks in areas that are not
aligned with district goals.
Superintendent leadership matters and is correlated to student achievement.
Effective superintendent leadership can positively influence governance by setting clear
goals for the district. Districts that have been successful in moving students forward in
academic achievement have exhibited trends in their practice. Taking measured steps in
leadership performance is a necessary piece of the effectiveness puzzle.
School Board Leadership
For better or worse, school boards remain the governing force in public education.
The leadership of the school board has significant implications for achievement by
students. Because board member responsibilities are often unclear and because the
breadth of tasks that school boards are asked to accomplish is often overwhelming, effec-
tive school boards are to be viewed as pillars of success. The recipe for school board
effectiveness is not exact; however, there are similarities among school boards in high-
achieving districts, and research in this area has produced tangible results.
Meta-analyses (e.g., Waters & Marzano, 2006), case studies (Goodman, Ful-
bright, & Zimmerman, 1997; Togneri & Anderson, 2003), and studies on comparison
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 36
districts (IASB, 2001) have identified behaviors of high-achieving districts that contrib-
ute to successful governance. Effective school boards commit to high expectations of
student achievement and practice (IASB, 2001). As characterizes effective superin-
tendence, high expectations are made clear through nonnegotiable goals set via a collabo-
rative process. The goals of the superintendent and the district should be aligned and the
goals should be monitored and supported. The belief that school leaders can improve
student achievement should drive all district goals and decisions (Land, 2002; Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
The certainty that all students can succeed is essential for effective school boards
(IASB, 2001). School boards can contribute to this process by looking for ways that
policy and district initiatives have affected student achievement. Challenges that schools
face as a result of student demographics, such as poverty, language barriers, and lack of
parent involvement, should be viewed as surmountable obstacles (IASB, 2001). In low-
achieving districts, board members often view external factors as excuses for poor
achievement, giving up on certain populations of students (IASB, 2001). This view is
toxic and not found in districts with high-performing students.
Most school districts have changed with the times. Their focus is clearly on
student achievement (Hess, 2002; Land, 2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Effective dis-
tricts spend more time focused on policies to improve student achievement and less time
on operational issues. This concentration on student achievement is driven less by focus
on the day-to-day governance of the district and more by focus on goal setting and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 37
strategic planning. In most cases that exhibit success in this way, there is little role con-
fusion, and the board members adhere to the agenda process (Goodman et al., 1997).
A collaborative relationship with district staff and with the community is essential
to effective school board leadership. These relationships are established and maintained
through strong communication structures (IASB, 2001). Effective districts receive their
information from multiple sources and it is shared equally; information given to one
member should be shared by all. This allows the district to be sensitive to the com-
munity ’s needs and allows the community to be well informed on local district issues.
The involvement and encouragement of district stakeholders in goal setting and infor-
mation sharing is found in high-achieving districts (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
As the use of technology and information sharing grows, the school boards that
are best at managing data are the most effective. Because of a focus on student achieve-
ment, the collection and use of data and the accountability that it fosters are needed to
drive policy and instruction in high-achieving districts (Datnow et al., 2007; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Discussions that focus on district trends can use data to diagnose the
problem and seek solutions. Where low-performing schools might use data to blame
teachers, parents, or students, high-performing districts use data to have rich conversa-
tions about curricular and instructional needs (Datnow et al., 2007). High-performing
districts not only use data; they encourage all district staff to use data to drive decision
making and instruction. Resources are allocated to data systems and data system training
(Datnow et al., 2007).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 38
The alignment of resources to meet district goals and promote student achieve-
ment is commonly found in high-achieving school districts (IASB, 2001; Waters &
Marzano, 2006). As fiscal resources dwindle, it is important for school boards to priori-
tize the use of district funds. A common expenditure for high-performing districts is pro-
fessional development that aligns with district goals. There is extensive research into
what types of professional development are effective. One conclusion of this research is
that districts that use resources to promote curriculum and to promote research-based
instructional practice are common in high-achieving schools (Datnow et al., 2007; IASB,
2001).
School boards that lead as united teams and exhibit mutual trust and strong col-
laboration with the superintendent tend to be more effective than those that do not do so.
A collaborative relationship between the board and the superintendent can create a dis-
trict environment that supports student learning and maintains high expectations for all
students. This collaboration at the top inspires wider collaboration through community
participation in the governance process and local support for schools (Brenner Thurlow et
al., 2002). Sound board policies that are supported by all stakeholders are often a result
of a strong school board/superintendent relationship. This is often where low-performing
school districts have difficulty. As argued previously, the relationship between the
school board and superintendent can be difficult due to role confusion and school board
members ’ personal political agendas.
Much of the literature emphasizes the importance of a harmonious governance
team; the relationship between the superintendent and the school board is imperative to
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 39
effective governance practice (Danzberger, 1994; Fusarelli, 2006; Land, 2002; Thomas,
2001). When the relationship is strained due to mistrust, due to perceived incompetence,
and/or due to poor communication, the goals of the district are often forgotten and the
importance of student learning loses its significance. Ideally, the school board members
and the superintendent work as a team, always focusing on students and supporting the
needs of the district through their policy and decisions. Many of the conflicts between
school boards and their superintendents come from lack of clarity in roles. Clarity is
developed with training and professional development (Thomas, 2001).
Team development and training is critical to the effectiveness of school boards
(IASB, 2001; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Training and development are focused on
building shared knowledge, role definitions, and values and commitments of the board.
Effective school boards often report that they have participated in activities or training in
which they learned together as a board. In some cases the superintendent participates
with the group (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; IASB, 2001; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Effective school boards often exhibit behaviors learned in training and professional
development, whether that training is formal state school board association training or
district-level work-and-study sessions. Clearly absent from low-achieving districts are
opportunities for school board members to learn together (IASB, 2001).
The reviewed literature supports that, in order to improve student achievement,
essential practices by site-level administrators and district-level leaders must be in place.
Among the most important practices are clear goals, high expectations for every student,
and a focus on student achievement. Successful school districts have effective
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 40
leadership. Governance teams that have been successful have been so because of col-
laboration, the alignment of resources, and training. The literature shows that
accountability for these practices is essential to sustain growth and continue success by
students.
Accountability of School Board Members
Accountability is clearly a highly politicized issue in education (Berry & Howell,
2007). Accountability has been suggested as a potential component in addressing the
presence of an achievement gap between minority students and their White peers.
Accountability in education can be defined as responsibility for outcomes. All stake-
holders take shared responsibility for students ’ success and failures, yet each stakeholder
is held accountable differently (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Whereas teachers are held
accountable for their instruction, school board members are held accountable for district
policies and the success of their choice of superintendent. In an educational climate that
implements increased accountability for stakeholders through high-stakes testing, the
accountability for school board members is no exception. The literature suggests that
accountability for school board members is high and the demands of their job are excep-
tionally complex (Hill et al., 2002).
School board members are not only accountable for improved student achieve-
ment; they are accountable for multiple functions, including the school district ’s financial
solvency, policymaking, and superintendent evaluation (Hill et al., 2002). School board
members, like administrators and teachers, are accountable to parents and students; how-
ever, their elected positions also make them accountable to the community as a whole.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 41
School board members are expected to represent the needs of their communities, to be
trustees for children, and to serve as delegates to the state (Hill et al., 2002). These
expectations leave school board members vulnerable in the accountability process. Their
vulnerability is played out through local elections in which school board members are
often held accountable for student achievement (Berry & Howell, 2007). This account-
ability is twofold; there is pressure to be accountable for student achievement while the
pressure of accountability to voters remains equally important. School board members
must balance their roles and answer to both.
Accountability for Student Achievement
Although there is little empirical evidence that directly links school board prac-
tices with student achievement, school boards are nonetheless held accountable (Brenner
Thurlow et al., 2002; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Along with the responsibility for
student achievement, school boards assume responsibilities for policy making, financial
decisions, curriculum adoption, and professional development and personnel decisions.
It is an overwhelming set of tasks, yet school boards are asked to perform these tasks
while maintaining rigorous standards for student achievement (Hill et al., 2002). The
community, district staff, parents, and students hold school boards accountable for these
responsibilities, just as school board members hold administrators and teachers account-
able.
Quantitative data regarding school board practices and student achievement
results are hard to find, yet there is evidence that best practices exist. School boards that
maintain targeted focus on student achievement tend to cooperate with one another, tend
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 42
to have clear established standards of excellence, and tend to promote student achieve-
ment. In order for school board members to meet their accountability targets, they should
initiate, encourage, and support district efforts for accountability. A shared accountabil-
ity process is critical if school board members are to live up to their implied promise of
improved student achievement (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002).
This shared accountability process has key characteristics, according to
Gemberling et al. (2000), as outlined in The Key Works of School Boards Guidebook.
This process should be strong and should focus on student results. The results of school
board member actions are verified using data on the outcome of their policies. Building
the capacity for data collection and analysis allows school boards to focus their attention
on the students who need it most. Boards can have data-rich conversations about the
needs of their subgroup populations, including African American, English learner, His-
panic, and Special Education students.
Gemberling et al. (2000) stated that success in this process is measured according
to growth over time and improved student achievement. Multiple data points are often a
more significant measure of student achievement than the results of one high-stakes test.
Through the use of multiple measures, student data can be analyzed for growth, not just
end results. If needed, these growth data can be used to make insightful adjustments to
instruction and curriculum for subgroups (Datnow et al., 2007). In order for school board
members to remain accountable to parents and students, the analyzed data should be pub-
lished for stakeholders (Gemberling et al., 2000). The community better understands the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 43
decisions made by school board members when district data are published in a compre-
hensible format.
Using data to drive decision making allows school boards to add or eliminate
programs, curriculum, and personnel to improve student achievement. Student data can
be used to analyze trends and patterns, further informing the decisions made by school
board members (Gemberling et al., 2000). When school board members maintain focus
on student achievement and share in the accountability of this process, their decisions can
be informed more by what they know to work well than by political concerns (Waters &
Marzano, 2006). Although school board members are accountable to their voters, which
may include interest groups who might hope for politically based decisions, school board
members ’ success is measured by improved student achievement. School board support
for or elimination of programs, combined with public knowledge of student data, ensures
that school board members are accountable to the community while gaining their support
for data-based decisions.
Accountability to Voters
In California most school board members are elected, with very few being
appointed (CSBA, 2007; Hess, 2002). Elected school board members are held account-
able to their voters by the prospect of being voted out of office. This vulnerability to
voters can work in the favor of children if the school board member uses data to make
decisions and focuses on the mission of student achievement. This is not always the case
(Mountford, 2004). Some voters select school board members on the basis of single
prominent issues in the campaign, for example promising to fire the superintendent or to
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 44
replace the science curriculum (Mountford, 2004). This type of accountability can poison
a harmonious board and halt an effective accountability system by redirecting the board ’s
time and efforts away from the focus on student achievement (Mountford, 2004).
According to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), voters in California
are more likely to re-elect board members if schools meet their goals for student
achievement (Larsen et al., 2011). These findings are attributed to the increased account-
ability that NCLB has placed on school boards and superintendents. These findings also
indicate that districts that meet NCLB ’s AYP requirement are more likely to re-elect
incumbent board members. These findings do not establish whether school boards or
superintendents are in fact more accountable, just that voters tend to favor school boards
that meet student achievement targets. As a result, school board members know that they
are accountable to their communities.
Among NCLB ’s accountability measures are sanctions for districts and schools
that do not meet their targets; however, there are no provisions in the legislation for
school boards. The federal and state accountability model promotes the use of the politi-
cal system to hold school board members accountable, partially through the publication
of statewide test results. It is up to the school board members to then hold administrators
and schools accountable for effective teaching and learning. Ideally, this accountability
system would work in all contexts; unfortunately, education is not a hard science, and
there are always human motivations that seem to derail this process.
Because school board members are elected members in the educational gov-
ernance team, their role and level of accountability are complex. It is necessary for them
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 45
to contribute to a shared accountability model within the school district system while
meeting the needs of their community members. School board members are held
accountable through sanctions and by being voted out of office. This provides external
motivation for governance teams to use data to measure the growth of their students and
to make governance decisions that benefit student achievement. School board members
guide the district, which makes them highly accountable for the progress of districts and
their students.
School Board Training
Generalizations about school boards run the risk of being just that: true in some
cases, and false in others. To generalize the training of school board members would be
difficult because every state enacts its own version of training and accountability systems
vary from strictly mandatory to completely voluntary. A national survey of school board
members indicated that only half to three-quarters of board members reported having
been trained in all areas of local governance (Hess, 2002). With public demands for
school board members being high and a continuous push for national accountability for
student achievement, school board members face challenges for which they are expected
to be prepared. State officials, school board associations, and advocates agree that school
board members need adequate training to be effective in their governing positions
(Danzberger, 1994; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Taking a critical look at school boards brings to light the difficulties faced by
these governing bodies. Often, school board members use their position to micromanage
districts, not understanding their role in the governing process. Some members come to
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 46
their positions with an understanding of their community ’s needs and values but lack
understanding of the technical elements of boardsmanship (Dillion, 2010). School boards
can become fractured entities, focusing on special interests, not achievement by all
students. Inadequate policy making, accountability, and oversight can lead to the public
losing faith in their local governing board (Danzberger, 1994). In order to avoid these
difficulties and many others, adequate training for school board members is necessary
and often a critical piece in establishing clear roles and responsibilities for board
members (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; Campbell & Greene, 1994).
Given that most school board members do not have a background in educational
governance (Hess, 2002), most members face a distinct learning curve when joining a
school board. School board members face the complex needs of students and are often
met with fiscal challenges of operating a school board. To navigate the deep and often
rocky waters of educational governance, training for school board members is necessary.
Although necessary, it is often not mandated (Bianchi, 2003). The governance of schools
remains a function of the state, and each state, individually, decides the necessary training
school board members must have, if any.
In a survey by the NSBA (2010a), the mandatory training practices of all 50 states
were revealed. Twenty states required school board members to receive training. The
state school boards association provides training in these states; 19 of the 20 states allow
other approved training providers. States mandating training are scattered throughout the
United States, ranging from Arkansas to New York. Within these “mandated ” states,
who is responsible for being trained, accountability for training, mandated training topics,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 47
and expected hours of training differ. Mandated training is expected only for new school
board members in 6 of the 20 states, including Minnesota and New York, while 14 of the
20 expect new members and veteran members to attend training. Topics that are covered
vary; in Maine the only mandated topic is Freedom of Access, and in South Carolina
mandated topics include roles, legal, superintendent relations, procedures, budget, and
employee relations. Eleven (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia) of the 20 “mandated ” states
have enforcement provisions in their mandated training laws. In Mississippi, Kentucky,
and New Jersey, school board members can be removed from the position if mandated
hours are not completed. Mandated hours range from 2 hours (Maine) to 16 hours (Mis-
souri) to meet state requirements (Kolb & Strauss, 1999; NSBA, 2010a; Roberts &
Sampson, 2011).
The nature of the incongruous training in which each state participates is shaped
by the lack of federal control over school boards. Although the NSBA has published The
Key Works of School Boards Guidebook (Gemberling et al.), their document is a frame-
work for school boards, not a federally mandated way to govern. The publication pro-
vides school boards with eight “key ” actions on which boards are to focus efforts: vision,
standards, assessment, accountability, resource alignment, climate, collaboration, and
continuous improvement. Each key is explored in depth, giving school board members
the definition of the “key ” action item, a self-assessments to evaluate readiness, guiding
questions, a differentiation of roles for school board members and superintendents, con-
siderations for school district planning teams, references, and a case study that profiles a
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 48
school board effectively using the “key ” action. The document has helped to frame the
work of school boards, effectively guiding the training that is provided to these members.
Often, states without mandated training, such as California, offer training through
their state board of education associations. The CSBA provides professional develop-
ment for school boards using the MIG training program. The MIG contains nine mod-
ules, totaling 60 hours of training: Foundations of Effective Governance, Setting
Direction, Human Resources, Policy and Judicial Review, Student Learning and
Achievement, School Finance, Collective Bargaining, Community Relations and Advo-
cacy, and Governance Integration. The modules can be taken in any order within the 2-
year completion deadline, with the exception of Foundations of Effective Governance,
which is recommended to be taken first, and Governance Integration, which cannot be
taken until all other eight modules have been completed. The goal of the training,
according to CSBA, is to define the roles and responsibilities of school governance and
provide tools and strategies to help governance teams to focus on student achievement
(CSBA, 2007). CSBA encourages superintendents to complete this training alongside
their board members as part of the governance team.
The CSBA training closely resembles the framework set forth by the NSBA in the
Key Works document (Gemberling et al., 2000). Seven of the categories found in the
document can be found in the module training given by the CSBA (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000). These similarities suggest that California shares expectations
for their school board members. The close alignment ensures that all California board
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 49
members who are trained have clear roles and responsibilities and a deeper understanding
of the complexity of their governance.
This close relationship to the NSBA framework ensures that California board
members trained through the CSBA MIG program are meeting a national standard for
school governance. However, this does not ensure that every board member in California
is trained, nor does it ensure accountability beyond completion of the required hours.
California lacks mandated training, leaving school board members with little account-
ability for completing the MIG program. Any accountability that is put in place for Cali-
fornia school board members is done through expectations set by superintendents, school
board peers, and local community members. The question remains in California, as it
does in 29 other states, “Should training for school board members be mandatory? ”
Although the literature is inconclusive as to the increased effectiveness of school
boards in states with required training requirements (Roberts & Sampson, 2011), the rec-
ommendations by researchers and educational leaders in qualitative studies is that school
board training (professional development) is essential for every community in order to
have school board members who are knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities
as board members and, more important, board members who are at the forefront of edu-
cational innovation (Campbell & Green, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Dillion, 2010; IASB,
2001; Land, 2002). Roberts and Sampson (2011) found that states requiring board train-
ing did not necessarily rank any higher on the Education Week state ranking system than
states that did not require training. In fact, in the states that required board training, there
seemed to be no effect on student achievement. Overall rankings showed that states with
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 50
mandated training received an average grade of C or B, compared to an average C or D
for states without mandated training (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). These results do not
strongly contraindicate training for board members and should inspire more research on
the potential link between school board training and school board effectiveness.
In the current educational climate, dynamic and knowledgeable school board
members are needed. This need stems from the growing number of students with diverse
learning requirements. Although the need for school board member knowledge has
grown, states and districts are not mandated to help school board members to build this
capacity. Studies indicate that successful school governance teams learn together,
making school board training a necessity for effective governance (Danzberger, 1994;
Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Frameworks
Throughout the literature, the characteristics of effective leadership, of effective
school boards, and of effective training for school boards are discussed and critiqued. In
order to narrow the focus of this research, a synthetic framework was developed. This
framework consist in the definitions operationalized in this study in order to further ana-
lyze effective school board leadership and training. This section will explore the defini-
tion of the above three categories, and attempt to pin down some of their content.
By using established definitions, school board training is analyzed herein for its
impact on effective leadership and practice. Leadership is itself a complicated concept
and many definitions are in use in the field of education. The use of one clear definition
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 51
is crucial to the process of analysis. Leadership will therefore be defined using the four
frames of leadership outlined in Bolman and Deal ’s (2003) Reframing Organizations.
Also crucial to the process is a clear definition of effective school board practice.
This study employed the characterization of best practice offered by research from the
Lighthouse Inquiry I (IASB, 2001).
This examination of school board training focuses on practices that have been
demonstrated in research to be linked with positive trends in student achievement and
with increases in the effectiveness of school board governance. Because optimal profes-
sional development and training for school boards has not been clearly defined by the
national government or by state governments and because we there is no mandated and
regulated training regime, a particular program was needed for this discussion to be
meaningful. Therefore, training for school board members was analyzed by using the
CSBA MIG training modules (CSBA, 2007) and the Professional Governance Standards
(CSBA, 2007), also established by the CSBA.
Leadership
The frames of leadership were described by Bolman and Deal as being a “mental
map ” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 12). The frames were further described as a set of tools
that managers and leaders use in any given situation. Leadership is complex and often
varies by individual. In most cases, the traits, decisions, and thinking of leaders can be
categorized by using one or more of Bolman and Deal ’s frames of leadership: the struc-
tural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 52
The central concepts of the structural frame are clear rules, well-defined roles,
specific goals, well-designed policies, the intelligent use of technology, and the environ-
ment (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Leaders who use the structural frame rely on clearly
defined roles and relationships to benefit the collective and individual good of the larger
organization. The use of this frame assumes that the organization ’s most important task
is to achieve targeted goals and objectives. Rationality, rather than personal preference,
guides decisions made in this frame of leadership. Problems are often remedied through
analysis of structural deficiencies, and solved through restructuring.
Central to the human resource frame are the needs, skills, and relationships of in-
dividuals within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The belief of leaders who use
the human resource frame is that the people who work within the institution shape the
organization. Leaders in this frame assume that the organization exists to meet the needs
of the people; when people and their jobs fit together, both the individual and the organi-
zation benefit. These leaders often desire that individuals within the organization be ful-
filled and happy with their work. Human resource leaders work to keep the people they
have, they invest in their work force, and they empower individuals within the organiza-
tion. High involvement by individuals is promoted and expected to accomplish common
goals.
The political frame is focused on power, competition, and organizational politics
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). An inherent diversity of needs is an assumption made by the
political frame. Leaders who function within this frame often make decisions based on a
scarcity of resources within a climate of diverging needs. Decisions are often made to
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 53
meet these diverse needs through competing, negotiating and bargaining with multiple
stakeholders. Political frame leaders often network within the organization to build their
coalitions. A large or powerful coalition can ensure adequate resource allocation, leading
to a successful organization.
Culture, meaning, ritual, ceremony, and institutional stories are key concepts in
the symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Symbolic leaders strive to create meaning
through emotional attachments to the organization. These attachments are sometimes
embodied in objects or actions (symbols), such as school mascots, company cheers, or
group experiences. These symbols often represent the culture of the organization. An
assumption made by symbolic leaders is that culture often holds organizations together
when conflict and diversity issues arise. The symbolic leader focuses on the belief and
faith of people in the organization to bring cohesion, clarity, and direction to the institu-
tion ’s goals and objectives.
Bolman and Deal (2003) argued that reframing leadership allows a broader view
of the subject. They viewed leadership as situational and flexible. They maintained that
there is never one right way to lead; each view or frame can lead to “compelling and con-
structive leadership ” (p. 348). Within each frame are effective and ineffective uses of
power and authority. It is up to the individual leader to use the strengths of each frame in
the proper contexts. Ideally, leaders would use the frames in a combination of ways,
always keeping in mind that leadership is not an exact science and that their skills should
always be expanded by experience. These types of leadership skills should be expected
from school boards.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 54
Effective School Board Practices
School board leadership has often been ignored in the realm of educational
research. The Lighthouse Inquiry is a rare and welcome exception to this general dearth.
This series of inquiries started in 1998 and continued, with expanding research questions,
until 2010. The established view of school board leadership was taken from the Light-
house Inquiry I, conducted from 1998 to 2000, which sought to answer the question, “Are
school boards different in high- and low-achieving districts? And, if so, do they do so
through patterns of organizational behavior that can be described and learned by others? ”
(IASB, 2001). This research demonstrated that school boards in higher-achieving school
districts had different actions and beliefs than school boards in lower-achieving districts.
The research identified and defined the knowledge, skills, and beliefs that benefit the
practice of school boards that seek to effect growth in student achievement (Delagardelle,
2008).
The findings of The Lighthouse Inquiry I described seven conditions of school
renewal that influence student achievement: emphasis on building a human organization,
ability to create and sustain initiatives, supportive workplace for staff, staff development,
support for school sites through data and information, community involvement, and inte-
grated leadership (IASB, 2001). The IASB uses the terms moving and stuck, which were
borrowed from Susan Rosenholtz, to describe school districts in which student achieve-
ment was above the norm and increasing, and conversely student achievement was stable
and below the norm (IASB, 2001, p. 7). Within each condition, moving and stuck dis-
tricts were described to frame the practices of effective school board leadership. The
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 55
following descriptions were considered when searching for the link between school board
training and effective school board practice.
When looking at districts that emphasize building a human organization, the
Lighthouse Inquiry found that moving districts focused on shared decision making
because of an internal desire to improve. Board members in these districts did not make
excuses for a lack of student achievement; instead, they believed that all students could
learn and they articulated clearly the initiatives that pushed to increase achievement.
Districts that were stuck in this area were not internally motivated, and their push to
improve student achievement was due to external factors such as “not wanting to have the
lowest test scores ” (IASB, 2001, p. 8). In stuck districts there was not a shared belief that
what they did made a difference; external barriers, such as a lack of parental involvement
and motivation, were often cited as reasons for a lack of growth (IASB, 2001).
Moving districts, which had the ability to create and sustain initiatives, had an
understanding of how to organize people and schools to establish and sustain improve-
ment efforts. School boards in these districts were involved in goal-setting activities with
their superintendent and they learned together, as a board. In contrast, stuck districts
were not able to articulate board initiatives and goals that would lead to student achieve-
ment. Board members in stuck districts did not learn together and often viewed the
superintendent as the sole learner on their team. They expected information to be
presented to them and rarely interacted with the district team to make decisions.
The IASB found that moving districts provided a supportive workplace that
allowed all staff members to feel successful in their positions. Board members in these
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 56
districts were confident and positive about their staff. These boards showed appreciation
of their staff and recognized the ways in which they helped students to learn. Stuck
districts had school board members who were negative about their staff. These boards
seldom recognized the positive ways in which their staff influenced student achievement.
They often looked outward, believing that new teachers, more involved parents, or differ-
ent students would make a difference in student achievement; in doing so, they excluded
their own agency from consideration.
Regular staff development that focuses on teaching and student learning was
present in moving school districts. These districts had school board members who
believed in the importance of staff development activities that aligned with district goals
and were focused on student needs. Staff development was viewed as a way to focus
staff efforts and to improve student achievement. In stuck districts, school board
members could not articulate the goals of staff development. Professional development
was not viewed as a way to focus on student needs but as a way for teachers to complete
certifications or to select areas of interest individually. Board members in stuck districts
saw staff learning opportunities as an ineffective strategy for improving teacher practice.
Support for school sites through data and information was demonstrated by
moving districts in their use of data to drive decision making. Specifically, board
members in moving districts received student data from various sources and used these
data to discuss the needs of students based on information gained from data results.
Board members in stuck districts received most of the information on student achieve-
ment from the superintendent, relying on the superintendent ’s interpretation of data. The
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 57
data that they used to make decisions were based on anecdotes and personal experience.
Decisions by these board members were made primarily based on the recommendation of
the superintendent, lacking the team data decision-making process that moving districts
demonstrated.
Moving districts demonstrated community involvement by having close connec-
tions between school, parents, and community. Board members in moving districts
looked for ways to listen to and connect with their community members. They were
proud of their communities, involved the public, and looked for ways to increase this
involvement. In stuck districts board members saw the lack of parent support as a barrier
to student achievement. They did not seek ways to involve parents and lacked initiatives
to increase parent and community involvement.
Shared leadership was displayed through a shared clear vision and through high
expectations. In moving districts board members were knowledgeable about classroom
practice, about improvement initiatives, about district goals, and about their contribution
to improved student achievement (IASB, 2001). These board members believed that all
students could learn and they sought ways to accomplish this goal. In stuck districts,
board members could not describe ways that district goals were being implemented.
They often did not know what the goals of the district were and did not believe that it was
their job to be knowledgeable about classroom instruction. These board members did not
have high expectations for all students, claiming that some students could not be reached.
These seven conditions clarify what effective school board leadership looks like.
Given the current focus on accountability, it is important to look at districts that are able
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 58
to improve learning by students. Increased test scores are one way to gauge this learning.
Although direct links between school board practice and student achievement are not
definitive, the best practices discussed here are a place to start.
School Board Training
School board training was evaluated in this study through the frame of the
C S B A’ s Professional Growth Standards (CSBA, 2007). These growth standards include
individual and governance team responsibilities. Included in the individual responsibili-
ties are having values that support and advocate for public education, respecting and rec-
ognizing various perspectives and styles of all people, acting with dignity, participating in
professional development, understanding the roles of the board and respecting the
responsibilities of the superintendent and school district staff, and understanding that the
authority of the school board rests with the board as a whole and not with an individual.
C S B A’ s ex pe c ted standa rds for a governance team include a focus on student learning,
communication a common vision, open operation that demonstrates trust and integrity,
governing with dignity and professionalism, governing within board adopted policies and
procedures, collective responsibility for the bo a rd ’ s per for man c e , p e riodic e va luation of
its own effectiveness, and opportunities for the diverse range of views in the community
to inform board decisions. From these individual and governance team standards, the
CSBA has created the MIG training program.
The MIG training program includes goals similar to those in the NSBA ’s Key
Works document (Gemberling et al., 2000). The process to develop these modules began
in the mid-1990s when the NSBA formed a task force to define the roles and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 59
responsibilities of school boards. This task force was chaired by the executive director of
the CSBA at the time. Beyond the definition of roles and responsibilities, the project
evolved to define how a board should govern. Four basic board roles were established
through this process: (a) establishment of a long-term vision, (b) establishment and
maintenance of the organizational structure of the school systems, (c) establishment of
accountability systems, and (d) advocacy for students and the community. These four
roles were divided by the task force into seven categories. Subcommittees whose
members included school board members, superintendents, educational leaders, and busi-
ness officials defined each category. The seven categories are distinctly similar to the
nine current CSBA MIG training modules, lacking reference only to Foundations of
Effective Governance and Governance Integration (Campbell & Greene, 1994).
Although training is not mandatory in California, it is offered to all school board
members (Bianchi, 2003). Through CSBA, California school board members can receive
training on their seven defined job areas and two additional areas that emphasize effec-
tive governance. This governance training is given in nine distinct modules, which
compose the MIG training program. The nine modules are designed to train school board
members in the following ways:
1. Foundations of Effective Governance. Training that emphasizes the roles and
responsibilities of school board members and the superintendent. This module focuses
on trusteeship and governance, the heart of the MIG training.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 60
2. Setting Direction. Training that focuses on setting the district ’s vision and goals
in order to link all decisions about the district ’s educational programs back to those
visions and goals.
3. Human Resources. Training that focuses on the hiring of a superintendent who
meets the needs of the district, promoting a positive working relationship with the super-
intendent while emphasizing positive personnel practices in all district employment deci-
sions.
4. Policy and Judicial Review. Training that builds the capacity for setting policy
through the identification of policy needs and the appropriate process for development
and communication of policies.
5. Student Learning and Achievement. Training that emphasizes the setting of
expectations for student learning, the support of curriculum adoption, and accountability
processes to evaluate and assess student achievement and curriculum implementation.
6. School Finance. Training that teaches school board members how to establish
budget priorities, and develop, adopt, revise, implement, and monitor the district ’s
budget.
7. Collective Bargaining. Training that provides an overview of collective bar-
gaining and the board ’s responsibilities in contract negotiations.
8. Community Relations and Advocacy. Training that emphasizes strategies for
community building and advocacy at the state and national levels.
9. Governance Integration. Training that integrates trusteeship and the gover-
nance team with the seven jobs of the board (CSBA, 2007).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 61
These nine modules clarify the roles and responsibilities of the governance team
while providing strategies to focus efforts on student learning.
Chapter Summary
The literature reviewed herein clearly suggests that the role of school board
members in the educational governance process is complex and sometimes confused.
Effective leadership practices have been observed in districts that have experienced
success. These skills and practices can be imparted to school board members through
common training. Although training is not a mandatory process for all school board
members, it is a way to expand their knowledge and understanding of school governance.
By seeking best practices for leadership and effectiveness, school board members can
learn from successful school districts and meet the ultimate goal of increasing student
achievement and success for all students. If schooling in America is to be a social
equalizer for all students, it is imperative that school board members have the skills and
knowledge required to govern effectively.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 62
Chapter 3
Methodology
With increased focus on student achievement, there is increased accountability for
all who participate in the educational process. Often, focus is given to leaders at the
school sites, teachers in the classroom, students, and even parents. There are large bodies
of research on the importance of professional development for school personnel so they
can understand the complex elements of teaching and student learning (Datnow et al.,
2007; Elmore, 2000). The needs of students are at the fore of any good professional
development program for school leaders and teachers (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Often, the leadership that drives school governance is neglected when discussing the
importance of training and accountability.
Almost all schools in the United States are governed by school boards (Land,
2002). These boards are made up primarily of local citizens who do not offer a back-
ground in education to their newly elected positions (Hess, 2002; Land, 2002). Although
it is expected that elected board members seek to govern their districts effectively by bal-
ancing budgets, by hiring and dismissing personnel, by making informed decisions
regarding curriculum adoption, and by maintaining professional productive relationships
with colleagues and the public, training is not mandated in many states (including Cali-
fornia) to guide board members through these multiple and complex responsibilities (Hill
et al., 2002). Training is made available to school board members in all states through
their associations of school board members; however, only 20 states mandate some form
of training (NSBA, 2010a; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Increased accountability and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 63
public demands on school board members indicate that school board training is necessary
and crucial to effective school governance (Bianchi, 2003).
Public attention on student achievement has pushed the nation to make changes.
With the implementation of NCLB has come the requirement of state standards, leading
to accountability in the form of high-stakes standardized testing (Larsen et al., 2011).
The results of these tests have led to higher standards for teaching and learning in the
classroom.
School board members are directly affected by the urgency of the public ’s desire
to hold all students to high standards and to prioritize student achievement. In response
to this, the CSBA developed the MIG training program (CSBA, 2007). Although the
training is available to California school board members, it is not mandatory, nor has it
been demonstrated to increase the effectiveness of school board practice (Hill et al.,
2002; McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training program
provided by the CSBA affects a school board ’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. The study was conducted in five counties in southern California:
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. The study
focused on school board members who had been trained through the C S B A ’s M I G train-
ing modules and their respective superintendents. The study looked for professional
feedback on the MIG training modules and implementation indicators of effective school
governance. Although the study was focused on school board training, feedback was
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 64
sought from superintendents as well to allow for a broader view of MIG training and its
impact on effective governance. The superintendent ’s point of view is an important
factor because the superintendent serves on the governance team with school board
members.
Qualitative Design
This study utilized qualitative methodology and was descriptive in design. The
design followed research questions intended to gauge effective school board leadership as
a result of MIG training in California. The study was designed to be formative, providing
program analysis of the MIG for CSBA and possibly for state policy makers. It was
designed as a tool to aid in informed decisions for continued training of school board
members and possible policy decisions regarding mandated training for school board
members.
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Participants
The study focuses on school districts in which school board members had
a tt e nde d the CS B A’ s M IG training. School districts from Los Angeles, Orange,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 65
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties were included in the study.
Based on survey responses, three groups were created: (a) full participation, defined as
the majority of school board members having received MIG training, (b) partial partici-
pation, defined as less than half of board members and superintendents who had not
received MIG training (the group was discarded), and (c) nonparticipants, defined as
districts that with no trained school board members or superintendents. Once the data
gathering was completed, the study focused solely on school districts that met established
criteria for full and partial participation.
The study was conducted in the 2012-2013 school year, capturing school board
members who had been trained prior to that school year. This was determined by training
data documentation provided by CSBA. The study was conducted over 6 weeks, which
included collection and review of data surveys, interviews with superintendents and
school board members, and observations of MIG training modules.
Sampling Strategies
Those districts that met criteria as full or partial participation were compre-
hensive. Therefore, the following specific characteristics included/excluded the five fol-
lowing conditions: (a) 2,000 –50,000 ADA, (b) elementary, secondary, unified, (c) no
consideration regarding socioeconomics, (d) 21-point growth in API over a 3-year span,
with a score of 800 API or above, and (e) participation in MIG training.
The school districts selected for the sample were determined based on their size
and the number of school board members within the district who had attended MIG
training. Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 66
counties were used for this study based on the size of the districts and the training that
their school board members had received.
Instrumentation
Four data sets were collected: document review, observations, surveys, and inter-
views. Interviews were conducted in two of the surveyed districts to extend the input of
trained superintendents and school board members to expand the findings.
Document Review
Documents provided by CSBA were essential to the research in this study. The
documents reviewed included MIG training materials and a complete list of all California
school board members who had completed MIG training. These documents were
reviewed to align the qualitative data collection tools.
To create the survey questions and follow-up interview questions, the MIG train-
ing materials were reviewed for their goals and objectives. The training objectives that
were emphasized in the questionnaire were then aligned to the Lighthouse I (IASB, 2001)
research findings regarding effective governance practice. The master list of all school
board members who had attended training was reviewed for the number of participants in
a school district who had been trained, as well as how much training they had attended
(how many of the nine modules). These documents were essential to developing the
survey administered to superintendents and school board members, as well as identifica-
tion of persons asked to take part in the study.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 67
Observations
Observations were guided by the use of an MIG Observation Protocol (MIGOP).
Each research team member used this tool during observation of an assigned MIG mod-
ule: Foundations of Effective Governance, Setting Direction, Human Resources, Policy
and Judicial Review, Student Learning and Achievement, School Finance, Collective
Bargaining, Community Relations and Advocacy, and Governance Integration. The
questions for the observation tool were developed based on the CSBA Professional Gov-
ernance Standards (CSBA, 2007). This tool was also aligned to Research Question 2 to
determine whether the MIG training program encourages and equips school board
members to exhibit the behaviors of effective practice.
Survey
Multiple frameworks guided the development of the surveys for superintendents
and board members to address the research questions. Best practices, MIG training
topics, and leadership traits (Bolman & Deal, 2003) were reviewed and woven into the
survey questions. Surveys were distributed to superintendents and school board members
in counties in which a majority of the school board members had been trained through the
C S B A’ s M I G training: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and
Ventura.
The research team developed recruitment letters (Appendices A and B), surveys
(Appendix C and D), and interview protocols during spring 2012. The superintendent
and school board surveys were developed to use a Likert-type scale and multiple choice
responses as well as open-ended responses. Superintendent and school board recruitment
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 68
letters were attached to each survey. Surveys were distributed through the U.S. mail, and
emailed when necessary. The dual options for completing the survey were used to allow
for ease of response by the participants. The two survey options used identical questions.
Interviews
Surveys were mailed to all of the districts in the chosen counties that met partici-
pant criteria. Interviews were arranged with those who reported full participation and
partial participation. Those who were deemed to be nonparticipants were not included in
the distribution process. Once surveys had been gathered and sorted, follow-up inter-
views were scheduled. This purposeful interview sampling focused on selecting
information-rich cases in which responses would add to the depth of understanding of the
research question responses (Patton, 2002).
The interview protocol was used to address relevant topics of leadership, school
board training, and education policy. Most questions were open-ended, allowing super-
intendents and school board members to elaborate beyond their survey answers.
Data Collection
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete school board training? To address this question, responses to spe-
cific questions from the survey were analyzed to determine external and internal influ-
ences on school board members ’ motivation for participating in training. Interview
questions were used to determine specific examples of motivational causes.
Research Question 2 asked, Does MIG training encourage and equip school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance? To address this
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 69
question, CSBA documents were reviewed, survey questions were developed, observa-
tions were carried out, and interviews were conducted. The documents were reviewed to
determine which board members had been trained, when they had been trained, and what
materials had been used. Observations of MIG training were conducted to determine
whether the training modules had encouraged and equipped school board members with
effective tools for practice. Interview questions were posed to determine whether school
board members ’ practice reflected the training that they had received through the MIG.
These data were confirmed by interview responses. Interview questions were posed to
determine school board members ’ effective practices and their use of training knowledge.
Research Question 3 asked, Should school board training be a California
mandate? This question was addressed via a survey question asking school board
members and superintendents to record their views on policy regarding school board
training. This survey question was followed up by interview questions to determine why
these same school governance members agreed or did not agree that school board training
should be mandated.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reports the methodology used in this study of superintendents and
school board members in various southern California school districts in Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The focus was to
look at the effect of school board training on the practice of school board members. The
MIG training provided by the CSBA was a specific focus. The study also looked at the
motivations for school board members seeking training, as well as the opinion of
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 70
participants regarding the policy of training for board members, whether it should be
mandated and, if so, how such training would benefit school board governance.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 71
Chapter 4
Research Results
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relationship exists between
effective school boards and a commitment to seek school board training. School board
effectiveness was defined largely by using the finding of the Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB,
2001). This national case study found identified key components of effective districts:
building a human organizational system, the ability to create and sustain initiatives, a
supportive workplace, encouragement and facilitation of staff development opportunities,
support to school sites through data information, involvement in the community, and
integrated leadership. This study also looked closely at the leadership of effective school
boards. Leadership, for the purposes of this study, was defined as a “process of mutual
influence fusing thought, feeling, and action to produce cooperative effort in the service
of purposes and values embraced by both the leader and the led ” (Bolman & Deal, 2003,
p. 339).
Although there are various training options for school board members (NSBA,
2010b) this study focused on training provided to board members in California CSBA
through their MIG training modules. This training provides professional development to
superintendents and school board members in nine modules based on the roles and
responsibilities of modern governance teams.
This chapter reports the results of this qualitative study in six southern California
counties, focusing on the influence of school board training on effective governance
practices through use of surveys, interviews, observation, and document review. To
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 72
narrow the focus of the study, CSBA training criteria were used to identify and select
trained school board members. These data, along with state test scores (API) and district
student population figures, were used to determine the sample population.
The findings resulted in themes regarding the motivation for governance teams to
complete a training program, the effectiveness of the MIG training program, and whether
mandating school board training would affect governance. The data and findings in this
chapter are organized according to the three research questions.
Three research questions guided determination of whether school board training
affects the practice of governance teams:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a MIG
training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG Training impact school board gover-
nance?
Participants
The counties used for this research were Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San
Bernardino, Riverside and Ventura. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the total number of
superintendents and school board members targeted for survey data and the number
within this targeted group who participated. Of the 326 superintendents and school board
members identified for the study and invited to participate, 61% (n = 61) of the superin-
tendents and 40% (n = 90) of the school board members responded. Of these
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 73
respondents, two superintendents and two school board members were selected from
Ventura County for investigation by this researcher. Each superintendent and school
board member selected served on the same governing board in the same school district.
Table 1
Superintendent and School Board Member Survey Participation
Item Totals
Number of superintendents surveyed 100
Number of school board members surveyed 226
Number of superintendents responded 61
Number of school board members responded 90
Total number of respondents 151
Ventura County is located between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, with
a population of 831,771 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The population demographics for
this county are compared to those of California in Table 2. Ventura County contains 2%
of the total population of California, spanning 1,843 miles. Notably, the county has 8.4%
higher White non-Hispanic population than the California average and the total percent-
age of languages spoken other than English is 5.8% lower than the state average. This
demographic information speaks to the population of families and students attending
schools in Ventura County.
Two school districts were chosen from Ventura County for data collection. Inter-
views were conducted in Ocean Park Unified School District and Oak View School
District. Andrew King, the superintendent, and Albert Rose, a school board member,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 74
Table 2
Demographic Information for Ventura County Compared to California
Demographic Ventura County California
Population estimate (2011) 831,771 37,691,912
Land area in square miles 1,843.13 155,779.22
White persons not Hispanic 48.1% 39.7%
Black persons 2.2% 6.6%
Asian persons 7.2% 13.6%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino heritage 40.9% 39.7%
were interviewed in Ocean Park. In Oak View, Greg Holmes, superintendent, and Josh
Merrit, school board member, were interviewed. Both pairs of governance team
members were interviewed using similar interview questions (Appendices A and B).
Ocean Park Unified School District consists of seven schools: three elementary
schools, one middle school, two high schools, and one independent school. Their total
student population is approximately 4,000, with approximately 160 teachers (Ed-Data,
2011). Their district API score was 918 in 2011 and 916 in 2010, with 85% of their
schools making all of their growth targets (Ed-Data, 2011). Growth targets in California
call for most schools ’ subgroups to improve their performance in each subject area by 5%
of the difference between their API and the statewide target of 800. Ocean Park has very
little diversity, with only 49 Black or African American students, 155 Hispanic or Latino
students, and as few as 116 English learners and 133 socioeconomically disadvantaged
students in the entire district. Further demographics are listed in Table 3. All of their
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 75
Table 3
Demographic Information for Ocean Park Unified School District
Student subgroup n API Growth 2011
Black or African American 49 820
Asian 403 985
Hispanic or Latino 155 878
White 2,418 912
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 133 858
English Learners 116 890
ethnic and socioeconomic subgroups received API scores of 800 or above. Ocean Park is
a District of Choice, meaning that they can accept students who do not live within their
district boundaries.
Oak View School District is one of the oldest districts in the county and consists
of four schools: three elementary schools and one middle school. The district has
approximately 2,500 students and 110 teachers (Ed-Data, 2013). The API score was 728
in 2011, with only one schools achieving the growth target. Oak View ’s student popula-
tion contains more ethnic and language diversity than Ocean Park, with 1,488 Hispanic or
Latino students, and 1,184 English learners. In contrast to Ocean Park, Oak View has
few White students (128). Oak View has few subgroups that have met the state ’s 800
API target, with only the White and Asian students scoring over 800. Table 4 lists addi-
tional subgroup and API demographic information.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 76
Table 4
Demographic Information for Oak View School District
Student subgroup n API Growth 2011
Black or African American 49 764
Asian 11 806
Hispanic or Latino 1,488 711
White 128 847
Socioeconomically disadvantaged 1,737 727
English learner 1,184 696
In Ocean Park Unified School District, Dr. Andrew King, superintendent, and Mr.
Albert Rose, school board member were interviewed. Dr. King and Mr. Rose work in a
governance team consisting of five board members. The superintendent has been a part
of the governance team for 9 years. Mr. Rose has been on the school board for the past 2
years and anticipates serving as school board president during the 2013-2014 school year.
Mr. Rose was involved in the school district prior to his school board service through
participation on the district ’s oversight committee and as a parent. Both governance team
members described their board as a highly functioning team. Mr. Rose described the
board as “aligned ” and Dr. King described the team as one that runs “really really
smoothly. ”
In Oak View School District, Dr. Greg Holmes, superintendent, and Mr. Josh
Merrit, school board member, were interviewed. The governance team in Oak View
consists of five school board members and the superintendent. Dr. Holmes has been
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 77
superintendent for 2 years. He was previously Assistant Superintendent in the same
school district. Mr. Merrit, along with many of his fellow school board members has
served on the board for over a decade, starting in 2000. Along with serving on the school
board, he has been the neighborhood council chair and he currently teaches at the local
community college. The governance team in Oak View is described by these team
members as “professional and clearly focused. ” Mr. Merrit described the team as
“engaging in a professional manner ” and Mr. Holmes described them as “good role
models.”
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete a MIG training program? Studies indicate that successful school
governance teams learn together, making school board training a necessity for effective
governance (Danzberger, 1994; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). It can be deduced from edu-
cational literature that school board members today are asked to complete and accomplish
tasks that have grown in complexity, resulting in new and highly specialized responsi-
bilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Gemberling et al., 2000). Because of the multitude of
responsibilities, it is important for school board members to be well informed and have a
depth of knowledge regarding the policy decisions that they are required to make. When
these types of training are not mandated or required prior to election, the public must rely
on personal considerations that motivate each board member to seek such training after
being elected.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 78
Research Question 1 concerned the factors that motivate school board members to
seek and attend training such as MIG training program offered by the CSBA. Given that
training is not mandated and school board members are allowed to make decisions auton-
omously regarding their professional development, a deeper look at motivating factors
led to findings in this study.
Results of the survey completed by 61 superintendents and 90 school board
members, as well as responses from four individual interviews with two superintendents
and two school board members in Ventura County resulted in two emerging themes.
School board members were motivated by external factors, noting the pressure placed on
them by others, as well as internal factors, such as the pressure that they placed on them-
selves. The first theme was that school board members and superintendents were largely
motivated to attend training by the culture in their districts. The second two themes were
than internal motivations, such as wanting to work as a team and the need for role clarifi-
cation, influenced school board members to seek training.
Cultural Motivation
According to Bolman and Deal (2003), a symbolic leader looks to create meaning
through emotional attachments to the organization. These attachments often surface in
the form of objects, actions, or group experiences. In the case of school board training,
both superintendents and school board members attributed a large portion of their exter-
nal motivation to the culture of their organization. The participants described this type of
group experience as “just something that is done ” and “talked about and recommended.”
The leadership in the district placed a value on attending MIG training.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 79
Table 5 and Table 6 show the survey results from superintendents and school
board members when asked whether attending training is a cultural expectation in their
district and whether they encourage (expect) others to attend MIG Training. Of those
surveyed, more than 83% (n = 51) of the superintendents and 78% (n = 66) of the school
board members strongly agreed or agreed that attending training was a cultural expecta-
tion in their district. In congruence with these data, a large percentage of superintendent
(93%, n = 57) and school board members (98%, n = 83) positively attested (strongly
agreed or agreed) to encouraging others to attend the training. These findings indicate
that, in effective districts, shared learning, like that found in MIG training, is embedded
in the cultural expectations of the district leadership. The findings also indicate that each
individual, whether superintendent or board member, takes on the cultural responsibility
to encourage and recommend training to others.
Table 5
Re sponses to t he I tem “ Our School Board Culture Highly Encourages Participation in
MIG Training ”
Superintendent School board member
(N = 61) (N = 100)
Response n % n %
Strongly Agree 21 34.4 37 44.1
Agree 30 49.2 29 34.5
Disagree 9 14.8 17 20.2
Strongly Disagree 1 1.6 1 1.2
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 80
Table 6
Re sponses to t he I tem “ I Encourage School Board Members to Attend MIG Training ”
Superintendent School board member
(N = 61) (N = 100)
Response n % n %
Strongly Agree 38 62.3 63 75
Agree 19 31.1 20 23.8
Disagree 4 6.6 1 1.2
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0
Both superintendents reported that the culture of training had existing before they
became district leaders. The superintendent in Oak View, Mr. Holmes, stated, “The pre-
vious superintendent has really expected their colleagues to get the training and to com-
plete it.” He later stated that the training “helps build that culture to make sure that it ’s
institutionalized.” Dr. King attributed his school district ’s culture to deep roots in CSBA.
He shared that they are “big participants in CSBA,” having a board member who has
served for 20 years, 11 years longer than he has been superintendent. During this time
she has been involved with the local CSBA chapter, serving as an informational resource
to the rest of the team. This further establishes the culture of the school district leader-
ship: the expectation of team members to develop board skills in a professional way and
engage in shared learning experiences, even with changing personnel.
Team Building and Shared Knowledge
Internal and self-motivation were factors in the motivation of school board
members to seek training. When asked about the primary factor that had influenced their
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 81
participation, the largest percentage of board members surveyed (35%, n = 21) identified
self-motivation as the primary motivation to participate in training. Table 7 details the
responses by school board members. It should also be noted by these data that self-
motivation played a secondary role as a motivational factor to the influence of district
culture. This was arrived at by looking at the influence of school board expectations
(20%, n = 12) and encouragement by other school board members (34%, n = 20) and
superintendents (3%, n = 2) as factors that supplied motivation to complete training,
identifying the influence of district culture on motivation. These three factors total 57%
(n = 34) of the responses, compared to 35% (n = 35) for self-motivation.
Table 7
Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in Masters in
Governance (MIG) Training
Factor n %
School Board Expectation 12 20
Self-Motivation 21 35
Encouraged By Board Members 20 34
Encouraged by Superintendent
(Other) 2 3
Unable to Determine 5 8
Team development and training are critical to the effectiveness of school boards
(IASB, 2001; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Using these findings, the culture of attending
training is sure to be found in effective school districts. Training and development lead
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 82
to teams building shared knowledge, defining roles, and establishing values and com-
mitments by the board (CSBA, 2007). Research on school boards indicates that effective
school boards report that they have participated in activities or training in which they
learned together as a board. In some of these same cases the superintendent has partici-
pated with the group (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; IASB, 2001; Roberts & Sampson,
2011). Interviews with identified effective school boards in Ventura County revealed
many of these same ideas. Josh Merrit recalled that the “value of the program is the
team-building effort. ” He further emphasized the sense of team building that training
brings:
Building the idea of working as a team and building the idea of having a sense of
whose responsibility is what. What is a board and a governance vision setting
type of activity and mission? And what is the work of your administrative team?
So getting a clear sense of those lines and being in the room working together
with those people rather than just somebody or the superintendent coming and
saying this is your job and this is my job. I think that it ’s very helpful to having
that kind of teamwork approach to things.
Mr. Merrit ’s superintendent agreed that one of the cultural motivations is the
team-building component of attending training with other governance team members.
Superintendent Holmes stated that, beyond the cultural expectation to attend training,
It was a great opportunity again to connect with a couple of board members, par-
ticipate with them. . . . One of the most beneficial things for me was spending
time with board members in the car on the way to the training, being at the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 83
training with them. I think the process really builds that sense of you ’re a team
together.
The idea of shared knowledge and role clarification emerged as a theme when data were
analyzed.
In addition to the team building and cultural expectations of their district gover-
nance, team members seek board training to clarify their roles and responsibilities,
increasing their personal knowledge of their job. Survey results indicated that
superintendents and school board members agreed that the MIG training clarifies these
roles and responsibilities. Table 8 shows the responses by superintendents and school
board members when asked whether MIG training clarifies roles and responsibilities of
the governance team. The table shows that more than 78% (n = 61) of the superinten-
dents and 100% (n = 83) of the school board members agreed that the MIG training
helped to clarify roles and responsibilities. This type of clarification and training appeals
to school board members who are seeking to increase their knowledge and skills as
effective school board members.
Mr. Merrit, school board member in Oak View, described the clarity that training
provides: “building the idea of working as a team and building the idea of having a sense
of whose responsibility is what .” He stated that, when the roles and responsibilities are
developed in training, there is not a reliance “on somebody or the superintendent coming
and saying this is your job and this is my job .” In Ocean Park, superintendent Andrew
King firmly stated that his governance team has “a collective understanding of our role as
a governance team. A lot of that we learned from CSBA. ” The strong emphasis on
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 84
Table 8
Re sponses to t he I tem , “ The MIG Training Clarified the Roles and Responsibilities of the
Governance Team ”
Superintendent School board member
(N = 61) (N = 100)
Response n % n %
Strongly Agree 23 37.7 57 68.7
Agree 25 41 26 31.3
Disagree 12 19.7 0 0
Strongly Disagree 1 1.6 0 0
training board members in their roles and responsibilities motivates governance teams to
participate in professional development.
The MIG training offers specific training in this area and is clearly emphasized in
the nine training modules. In the observations conducted by members of the research
team, all 10 researchers strongly agreed that roles and responsibilities of governance
teams were clearly defined. Seven of the 10 research team members strongly agreed that
the training activities foster teamwork, trust, and cooperation; 3 members agreed. These
observational data support the reviewed findings: the clarification of roles and responsi-
bilities, as well as the emphasis on team building and collaboration embedded in the MIG
training, encourage governance teams to continue their professional development and
encourage others to participate in this type of training.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 85
Summary of Results For Research Question 1
Addressing Research Question 1, regarding the factors that affect the decision of
school board members to complete school board training, themes in the research findings
indicated that school district culture and a need to clarify roles and responsibilities were
two primary motivational factors of governance team members to seek training. Evi-
dence from this study supports the idea that effective school districts have strong cultures
of training motivating their governance teams to seek and attend training. This culture is
established by superintendents past and present, as well as by fellow school board
members who believe in training and encourage others to participate. In most cases,
training was an established expectation. Along with strong cultures of training, board
members were motivated to attend training by their need to clarify their roles and respon-
sibilities. Clarity is found through training, making training a way for school board
members to meet this need.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, Does MIG training encourage and equip school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance? The MIG training
program seeks to equip school board members with effective governance practices
through nine training modules: Foundations of Effective Governance, Setting Direction,
Human Resources, Policy and Judicial Review, Student Learning and Achievement,
School Finance, Collective Bargaining, Community Relations and Advocacy, and Gov-
ernance Integration. School board members who have been trained in all nine modules
were asked to reflect on their training and its influence on their practice.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 86
Effective school districts have been defined using The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB,
2001). According to this extensive case study, seven practices positively influence
student achievement: emphasis on building a human organization, ability to create and
sustain initiatives, supportive workplace for staff, staff development, support for school
sites through data and information, community involvement, and integrated leadership
(IASB, 2001). Coupled with the Professional Governance Standards and the nine train-
ing modules offered through the CSBA ’s MIG training program, expectations of effective
governance practice are clearly defined.
Research Question 2 was asked to determine whether MIG training encourages
and equips school board members to exhibit behaviors and practices of effective gover-
nance. This question relates directly to the purpose of this study, seeking to determine
whether a relationship exists between effective school boards and a commitment to seek
school board training. This question specifically looks at the effective practice of school
board members. Through the use of a survey given to school board members and super-
intendents who have attended MIG training, interviews with school board members and
superintendents, and observations of MIG training, the effectiveness of the training and
its influence on practice were determined.
Data analysis from the survey completed by 61 superintendents and 90 school
board members, responses from four individual interviews with two superintendents and
two school board members in Ventura County, and observations from MIG training
modules led to the following research findings. The findings established two themes: (a)
The MIG training helped school board members to clarify their roles and responsibilities,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 87
and (b) school board members who had attended training reported using effective strate-
gies and practices that positively affected student achievement.
Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities
The idea that effective governance teams have clear roles and responsibilities can
be found throughout the literature (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Gemberling et al., 2000).
The NSBA and the CSBA have established the roles that they expect school board
members to play in governing a school district. Even though these roles and responsibil-
ities are established in the literature, they often get muddled when the practice of
governance occurs (Hill et al., 2002; Land, 2002; McAdams, 2002). The MIG training
modules frame training around establishing clear practice for maintaining the school
board member ’s role on the governance team as one of policy maker, not manager. This
study showed that school board members and superintendents agreed that the MIG train-
ing clarifies the boundaries of school board member practice in the governance of school
districts.
Similar to the results related to Research Question 1, the clarity of roles and
responsibilities provided insight into the findings related to Research Question 2. In the
survey completed by superintendents and school board members, they were specifically
asked whether those who had attended training exhibited a clearer understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of school board members and superintendent. The data pre-
sented in Table 8 indicated that 78% (n = 61) of the superintendents and 100% (n = 83)
of the school board members reported that the MIG training had helped to clarify their
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 88
roles and responsibilities. This clarity gives school board members the foundation to
maintain their role as policymaker for the district, rather than one of manager.
When asked whether the MIG training helped to clarify their role as policymak-
ers, most superintendents and school board members agreed that it did so. Table 9 shows
the results of the surveys when participants were asked this question. The table shows 58
of 59 superintendents (97%) strongly agreed or agreed that the MIG training helped to
differentiate policy and managerial leadership roles. Similar results were recorded for the
81 school board members who responded to this survey question; 77 of the 81 (95%)
strongly agreed or agreed that the training clarified roles. These data suggest that the
MIG training, along with clarifying roles and responsibilities for the governance team,
specifically clarified the policy-making aspect of the school board member ’s role.
Table 9
Responses to the Item, “MIG Training Helped to Differentiate Policy and Managerial
Leadership Roles ”
Superintendent School board member
(N = 59) (N = 81)
Response n % n %
Strongly Agree 27 45.8 47 58.0
Agree 31 52.5 30 37.0
Disagree 1 1.7 4 5.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 89
Similar findings regarding the clarity of roles were found when reviewing inter-
view data for the two school board members and superintendents in Ventura County.
Superintendent Holmes referred to the training piece used by the CSBA as the “clock. ”
One of the things they [CSBA] do the best is they used the example of the clock
and that your job as a board is to do from this point to this point and you let staff
do it from this point to this point and then you do some evaluation and account-
ability and I think having that cycle of the whole process is one of the biggest
pieces.
The “clock ” is used by CSBA to clarify the action to be taken by school board members
within their governance role. Using the idea of the “clock, ” school board members are
trained to remain at the portion of the clock that is focused on setting direction and
building structure, remaining between 9:00 and 3:00, or visually speaking, at the top of
the clock. The idea is that district staff is to remain at the bottom of the clock, between
3:00 and 9:00, acting as parishioners within the structure that was built by the governance
team.
The superintendent and school board member in Ocean Park Unified School Dis-
trict agreed with this sentiment. Dr. King stated, “I don ’t have board members who don’t
understand their role in this district. They get what their role is, I get what my role is, we
all know what our role is. We are a g ov e rna n c e te a m.” Mr. Rose, his school board
member, agreed that clarity of roles and responsibilities is present in Ocean Park and
attributed the MIG training to success with that process. He stated that the training had
helped him to get a “more solid understanding of what the role is .” “That was, I think,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 90
that was one of the most beneficial things. ” These data indicate that the MIG training
helps superintendents and school board members to clarify their roles and responsibili-
ties, allowing for more effective governance.
Effective Strategies and Practice
With increased accountability for student achievement and scrutiny placed on
educators when student achievement goals are not met, it has become increasingly imper-
ative that school board members govern effectively. Their collective effective
governance can lead to clear expectations for students, leading to continued and
improved student achievement (IASB, 2001). There are many facets to effective gover-
nance, with some actions and practices linked to increased student achievement (IASB,
2001; Waters & Marzano, 2006) and others are ideals and guidelines taken from this
research to train school board members. The MIG training program employs the ideals
of effective governance in a nine-module training program for school board members.
The importance of this research question was to determine whether effective training
leads to effective practice.
The responses to the survey completed by superintendents and school board
members revealed effective practices. Participants were asked whether the MIG training
program had influenced their practice in specific areas: focus on student achievement, use
of data to make decisions, community engagement, aligning the decision-making process
to the district ’s vision and goals, and having a collaborative relationship with fellow
board members. Results are shown in Table 10.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 91
Table 10
Responses to Effective School Board Practice Survey Questions
Superintendent School board member
Area and response n % n %
Focus on student achievement
Strongly Agree 14 23.0 24 30.0
Agree 44 72.0 47 58.0
Disagree 3 5.0 9 11.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 1.0
Total 61 100.0 81 100.0
Aligning Decisions to District ’s Vision and Goals
Strongly Agree 30 50.0 55 67.0
Agree 27 45.0 24 29.0
Disagree 3 5.0 3 4.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 60 100.0 80 100.0
Collaborative Relationship With Fellow Board Members
Strongly Agree 21 34.0 34 41.0
Agree 31 5.0 43 52.0
Disagree 9 15.0 5 6.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 1 1.0
Total 61 100.0 83 100.0
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 92
Table 10 shows that 95% (n = 58) of the superintendents and 88% (n = 71) of the
school board members strongly agreed or agreed that the MIG training program resulted
in an increase in focus on student achievement. The table also shows that 85% (n = 52)
of the superintendents and 93% (n = 77) of the school board members agreed that the
MIG training program contributed to their collaborative relationship with fellow board
members. Similar findings were documented for all effective governance practices.
Superintendent King in Ocean Park attested that his school board, all of whom
had been trained, “know that the goal setting process is a meaningful processes because
the board understands their role in setting the direction .” In his district the board makes
decisions that align with the vision of the district. He considered his board to be effective
for two reasons: (a) the result of having “good people ” on his board with “common
sense,” and (b) the “people have been trained.” Superintendent Holmes in Oak View
complimented his school board for having “open communication back and forth. ” He
said that the MIG training had helped his school board to build “trust with each other as
people and professionals in charge of a district .” This type of professional communica-
tion is an attribute of effective school boards.
The MIG modules emphasize effective school board practices. The research team
conducted observations of the MIG modules. Each researcher observed one or more
modules and the results were compiled as part of the research data collection. Observa-
tions of these modules revealed that, in addition to the training ’s focus on clarifying the
governance team ’s roles and responsibilities, the MIG training emphasized a focus on
student achievement, strategies to develop and keep focus on a common vision, and the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 93
importance of governing within board adopted policies, procedures, and structures.
Through individual observations, 8 of the 10 researchers strongly agreed or agreed that
student learning was a focus of the training, all 10 strongly agreed or agreed that the
training teaches strategies to develop and/or keep focus on a common vision, and all 10
strongly agreed that the MIG training program teaches the importance of governing
within board adopted policies, procedures, and structures.
These observations align with the survey results from superintendents and school
board members who had attended the same training modules. The MIG training program
emphasizes effective governance practice, equipping those who have been trained with
usable strategies to exercise positive governance practice in their districts.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was asked to identify whether MIG training for school board
members encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effec-
tive governance. Using literature, survey data, interviews, and observations, the data
results indicated that the MIG training did encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit behaviors of effective practice. The training by the CSBA specifically trains
school board members in areas found by research to be present in effective school boards.
In turn, school board members, superintendents, and members of this research team
agreed that these elements are not only present in the MIG training but they affect the
practice of those who have attended the training. Although it cannot be determined from
this study that only school board members who have gone through MIG training program
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 94
will be effective, findings indicate that those school board members who have been
trained will exhibit effective behaviors as a result of training.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, In what ways could mandating the MIG Training
impact school board governance? Although many researchers assert that training is
important for school board members (Campbell & Green, 1994; Danzberger, 1994;
Dillion, 2010; IASB, 2001; Land, 2002), training is not mandated in all 50 states.
According to the NSBA (2010a), only 20 states require school board members to attend
some type of training. In states such as California, where training is not mandated, the
state school board association has assumed the responsibility of training the state ’s board
members. In California, the CSBA offers the MIG training program consisting of nine
modules aligned with their Professional Governance Standards. School board members
attend this training voluntarily, making training inconsistent in some school districts,
where the number of trained members ranges from all to none.
Research Question 3 was asked to gain insight into the ways mandated training
could affect school districts. With every mandate, considerations should be made as to
the impact because this would directly affect school board members and their superinten-
dent. Along with the effects of mandated training on practices by governance teams,
logistical issues such as the frequency of trainings and their locations should be
considered. This research question was posed to identify obstacles and benefits of man-
dated school board training. With the numerous roles and responsibilities of school board
members, this is an important public policy question.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 95
The results of a survey completed by 151 governance team members (61 superin-
tendents and 90 school board members), observations of the MIG training modules, and
interviews resulted in two themes. The first theme was that most superintendents and
school board members agreed that the MIG training is effective and that the state of Cali-
fornia should mandate such training. The idea of mandates sparks concerns about budg-
etary strains, with yet another state or federal education mandate passed without funding
attached. The second theme was that, if this type of training were mandated, in addition
to the financial strains, there would be logistical difficulties in attempting to train every
school board member in the state.
Mandated Training
Mandated training is a consideration that law makers in California might have to
consider soon. Table 11 indicates that nearly 82% (n = 49) of the superintendents and
72% (n = 59) of the school board members either strongly agreed or agreed that the state
should mandate training. The table also shows that 88% (n = 51) of the superintendents
and 92% (n = 84) of the school board members strongly agreed or agreed that all school
governance team members would benefit from the MIG training.
Data gathered from interviews in Ventura County revealed that both the superin-
tendents and the school board members agreed that there would be some benefits to man-
dated training but there were also concerns about an actual mandate. Mr. Rose responded
to this inquiry by saying that he had “mixed feelings ”:
I think a good reason to mandate it is because people who come in, get elected on
the board, I ’d say 98% of them have no idea what they ’re getting into. And so
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 96
Table 11
Responses to Survey Items Regarding Mandatory Training of School Board Members
Superintendent School board member
Area and response n % n %
The MIG Training should be mandated in California
Strongly Agree 26 43.3 34 41.5
Agree 23 38.3 25 30.4
Disagree 10 16.7 18 30.0
Strongly Disagree 1 1.7 5 6.1
Total 60 100.0 82 100.0
All school board members would benefit from MIG training
Strongly Agree 44 72.1 71 84.5
Agree 13 21.3 13 15.5
Disagree 4 6.6 0 0.0
Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 61 100.0 84 100.0
this helps, like I said, focus your energy and what you ’re supposed to be working
on and it really makes clear what the role of the board is. . . . I don’t think that it
should necessarily be mandated.
Similarly, his board member, Mr. Merrit, was concerned about a mandate due to
the voluntary nature of his school board. “I would have a little bit of concern about man-
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 97
dating somebody to do something that does take a cost and time off and travel to do. ” He
also stated that he would have “qualms ” about mandating such training.
Both superintendents agreed to the value of training. Superintendent Holmes
stated,
I think that training is really critical for every single board member. So I would
certainly not be opposed to mandating it, I know there ’s some difficulties with
that, but definitely I think it gives board members greater insight into the real
processes that occur. And I think there ’s sometimes a miss match between the
politics of being an elected official versus what really is good for kids and educa-
tion. And I think for that reason it would be very helpful.
This point of view was similar to the findings from the survey results, with
Superintendent Holmes agreeing that mandated training would be good for all board
members. In contrast, the superintendent of Ocean Park, Dr. Andrew King, declared that
he “tends to be funny about mandates .” Although he agreed to the value of training,
especially due to the legal aspects of governing a school district, he clearly did not agree
that school board training should be mandated. “I tend to be against mandates, especially
unfunded ones. We have enough. ” Dr. King’ s concern about unfunded mandates leads
to the next theme that this research question uncovered: Mandated training would cause
financial and logistical concerns for school districts.
Mandated Training Concerns
In the data provided by the NSBA (2010a), there is an extensive list of not only
the states that require or have mandated school board training but a list of the type of
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 98
training expected, who is expected to pay for the training, and detailed information
regarding who is supposed to receive training and when. All of these logistical details
would be part of California ’s decision to mandate training for its members. The superin-
tendents and school board members who were interviewed shared these concerns. All
agreed that school board training was important for one reason or another, but all
expressed financial or logistical concerns about training all school board members in the
state.
All four school governance members who were interviewed expressed financial
concern about mandated training. The current cost of the training is $1,600 per board
member. Dr. Andrew King asked, “Who’s going to pay for it? ” He also noted that dis-
tricts are cutting budgets and to add a new mandated cost would add strain. Similarly,
Superintendent Holmes stated, “I think people would definitely look at the cost. It can be
relatively expensive. ” In some districts, such as that of Superintendent Holmes and Josh
Merrit, all of the board members are voluntary, with no monetary compensation. Adding
a mandated expense to an already difficult and unpaid job might be difficult for policy-
makers to obtain support.
Along with the financial concerns, logistical concerns, such as the frequency of
training, the location, and content of training were expressed. Dr. King expressed
concern about the frequency and location of training:
I think that having more frequent trainings in more local areas might make it more
available. We have not had an MIG training in Ventura county for I don ’t know
how many years. They used to try to have modules here.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 99
Mr. Holmes recalled that the training sessions he took were relatively close to his
district (Santa Barbara), but he still thought that the locations of the training sessions
might be “barriers for some people. ” Mr. Merrit agreed that location was an issue, as
well as the time needed to complete a program such as the MIG.
Some of the concerns about cost, and location were reflected the observation of
MIG training modules. During the observed training it was recorded that many of the
attendees had traveled more than 100 miles to join this particular training offering.
During informal discussions it was reveled that many participants had traveled by plane
and/or were staying in nearby hotels to attend the weekend-long training. These obser-
vational findings align with the logistical concerns expressed by the interviewed gover-
nance team members. In order to attend training, board members were asked to travel far
and spend additional money on travel expenses.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was asked to gain insight into the impact of mandating
training on school districts. The surveys completed by superintendents and school board
members, interviews, and MIG observational data indicated that mandating school board
training would affect school districts in multiple ways. Although this study points to
support of such a mandate, authors of this policy would be wise to consider the financial
impact. Training programs such as the MIG would benefit from logistical considerations,
such as the location options and the frequency of training offerings, if training were to be
mandated. With the numerous roles, responsibilities, and increased accountability in
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 100
education, training should be viewed as important enough for mandates to be considered
in every state.
Summary of Findings
Three main research questions were explored in this study. These questions were
asked to understand the relationship between effective school board practice and school
board training. These questions directly relate to issues in education today. Increased
accountability, most notably with NCLB legislation, has increased scrutiny of educators.
This increase in accountability and scrutiny has made it imperative that all parties linked
to education make the best possible decisions, focusing efforts on student achievement.
The school board plays a large role in student achievement. This governing body
is charged with setting the direction of the school district. In addition to setting the
direction, they are expected to create policies that support and encourage student
achievement and academic success for all of their students. A great deal of skill is
required to do this. Training is a way for school board members to gain the skills that
lead to effective governance practices. The literature, survey, interview, and observation
data revealed that school board training affects effective school board governance.
School board members who had attended MIG training reported the use of effective
strategies due to their experience with the training program.
A close look at effective school board members and their superintendents
supports the idea that school board members are highly motivated by the culture that their
school district creates. There were frequent reports of school board members being
encouraged or expected to attend training because of cultural expectations set by their
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 101
superintendent or fellow school board members. This motivation for those who were
interviewed was described as being part of their “culture .”
The data from this research also support the finding that mandated training would
be supported by superintendents and school board members, although potential political
barriers do exist. Failure to introduce this type of mandate without addressing the fiscal
implications could decrease the support given by governance teams.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 102
Chapter 5
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to gain understanding and insight into effective
school board governance and the role that training plays in this process. School board
members are charged with many complicated roles and responsibilities as part of the
governance team. They are expected to set the direction of the school district and enact
policy to support that direction, along with a multitude of other responsibilities. To com-
plicate matters, training for these roles and responsibilities is not guaranteed; it is up to
individual members to seek and attend training. The role of school board members is
unique; they are held accountable to voters and community members for the part they
play in increasing student achievement, yet they are not required to have any experience
or expertise in any of the multiple responsibilities that board members are expected to
fulfill.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relationship exists between
effective school boards and a commitment to seek school board training. The case study
was designed to determine whether training, such as the MIG training program offered by
the CSBA, affects the practice of effective school board members who attend this train-
ing. Three research questions were developed to determine whether effective governance
teams (superintendents and school board members) attributed their success to training
and, if so, should training for school board members be a requirement (mandate) for
school board service.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 103
Ten doctoral students from the University of Southern California Rossier School
of Education collaboratively conducted this case study to address the research questions.
Their goal was to gather data from counties in southern California regarding the practice
of effective school boards and the relationship of these boards with MIG training. The
collaborative nature of this cohort allowed for a broader scope of data collection. The
cohort constructed the problem statement and determined the purpose of the study. With
the statement of the problem and the purpose of the study established, research questions
were developed, using three theoretical frameworks to define leadership, effective school
board practice, and school board training. Three research questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Since effective practice was key, high standards were set for participation. It was
decided to invite superintendents and school board members to participate in the study
through surveys and interviews, one of each for superintendents and school board
members.
The team divided responsibility for data collection in six counties, with each
member sending survey packets to predetermined effective governance teams within that
membe r’ s assi g ne d county. Each member of the team was responsible for 8-11 school
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 104
districts, totaling 100 superintendents and 226 school board members. When surveys
were returned, the data were collectively processed and shared. Each team member was
charged with interviewing two superintendents and two school board members within his
or her respective county. Interview data were not shared by cohort members, making the
reported data unique to each researcher.
In addition to survey and interview data, each member of the team attended one or
more MIG training module. Observations from these modules were shared by team
members. Each member rated the experience and observations using a common data
collection form. These data were used to triangulate the research findings and add a
depth of knowledge about the training in which school board members participate.
Findings Related to the Research Questions
Data analysis was done on an individual basis. Data were derived from results of
surveys, interviews, and observations of MIG module training sessions. This analysis
revealed themes pertaining to each research question. Related to Research Question 1, it
was concluded that school board members were motivated externally and internally to
attend training. Related to Research Question 2, it was concluded that training helped to
define the roles and responsibilities of school board members and that school board
members who attended training exhibited effective practices. Related to Research Ques-
tion 3, it was concluded that governance teams agreed that MIG school board training
was effective, with great support for mandated training and expressions that mandated
training would be challenged by budgetary and logistical concerns.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 105
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked about the factors that influence the decision of school
board members to complete the MIG training program. Reviewing the data pertaining to
Research Question 1 revealed that school board members were motivated in multiple
ways to complete training programs. Most important, the findings indicated that effective
governance teams were motivated to complete training due to the culture of training cre-
ated in their districts. This finding is supported by the framework of leadership discussed
by Bolman and Deal (2003), who asserted that symbolic leadership is needed to be a
complete leader. Symbolic leaders create positive cultures; in this case, district adminis-
trators and fellow school board members created that positive culture.
A common element in effective governance teams is the cultural expectation to
seek and attend training. Results indicated that a first step to effective school governance
is to build a culture of mutual accountability. This accountability should consist of
accountability to district stakeholders, superintendent, and fellow board members to seek
and attend training. This accountability could be as simple as all members agreeing to
attend MIG training as a team. Accountability could be more complex and political in
nature, in the form of stakeholders expecting elected board members to be trained and
then holding them accountable through the local election process. Results of the study
showed that effective accountability was simply an expectation held by the majority of
board members and the superintendent.
Meta-analysis research conducted by Waters and Marzano (2006) and case study
research by the IASB (2001) suggest that effective school boards engage in shared
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 106
learning experiences. This study led to the same conclusion. Clearly, effective school
board members and their superintendents reported that school board training was an
expectation within their school district. In alignment with this was their assertion that
they encouraged others to seek training. The perpetuation of the expectation that school
board members attend training builds a strong cultural belief system that is present in
effective school districts.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked whether MIG training encourages and equips school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance. School board members
and superintendents reported that MIG raining influenced effective governance practices.
A strong majority of the school board members reported that MIG training specifically
encouraged and equipped them to focus on student achievement, use data to make deci-
sions, align their decision-making process to the district ’s vision and goals, and experi-
ence a collaborative relationship with fellow board members. These practices directly
align with the research on effective governance (IASB, 2001; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Waters and Marzano (2006) and the IASB (2001) agreed that effective school
boards focus on student achievement, with the belief that setting high expectations and
attainable goals is necessary for achievement of academic excellence. These expecta-
tions, along with established goals, should be monitored using student data. Governance
decisions should be made based on data. Effective school boards use these processes
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). This study suggests that MIG training encourages and
equips school board members to establish and exhibit effective practices when given the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 107
model and strategies in training. Through the nine MIG modules, the training provided
by the CSBA gives governance teams an opportunity to have common definitions of roles
and responsibilities, align policy with the goals and vision of their school district, and
build relationships with their governance team and teams throughout the state. These
experiences are unique to governance teams who have participating in the MIG training
program.
Research Question 3
In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance? Nationally, only half to three quarters of board members report having been
trained in all areas of local governance (Hess, 2002). Proponents of training contend that
school board members need adequate training to be effective in their governing positions
(Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Adequate training for
school board members is seen as necessary, often as a critical piece to establishing clear
roles and responsibilities for board members (Brenner Thurlow et al., 2002; Campbell &
Greene, 1994). Although research is not conclusive on either side of this debate
(Bianchi, 2003), states have been moving toward mandated training. The results of this
study showed that mandated training would be supported by the school board members
and superintendents who were surveyed. For example, Superintendent Holmes of Ocean
View stated, “I think that training is really critical for every single board member. ”
Although mandated training was generally supported by this research, superinten-
dents and school board members in Ventura County raised concerns regarding a mandate.
These concerns were similar to those presented by critics of mandated training (Bianchi,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 108
2003). The dominant concern expressed by governance team members in Ventura
County was that of cost. These superintendents and school board members cautioned that
it would be difficult to support a mandate that was not funded. Based on these data,
mandated training would be best introduced to school board members with considerations
made for funding. Although survey results suggested that school board members and
superintendents would favor mandated training, individual interviews suggested that their
views were more tentative than the survey data might suggest. Interviewees expressed
concerns regarding the state mandating a training program without providing funding to
their districts, in light of budgetary issues facing schools in California.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations of this research include issues of the sample population. The sample
population was limited in range, including only school board members and superinten-
dents in effective school districts in six counties in southern California. The inclusion of
additional counties might have affected the results. In addition, the population was lim-
ited in scope; surveys and interviews were designed to collect data from school board
members in effective districts who had been MIG trained in all nine modules. Having
attended all nine modules, this population of participants would naturally favor MIG
training ideals.
Implications for Practice
A goal of this study was to determine whether there was a direct link between
effective school board practice and school board members who had been trained.
Another goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the program currently
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 109
being offered to school board members in California. This link led to some implications
for practice for governance teams.
Although a direct link cannot be confirmed between MIG training and effective
practice, those who had attended MIG training attested that they had attained effective
practice knowledge and skills due to the training. These findings suggest that MIG
training can and does contribute to effective governance practice. Using these findings, it
would benefit superintendents to set expectations for all school board members to attend
MIG training. Along with this expectation, school board members should set the expec-
tation that their superintendent attend the training with them. This value placed on
attendance at MIG training sessions would create a cultural expectation that all members
of the governance team should be trained to do their job effectively.
This research points to the positive role that MIG training plays in successful
districts. School board members and superintendents from successful districts indicated
that the MIG training program plays a role in their focus on student achievement and
clarifies roles and responsibilities of school board members and their superintendents.
The results of this study can be used to encourage new school board member to seek and
attend training. The results can also be used by school districts that already encourage
participation and completion of MIG training by providing data to stakeholders regarding
the effectiveness of the training program. The training is a cost that districts might need
to explain to their stakeholders; this study provides data to justify this type of expense.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 110
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was conducted in six counties in southern California in a 4-month
period. The sample consisted of 151 participants, including 61 superintendents and 90
school board members. All participating school board members were required to have
completed all nine modules of MIG training. Although conclusions can be made from
this research and these participants, additional questions remain. The following are rec-
ommendations for further research. The suggestions provided are made to advance the
scope of knowledge about school board training, focusing on MIG training.
The first recommendation is to create a survey and interview protocol for school
board members who meet the effective criteria but have not been trained using the MIG
training program. This should be done to establish a comparison of practice between
trained and untrained school board members. In addition, surveys and interviews should
be conducted with effective school board members who have partially completed MIG
training to determine whether they attribute their effective practice to their training expe-
rience. These two additions to the current study would add depth to the data regarding
the role of MIG training in effective school board governance practice.
A deeper look at the influence of the school district culture on the willingness and
openness school board members to take training is recommended. This research would
add a depth of understanding regarding the importance of culture to the motivation of
school board members to seek training.
Motivation could be further explored by looking at school boards that are deemed
not to be effective, focusing exclusively on their views and experience with training.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 111
These data could be used to compare motivational influences of effective and ineffective
school boards.
To gain concrete views of California school board members, the current study
could be replicated on a state level, including large and small districts.
Conclusion to the Study
Education has experienced a new level of scrutiny over the past three decades,
with additional media exposure and political focus. Because of this, accountability for all
educational players has increased. School board members are not the first to be attacked
in the media, but they just might be the next. Keeping this in mind, it is increasingly
important for all who are involved in the education of children to be as knowledgeable as
possible. It is important for school board members to be knowledgeable about all roles
and responsibilities that they assume as part of a district ’s governance team.
The governance of a school district is an important role; the team of superinten-
dent and school board sets the direction of the school as it sets policy. For this reason, it
is important that school board members be properly trained to be as effective as possible.
One way to support effective practice is to seek and attend training that encourages and
equips board members to use data to make decisions, align their decision-making process
to the district ’s vision and goals, and have a collaborative relationship with fellow board
members. The MIG training program supports and encourages this type of effective
practice.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 112
References
American Institute for Research. (2003). Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA):
Evaluation findings and implications. EdSource, 1-12. Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/publications/elemsec_education.htm
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2003). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. Technos Quarterly, 11(4) [Online]. Retrieved from http://schoolmatch
.com/articles/TQJAN03.htm
Berry, C. R., & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking
retrospective voting. Journal of Politics, 69, 844-858.
Bianchi, A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Retrieved from
http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Brenner Thurlow, C., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for
school boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. El Paso,
TX: Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and
function of C ali forn ia’s s c hool boar ds. West Sacramento, CA: Author.
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in
the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391-395.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 113
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate educational
challenges. SEDL, 17(2) [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-
letter/v17n02/school-board.html
Danzberger, J. (1994). Governing the nation ’s schools: The case for restructuring local
school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 367-373.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., &
Usdan, M. D. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team.
Phi Delta Kappan, 68(11), 53-59.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high- perform-
ing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los
Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Center on Educational Gov-
ernance.
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The
future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191-223).
Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Dillion, N. (2010). The value of training. American School Board Journal, 197(7), 15-19.
Ed-Data. (2011). District reports. Retrieved from www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
Ed-Data. (2013). Accountability (API/AYP performance). Available from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataC
lassic/Accountability/APIGrowth.asp?reportNumber=1&level=06
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 114
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. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key works of school boards
guidebook. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G. (1997). Getting there from here —
School board superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team
capable of raising student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research
Service.
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.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Monoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big
city school boards: Problems and options. Seattle, WA: Annie E. Casey Founda-
tion, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2001, April). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Board/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in
student achievement. A paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association 2001 Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 115
Kolb, R. F., & Strauss, R. P. (1999). State laws governing school board ethics. Pitts-
burgh, PA: H. J. Heinz School of Public Policy and Management.
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.
Larsen, S. E., Lipscomb, S., & Jaquet, K. (2011). Improving school accountability. San
Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
McAdams, D. R. (2002). The new challenge for school boards. Retrieved from
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/33/35/3335.html
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members. Educational Ad-
ministration Quarterly, 40(5), 34-70.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The impera-
tive for educational reform. Retrieved from http://datacenter.spps.org/
uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2010a). Mandated training for local school board
members survey. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2010b). Ranking and estimates. Atlanta, GA:
National Education Association.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 116
National School Boards Association. (2012). About the National School Boards Associa-
tion (NSBA). Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/About
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roberts, K., & Sampson, P. (2011). School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Manage-
ment 25, 701-713.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The
quest to define effective leadership. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability ” and school governance in California. Pea-
body Journal of Education, 78, 177-200.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). How high-poverty districts improve. Leader-
ship, 33(1), 12-16.
Tushnet, M., & Lezin, K. (1991). What really happened in Brown v. Board of Education.
Columbia Law Review, 91, 1867-1930.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06111.html
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: McReal.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 117
Appendix A
Superintendent Recruitment Letter
Date:
Dear__________________________
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact the
Masters in Governance training has on the ability of school board members to exhibit characteristics asso-
ciated with effective board governance. This study may serve as a source for best practices for superinten-
dents who strive to strengthen the effective governance of their board members through training designed
to further support their understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
My name is Kristina Turley, and I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and guidance of
Dr. Michael F. Escalante from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
Your district has been identified as a successful district in which at least one board member has completed
the Masters in Governance training offered by the California School Board Association. Should you agree
to participate in this study, please complete the superintendent survey and return it in the self- addressed
stamped envelope. We would also appreciate your assistance in facilitating the process of your board
members in completing the survey. A copy of the school board survey is enclosed for your review.
Your participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at anytime.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance,
for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Kristina Turley Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (818) 802-4769
I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I will also be
given a copy of this consent form for my records. I consent to my participation in the research
described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.
______________________________________________________________________________________
P ar ticip an t’ s S ig n at u r e Date P ar ticip an t’ s P r in ted Na m e
______________________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Investigator or Designee Date Investigator or Designee Printed Name
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 118
Appendix B
School Board Member Recruitment Letter
Date________________
Dear_______________________________,
I would like to congratulate your school district for being identified as a successful district in which at least
one board member has completed the Masters in Governance training program offered by the California
School Boards Association. My name is Kristina Turley, and I am a doctoral student from the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California conducting a research study under the guid-
ance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact the
Masters in Governance training has on the ability of school board members to exhibit characteristics asso-
ciated with effective board governance. It is my hope that this study will serve as a resource of best prac-
tices for school board members who strive to govern effectively. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time
out of your busy schedule to review and complete the information enclosed in this packet.
Your participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance,
for your time and assistance.
Respectfully,
Kristina Turley Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (818) 802-4769
I have read this board member recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask ques-
tions. I consent to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits
______________________________________________________________________________________
P ar ticip an t’ s S ig n at u r e Date P ar ticip an t’ s P r in ted N a m e
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 119
Appendix C
Superintendent Survey
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 120
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 121
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 122
Appendix D
School Board Member Survey
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 123
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 124
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 125
Appendix E
Masters in Government Observation Protocol
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 126
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 127
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 128
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examines the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program had on effective school board governance practice. The purpose was to determine whether a relationship existed between effective school boards and a commitment to seek and attend school board training. This study was framed using the definition of leadership provided by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal through their 4 frames. Best practices for effective school boards were examined using research from the Lighthouse Inquiry by the Iowa Association of School Boards. The professional governance standards provided by CSBA were used to determine expectations for governance teams. Data for this qualitative study were collected from survey results from 86 MIG-trained board members and 61 superintendents in successful districts in southern California, 4 interviews conducted with school board members and superintendents, and observations done in each of the trainings offered through the MIG in order to answer 3 research questions: (a) factors impacting the decision of school board members to complete the MIG training program, (b) whether MIG training encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and (c) in what ways mandating the MIG training could impact school board governance. Findings from this research suggested that MIG training supports effective governance practice by building team experiences while clarifying roles and responsibilities. This study adds to the current research regarding effective leadership within school districts and, more specifically, the role that training plays in effective leadership.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Turley, Kristina
(author)
Core Title
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/09/2013
Defense Date
02/22/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
California,CSBA,Education,effective governance,governance,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board training,School boards,school district,Southern California,Training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Livingston, Cynthia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kristinaturley@mac.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-233973
Unique identifier
UC11294587
Identifier
usctheses-c3-233973 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-TurleyKris-1529.pdf
Dmrecord
233973
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Turley, Kristina
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
CSBA
effective governance
governance
school board training
school district
Training