University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance

(USC Thesis Other)

Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: IMPACT OF THE MIG 1
IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE TRAINING PROGRAM
ON EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
by
Mercedes Gomez
____________________________________________________________________
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 Mercedes Gomez
IMPACT OF THE MIG 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation first and foremost to my mother and father. They
taught me from an early age the meaning of hard work and dedication. While they
supported me immensely with their love and affection, they also showed me that I needed
to work hard to accomplish what I wanted and that nothing came easy. Mil gracias por
vuestro amor y apoyo constante. ¡Nunca os podré agradecer lo mucho que hicisteis por
mí, pero espero que sepáis que os quiero mucho y sin vosotros no hubiera podido lograr
ni la mitad de lo que he hecho en mi vida!
I also dedicate this to my husband for standing by me while I embarked on this
journey and supporting me endlessly. Without his constant love and encouragement, I
may not have made it. His constant affirmations and support helped me to complete this
chapter of my life.
Finally, I dedicate this to anyone who doubts or questions whether she can
complete this arduous feat. It is possible and, with the right support systems in place,
anything can be accomplished. ¡Acuérdense, sí se puede!
IMPACT OF THE MIG 3
Acknowledgments
It is with great pleasure that I thank the many people who guided me along the
way. I begin by acknowledging my dissertation chair, Dr. Michael F. Escalante. His
leadership and support have been invaluable. Having had the honor and pleasure of
meeting him in my first semester at USC set the stage for a supportive relationship. He
not only mentored me but also encouraged me each step of the way. I also thank Dr.
Pedro Garcia, who not only served on my committee, but was also a mentor and friend.
Dr. Garcia helped me to look within to rediscover my passion and zest for life and
encouraged me as I embarked on pursuing advancements in my career. I thank Dr.
Michele Doll for serving on my committee. I appreciated her willingness to offer
valuable insight and feedback on this research. I thank the Rossier School of Education
and its professors who encouraged me to learn and continue to grow academically.
I acknowledge my Thursday II cohort for providing a strong network and support
system during the first year at USC. Special thanks go to my dissertation group,
especially Lena Richter and Marco Nava. Their support, guidance, encouragement,
knowledge, and sense of humor helped me to stay on track, while still managing to laugh
on occasion. Their expertise and friendship were invaluable. I will miss our many
evenings at the library and our school sites and will remember fondly our many
conversations and work sessions. Go Team MLM!
I thank my many friends and colleagues at work and in my personal life. Thanks
to everyone at Lehigh for supporting me and remaining constantly positive and
encouraging. Thanks especially to Anthony Ortiz for being so understanding and flexible.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 4
His constant support and jokes made the process more doable. Thanks are also in order to
Marie Navarro, Stacia Neer, Julie Aviles, and Rick Howard for helping me to maintain
my sense of humor and sanity. I extend additional thanks to Christiane Ayoub-Garcia for
supporting and encouraging me throughout the final leg of my journey. I acknowledge
Carla Costigan Turna for not only being a best friend and sister but for remaining by my
side as I embarked on various journeys throughout the many years that we have known
each other.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations 14
Delimitations 14
Assumptions 14
Definitions of Terms 15
Organization of the Dissertation 16

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 17
History of School Boards 18
Historical Context 18
School Board Authority 20
Centralized School Board Governance 21
Profile of Contemporary School Boards 23
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards 24
School Board Roles 24
Functions of School Boards 25
School Board Responsibilities 26
Leadership 28
School Board Leadership 29
Indicators of Effective Leadership 31
Accountability 33
School Board Member Training 35
Purpose of Training 35
Existing Programs/Mandatory States 36
Implications for Ongoing Training/Professional Development 38
Conceptual Frameworks 39
Leadership 40
Effective School Board Practices 42
Effective Governance for School Boards 45
Chapter Summary 47

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 49
Research Design 50
IMPACT OF THE MIG 6
Participants 52
Instrumentation 53
Data Collection 56
Data Analysis 56
Ethical Considerations 57
Chapter Summary 57

Chapter 4: Research Results 58
Participants 59
Survey Participants 60
Interview Participants 60
Results for Research Question 1 62
Motivation to Participate 63
Increasing Participation 64
Summary of Results for Research Question 1 66
Results for Research Question 2 66
Student Achievement 67
Unified Team 69
Roles and Responsibilities 72
Summary of Results for Research Question 2 75
Results for Research Question 3 75
MIG Training Mandate 76
Cost of MIG as a Deterrent 77
Summary of Results for Research Question 3 79
Chapter Summary 79

Chapter 5: Conclusion 82
Summary of Findings 83
Implications for Practice 85
Recommendations for Future Research 86
Conclusion 87

References 88
Appendices
Appendix A: Board Member Survey 93
Appendix B: Superintendent Survey 96
Appendix C: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 99
Appendix D: Board Member Recruitment Letter 100
Appendix E: Information Sheet: Superintendent 101
Appendix F: Information Sheet: School Board Member 103
Appendix G: Interview Guide: Superintendent 105
Appendix H: Interview Guide: School Board Member 106
Appendix I: MIG Observation Protocol 107
Appendix J: Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and MIG
Observation Protocol 111
Appendix K: Research Questions/Survey/Interview/MIGOP Protocol Grid 112
IMPACT OF THE MIG 7
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Primary Factors Influencing School Board Members to Participate
in MIG Training 65
Table 2: An Online MIG Certification Program Would Encourage More
School Board Members to Participate 67
Table 3: School Board Members Who Have Earned Masters in Governance
Certification Demonstrate an Increased Focus on Student
Achievement During School Board Meetings 69
Table 4: Ranking of the Characteristics of Effective Governance Proposed
by the California School Board Association 70
Table 5: School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained Developed a More
Collaborative Relationship With Their Fellow School Board Members 71
Table 6: School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained Exhibit a Clearer
Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent 73
Table 7: The MIG Training Helps School Board Members to Differentiate
Between Policy and Management Leadership 74
Table 8: The MIG Training Should Be Mandated in California 78
Table 9: If the Cost of the MIG Training Program Were Subsidized or Free,
More School Board Members Would Participate 79
Figure 1: Alignment of the research frameworks by Bolman and Deal, the
California School Boards Association (CSBA), and the Iowa
Association of School Boards (IASB) Lighthouse Inquiry 56

IMPACT OF THE MIG 8
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of professional development for school board
members based on best practices identified in the relevant literature to determine the
potential impact on effective governance. The purpose of this study was to determine
whether the Masters in Governance (MIG) training program offered by the California
School Boards Association influenced a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective leadership and governance. This was a qualitative study using data collected via
surveys and interviews, as well as observations of the MIG modules. The findings
indicated that the MIG training program was effective in providing school boards with a
clear definition of their roles and responsibilities, enabling them to lead and govern
effectively. It is recommended that the program be adjusted to fit the needs of school
board members by allowing for an increase in participation. This study begins to identify
the possibility of mandating school board training in California and the positive effect it
can have on school board governance, if funded appropriately.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 9
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
School boards are locally elected officials who are entrusted to make decisions
regarding the welfare of children (Land, 2002). In the United States, “citizen oversight of
local government is the cornerstone of democracy” (California School Boards
Association [CSBA], 2007, p. 3) and school boards are not any different. In many areas
of public government, experts are entrusted to ensure effective governance; however, in
school districts, that is not always the case. School board members do not necessarily
have to be knowledgeable about school issues or governance, which can pose
considerable problems if school board members are not adequately trained (Bianchi,
2003; Danzberger, 1994; Dillon, 2010; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The role of school boards and their members is challenging in the increasing age
of accountability that California and the nation currently face. California schools
currently serve more than six million students enrolled in more than 1,000 districts
governed by more than 5,000 school board members (CSBA, 2007). These numbers are
staggering and can be compounded by the fact that California does not mandate school
board training for its members, while 23 other states mandate some form of training
(National School Boards Association [NSBA], 2012). In California, the CSBA offers a
training program called the Masters in Governance (MIG) comprised of nine modules:
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 (CSBA, 2010b).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 10
In determining whether there is a potential need for training, it is imperative to
identify the precise nature of the role of a school board member. School districts as a
whole tend to be multimillion-dollar enterprises and are often the “largest employer in a
community, have the largest transportation and food service operations, and have the
greatest number of facilities to maintain” (CSBA, 2007, pp. 3-4). School boards make
decisions regarding personnel, finance, curriculum, student discipline, and community
matters. As a result, it seems appropriate that some prerequisite mandatory training be
provided, but such is not the case.
When school boards were initially formed, their role was more of a managerial
role, specifically aimed at administrative and financial responsibility. As changing
politics evolved and population surged across the country, school districts and their
respective schools began to grow considerably. School boards began to take on more
responsibilities and eventually became the governing body to oversee many, if not all, of
a district’s various departments.
Prior to the recent increase in federal and state accountability, school boards
managed and functioned relatively well. Decisions were made and considered to be
successful on average. With the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 by the National
Commission on Excellence in Education, serious public school education issues were
brought to light, including a need to improve the education of students. California also
focused on public education and authorized the Public Schools Accountability Act
(PSAA) in 1999, aimed at ensuring that schools make adequate progress in improving all
students’ learning. In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reauthorized the
IMPACT OF THE MIG 11
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), mandating that all students
demonstrate proficiency in Language Arts and Mathematics by the 2013-2014 school
year. School boards were suddenly faced with a crisis whereby they needed to ensure that
all students in their districts were performing as expected based on PSAA and NCLB.
Unfortunately, this proved quite difficult as the years went on and the targeted goals
increased.
With this increase in accountability, school boards were increasingly pressured to
make sound decisions regarding critical areas such as finance, curriculum, and
instruction. Given that board members have varying backgrounds in personal and
professional experience, reaching consensus and working effectively as a single
governing body proved challenging. Because school board members govern as a body
rather than as individuals, representing individual perspectives or those of their
constituents can have negative effects, including tension and ineffective governance
(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. With increased public
scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and advancements in technology, school
board members must understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an
effective district environment (Johnson, 2011). School board members must demonstrate
professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities (CSBA, 2007).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 12
Since the duties of school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication,
and ongoing school board professional growth are vital characteristics for success
(Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training provided by
CSBA influences a school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance. The study examined the current training program option
offered in California by the CSBA, as well as potential factors by which school board
members were influenced to pursue completion of the MIG. It also examined existing
frameworks as they relate to the potential need for school board training and its impact on
effective governance.
Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations (2008) provided insight into
leadership strategies that school board members employ as they carry out their various
roles and responsibilities. The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008), conducted under
the leadership of Mary Delagardelle and in conjunction with the Iowa Association of
School Boards (IASB), and the CSBA publication on school board leadership and
professional governance standards (CSBA, 2007) provided insight into the best practices
for effective school boards related to school board leadership and governance. These
frameworks provided the most effective lens through which to examine the study as they
are closely aligned and highly researched.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 13
Research Questions
To determine whether there is a potential need for school board training as a
means to improve leadership and governance, the following questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact effective
governance?
Significance of the Study
The current literature based on the potential need for school board training is
rather limited. Consequently, identifying factors by which a school board member and his
or her board might decide to pursue a training program is critical in determining the
effects of school board training on effective governance. The role of the school board and
its members has dramatically changed over the past century. This study is essential to the
future success of school boards as they struggle to govern effectively with the many
challenges that face them. The data gathered from this study will be used to identify key
indicators that affect the decision-making process to complete school board training,
specifically the MIG, as well as its impact on effective governance.
Currently, the CSBA offers a professional development training program aimed at
providing school board members with the necessary knowledge and tools to perform
effectively in the various aspects of their position. The MIG training is comprised of nine
IMPACT OF THE MIG 14
modules, each of which targets a specific area of a school board member’s
responsibilities. This study was designed to identify the effective components of the
MIG, as well as whether a potential need exists for mandating school board member
training. Policymakers at the various levels will benefit from the data in this study to
consider possible changes to mandates on school board training.
Limitations
The study was limited to those who participated voluntarily. The study was
limited to the number of participants interviewed, as well as to the time allotted to
complete the study. The study was limited to southern California due to geographical
constraints. The study was limited by the candidness of the responses gathered from the
participants in the surveys and interviews. The study was limited to the participants’
recollections of their experiences during training;
Delimitations
Participants were chosen based on set criteria. Participation was delimited to those
who had earned the MIG certificate. Participation was delimited to elementary,
secondary, and unified school districts. Participation was delimited to districts with an
average daily attendance (ADA) of 2,000-50,000 students. Participation was delimited to
districts that had earned an Academic Performance Index (API) of 800 in the previous
year or had increased their API an average of 21 points in the previous 3 years;
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for this study. It was assumed that the
instruments would be reliable and valid. It was assumed that participants would be honest
IMPACT OF THE MIG 15
in their responses in both the surveys and the interviews. It is assumed that the data
gathered from the CSBA indicating which members had completed the MIG training
would be valid. It was assumed that participants would be able to recall elements of the
MIG training program as it relates to their role as a school board member. It was assumed
that school boards and their members had a direct governance impact on their districts. It
was assumed that MIG training would improve board governance, as well as board and
superintendent relations.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined.
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 as defined by the PSAA (EdSource, 2005).
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 (EdSource, 2012).
California School Boards Association (CSBA): A collaborative group of the
state’s school board members aimed at communicating and advocating the perspective of
California school districts (CSBA, 2010a).
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA
consisting of nine modules geared toward improving governance and leadership, as well
as defining the roles and responsibilities of the school board and maintaining a focus on
student learning (CSBA, 2007).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 16
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Federal reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act signed into law in 2001, requiring states to set high standards
and give assessments in basic skills in order to receive federal school funding. The act
also mandates that all students will be proficient in Language Arts and Mathematics by
2014, as measured by each state’s achievement examinations (EdSource, 2005).
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA): A 1999 California legislative act by
which California schools are ranked based on test scores (EdSource, 2005).
School board member: An individual member of a school board.
School board: A three-, five-, or seven-member board, either elected or appointed
within a district, to act as a single unit regarding various aspects of governance.
Superintendent: The appointed chief executive officer of a public school district,
accountable to the school board.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 identifies the statement
of the problem, purpose of the study, and the three research questions guiding the
research, as well as the limitations, delimitations, assumptions, and definitions of terms as
used in the study. Chapter 2 presents a review of the current literature related to the study
topic. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology, including the research design,
sampling and population, and data collection procedures. Chapter 4 presents the findings
of the research and an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 summarizes the study and presents
implications and recommendations for future research.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 17
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
The role of the school board has changed over the past two centuries from being
more managerial to now being more legislative (Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The
school board’s role has evolved considerably and encompasses a variety of
responsibilities placed on its members, often with little to no training or education and
training prerequisites (CSBA, 2007). Whereas in the past two centuries a board member
served with minimal conflict, service is now often politically charged (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). Historically, at the onset of public education, board membership was more an
administrative role, as school board members were responsible for specific school tasks
(Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Now, however, board membership is much more legislative in
nature. Board members are called on to be knowledgeable and to make informed
decisions on issues such as finance, curriculum, personnel issues, and policy (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). This demand poses a challenge as the demographic make-up of school
boards is varied and there is no prerequisite to run for office.
This chapter reviews literature relevant to professional development and training
for school board members and their impact on the ability to govern effectively. The
review of the literature begins with the historical context of school boards to provide a
background for the foundation of the school board as it currently stands. The roles and
responsibilities of school board members are examined, as well as leadership strategies in
general and their application to school board members. With the current emphasis in
education on accountability, this topic also receives focus as it relates to school board
IMPACT OF THE MIG 18
members. An analysis of existing training programs for school board members is
presented to identify possible correlations. The chapter concludes with a review of the
conceptual frameworks identified through the Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the Iowa
Association of School Boards, the California School Boards Association, and Reframing
Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
History of School Boards
Historical Context
Public education in the United States began during colonial times when the first
Massachusetts School Law of 1642 was enacted (Campbell & Greene, 1994;
Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). This law did not stipulate that children had to attend
formal schooling but it specified that it was the parent’s responsibility to ensure that their
children would be model citizens. The understanding was that parents would help their
children to acquire basic skills to be functional in society, including being competent in
reading and writing (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). The
responsibility to ensure that the children were indeed learning fell to selectmen, elected
persons responsible for running towns. Unfortunately, this arrangement did not have the
desired results, as parents were not fully compliant.
The Massachusetts School Law of 1647 stipulated that any town with more than
50 families was required to hire a teacher and any town with more than 100 families was
required to provide a grammar school. This act transferred the authority of educating the
children to the selectmen and the towns, as it was their responsibility to provide the
teachers and schools (Campbell & Greene, 1990; Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). This
IMPACT OF THE MIG 19
law empowered the selectmen to oversee the education of children, as opposed to the
clergy, who had initially been responsible. Decisions regarding the administration and
control of schools were made during town meetings of selectmen and local citizens. As
selectmen were elected officials, the first school boards began (Campbell & Greene,
1990; Goldhammer, 1964).
During the 1800s, as colonization spread from urban areas to rural areas, a need
arose for multiple and separate districts. There were concerns regarding civil and
religious issues of conflict and, as populations grew, so did school districts. This led to
decentralization of public education and the role of school boards as administrators was
formed. In 1837 Massachusetts created the first state board of education and the first
office of state superintendent (Campbell & Greene, 1990; Goldhammer, 1964; Land,
2002). While the state was becoming more involved, control remained at the local level.
This system of school governance expanded from Massachusetts to include the
remainder of the United States and continues to be the basis for the current educational
system. While school boards were initially given only financial and administrative
authority to carry out a managerial role, this evolved as local politics grew from
neighborhood-based elections to citywide elections. The increased responsibilities led to
a need for a superintendent; while this was initially a clerical role, it later became an
educational role. Currently, given the demands placed on public education, there is a
stronger need for school board leadership and setting the course for the future (Hopkins,
O’Neil, & Williams, 2007).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 20
School Board Authority
The school board was created by the legislature for the purpose of managing the
school district’s affairs. The school board is considered to be the immediate authority
over the district’s schools; as such, it is responsible for a variety of items: policy
formulation, program development, personnel issues, provision of educationally related
services, and management of the use of the district’s facilities. The actual powers of a
school board vary by state, since it operates primarily as an agency of the state as an
elected or appointed body. Specifically, school boards tend to derive authority from five
levels of control: “the state constitution, legislative enactments (statutory law), the rules
and regulations of the state board of education, decisions of the courts, and societal
demands” (Goldhammer, 1964, p. 4).
While each state’s constitution contains some provisions regarding education of
its residents, those provisions are very broad. Specific laws and rules related to education
are considered to be a legislative function. Many local educational agencies are at the
mercy of legislative acts and can be created or abolished quite easily (Goldhammer,
1964; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Legislative control provides the main source of power for school boards. The
school board is seen as a quasilegislative body or quasicorporation because it acts as a
local government body but is confined to the district or city limits. The state legislature
determines the level of control or authority placed on the districts. The majority of states
opt for a decentralized form of governance, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii,
where the states governs the schools directly (Goldhammer, 1964; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 21
While state legislatures set broad guidelines, the state board of education
establishes fine details. This board makes decisions regarding curriculum and standards
to which the districts and local boards must adhere. The board is also responsible for the
guidelines for teacher certification, including courses of study and processes regarding
issuance and revocation of credentials (Goldhammer, 1964).
The courts also play a role in determining local school board authority. They
make determinations based on lawsuits brought by individuals or agencies seeking a
clearly defined role of the school board. This places pressures on the local school board
to create or revise policies as they relate to the court’s decisions (Goldhammer, 1964).
Society as a whole has also affected the school board and its authority. Beginning
with the onset of education in the United States, the school has assumed more areas of
responsibility. Where the church or home may have previously been responsible in
certain arenas, the school is now the responsible entity. Sports, psychological, and even
health services are examples of areas that society has pressured schools to include
(Goldhammer, 1964). This list may increase with time as more emphasis is placed on the
schools to ensure that the needs of all students are met.
Centralized School Board Governance
School board governance is currently handled locally. Because of the large sizes
of states and significant differences in communities, there are no uniform policies with a
one-size-fits-all approach (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The states provide guidelines and
generalities of certain policies; however, individual districts set and implement policies
that best fit their individual needs. This is not always an easy task, as many issues come
IMPACT OF THE MIG 22
into play. During the second half of the 20th century, the federal government has taken a
more active role through the passage of certain laws (Land, 2002).
Such was the situation when the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education
was decided in 1954. This case was a prime example of the court making a decision that
required local school districts to create new policy. Local school districts now had to
create and implement policies to end desegregation in their schools (Land, 2002). This
was not a simple feat and the federal government intervened. The involvement of the
federal government continued to increase into the 1960s and 1970s with the onset of
categorically funded programs such as Title I, migrant education, and special education.
The states also took a more active role during this time as they set guidelines for
graduation, testing, and teacher certification (Land, 2002).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signed into law in 2001, stated that all
students would be required to reach proficiency in Language Arts and Mathematics by
the 2013-2014 school year, as measured by each state’s current assessment system. While
the law indicated a measurement tool, it did not specifically state how proficiency would
be determined or defined. Many states set up specific scaled scores and criteria as a basis
and adjusted them as the ramifications for not meeting these targets set in (Bracey&
Resnick, 1998; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Land, 2002; Lashway, 2002; Timar,
2003).
Another example is curriculum frameworks and adoptions. School boards must
focus on “systemic policies that help implement curriculum framework based on state
standards” (Wirt & Kirst, 2005, p. 152). Boards must be certain that their materials,
IMPACT OF THE MIG 23
trainings, categorical programs, and fiscal priorities are aligned with the goals set forth by
NCLB (Danzberger, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
In addition, employee unions play a key part in school board elections and
turnover. They help to fund campaigns and provide campaign workers. School boards
must learn to navigate various collective bargaining agreements as they fulfill their key
role in dealing with issues concerning human resources, facilities, fiscal concerns,
maintenance, and operations (Danzberger, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Profile of Contemporary School Boards
Currently, there are more than 15,000 school districts with 95,000 school board
members in the United States (Hess, 2002). The majority of school boards are comprised
of five or seven elected or appointed members, with the smallest school board having
three members and the largest having 13 members (Kolb & Strauss, 1999). In order to be
eligible to serve on a school board, a candidate must be at least 18 years old, a registered
voter, a resident of the district, and eligible to hold civil office. Terms are generally 4
years and elections are usually held in November. Board members are elected in one of
three ways, depending on the district: (a) “at large,” which means that the member can
live anywhere in the district and is elected by all voters in the district; (b ) by “trustee
area,” which means that the board member must live in and be elected by members of the
geographic trustee area; or (c) “trustee area at large,” which means that the board member
must live within a certain geographic trustee area but is elected by all voters (CSBA,
2007).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 24
Demographically speaking, school board members tend to be upper-middle class
in most districts. According to a national survey conducted in 2002, 45% were
professionals or business people and more than 25% were either retired or homemakers
(Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In some urban districts, minorities are starting to assume the
position of school board member (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards
While the U.S. Constitution does not address education per se, the Tenth
Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.” This inherently provides the states with the responsibility for the
education of its citizens, which is handled locally through district-level school boards.
School Board Roles
Goldhammer (1964) defined six roles of school board members as perceived by
local communities. This list may vary based on individual communities, but it
encompasses the majority of expectations.
First on the list is the expectation that school board members are promoters of the
public interest in education. With the increase in professionalization for educators,
common citizens feel underrepresented and look toward their local school board
members to represent their needs accurately.
Second, the expectation is that school board members will uphold and defend the
values of the community. This was much easier in the past, when the local school teacher
was part of the same town and generally shared the same values and beliefs. However,
IMPACT OF THE MIG 25
now the fear is that the teacher or school might subject the community’s children to
values with which community members may disagree.
Third on the list is the expectation that the school board will hear the
community’s complaints and concerns. As issues arise and resolutions are not made to
the satisfaction of the parents at the school level, the next step is to voice these concerns
with the school boards.
Fourth, the community expects that the school board will be fiscally conservative.
It expects school board members to monitor expenditures closely and be “economically
savvy.”
Fifth, it is expected that the school board will promote individual and special
interests. Counting a school board member as a close friend or contributing to the
election of a school board member often includes the assumption that, if the need arose,
said school member would side with the individual or group. This is especially
compounded now as unions have become involved in school boards and elections
(Danzberger, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). While these expectations may not be the reality,
they unfortunately are the perceptions of local communities. As Wirt and Kirst pointed
out, “In politics, what’s important is what citizens think is reality, not reality itself”
(p. 136).
Functions of School Boards
As with most reform movements, there are inherent flaws that do not appear to be
significant initially but, as time progresses, their impact is apparent. School boards were
reformed in the early 1900s and modeled after large corporations (Kirst, 1994). As a
IMPACT OF THE MIG 26
result, school boards are now responsible to oversee all areas of school and district
operations. This proves to be very challenging, as school board members are asked to do
everything superficially while really not doing anything at a desired level. Consequently,
school boards now encompass the three main functions of government: legislative,
executive, and judicial.
School boards are asked to adopt budgets, set policies, and pass regulations. They
are also contacted by local citizens and community members with concerns or
complaints, as constituents normally would, and the expectations are that school board
members will handle them. In doing so, they are demonstrating their legislative authority
(Kirst, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
As school board members move from setting policies to implementation of those
policies, they are indeed acting in an executive capacity. Most school and district
expenditures, as well as many human resources issues, must be approved by the school
board. Decisions or actions taken by the board regarding implementing board policies
represent the school board’s executive authority (Kirst, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
As school sites handle discipline problems, serious offenses are presented to the
board with a recommendation to expel. The site cannot determine to expel a student;
rather, the case is referred to the school board, which acts in a judiciary capacity by
holding a hearing and making a decision and determination regarding the student’s
outcome (Kirst, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 27
School Board Responsibilities
Because school boards govern so many areas of their schools, it is not easy to
identify specific responsibilities of school board members. This has led to much
confusion about the responsibilities of school boards. The CSBA identified five major
responsibilities of the school board. This list resulted from a study conducted by the
NSBA in conjunction with the CSBA. This list is meant to provide a guideline of the
“core decision-making” responsibilities of school boards (Campbell & Greene, 1994,
p. 392).
The first responsibility includes setting the direction of the district and identifying
a vision (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007). The vision is the long-term guide for
where the district needs to go and is reflective of the superintendent, the cabinet, and the
community. It is meant to be the driving force behind the various decisions made by the
school board.
The second responsibility includes setting and maintaining a set structure for the
district. Within this structure are the hiring of a superintendent, the development and
adoption of policies, curriculum, budget, collective bargaining agreements, and, most
important, promoting a climate of excellence. Recently, providing support was added as
an area of responsibility for school boards. The superintendent and staff work diligently
to carry out the vision of the school board and the board should make sure that they are
making decisions based on the agreed-upon goals and providing resources, as well as
upholding district policies (CSBA, 2007).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 28
Increasing demands established by recent legislation have placed accountability to
the public as a responsibility of the board. The school board is responsible for monitoring
the progress made toward reaching the district’s vision, as well as communicating that
progress to the public. Student achievement, as measured by state assessments, is closely
monitored and shared with the community, as well as accountability for fiscal resources,
bargaining, and personnel (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007).
Last on the list of responsibilities set forth by the CSBA is advocating on behalf
of the children and the community. The school board is elected locally by the residents of
the community, and they are there to serve the best interests of the children. They are, in
a sense, the community leaders of education, charged with communicating information
regarding their programs and policies to the community.
Achieving success in this list of responsibilities is not handled individually.
School boards are teams and must work together to make sound decisions for all parties
involved. As elected officials, they should strive to ensure public accountability as a
board, not as individual persons.
Leadership
Leadership is not an easy term to define. There are multiple approaches to
leadership and there are unique styles compounded by the situations in which they occur.
For the purpose of this study, Northouse’s (2010) definition of leadership as “a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3)
sets the stage for understanding the relationships of school board members to themselves
and the superintendent.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 29
Leadership is a process. It is not inherent in an individual; rather, it occurs over
time and is influenced by others. It is also present in groups, particularly those that have a
common purpose or similar goals (Northouse, 2010). This view of leadership is inherent
in the manner in which school boards are conducted. School boards are teams of people
who have more power and authority as a whole than as an individual. In examining
leadership theory and practice, Northouse identified the manner in which school boards
act as “team leadership.”
Within a district and school setting, leadership is often romanticized because there
is a belief that people are successful due to their personalities and traits, as opposed to
their skill or effort (Elmore, 2000). Elmore recommended that, because the characteristics
of good leaders are considered to be limited and are not easily changed with education,
leadership be deromanticized, especially in education.
Leithwood et al. (2008) identified strong leadership as “applying each of the four
core sets, which include building vision and setting directions, understanding and
developing people, redesigning the organization, and managing the teaching and learning
program” (p. 31). One of the key responsibilities of school board members is to set a
vision to guide the direction of the district. Leithwood et al. (2008) also identified the
ability to motivate as an indicator of strong leadership. Motivation is important, as it
helps to build human relations and allows for minimal conflict (Elmore, 2000).
School Board Leadership
School boards are not authorized to act or govern as individuals; rather, they are
considered a singular unit and, as such, must work together (Land, 2002). In a more
IMPACT OF THE MIG 30
traditional sense, board members consider themselves to be trustees and act as a body;
however, Danzberger (1994) argued that, since about the 1960s, board members have
seen their role as more political and act as representatives of a certain group of
constituents. They have also moved toward fostering individual relationships with their
constituents through a political agenda. When school boards act as representatives instead
of trustees, they struggle to act as a single unit (Land, 2002).
Multiple research studies have indicated that school boards struggle to work
together cohesively as one body (Land, 2002). School board members tend to rate
themselves rather low on relations with each other (Danzberger et al., 1987). They
describe the areas of trust for the collective board and communication among themselves
to be challenging (Land, 2002).
Working as individuals creates tension and does not allow the school board to
govern in an effective way. Anderson (1992) explained that superintendents and school
board presidents feel that school board members do not understand their role and should
move away from special interests and more toward a trustee role. Land (2002) explained
that this shift from trustee to representative is due in large part to elections and
representation of minorities who strive to please their constituents.
According to Fusarelli (2006), research indicates that the success of an
educational leader depends heavily on the relationship between the school board and the
superintendent. A solid foundation and partnership between these two parties leads to a
more cohesive and effective district, able to reach targeted goals (Thomas, 2001). In
1992, superintendents were surveyed regarding barriers to being effective in their
IMPACT OF THE MIG 31
capacity and relationships with the board ranked high consistently (Glass, 1992).
Likewise, school board members have stated that superintendent relations are
fundamental for them to adequately perform their duties (Thomas, 2001).
Thomas (2001) identified communication as a possible obstacle to fostering solid
relations between school board members and superintendents. Superintendents and
school board members shared that, with the exception of board meetings, they did not
communicate or have contact with each other. There is no clear reason, but alienation and
working in isolation on behalf of the superintendent are possible reasons (Thomas, 2001).
Not clearly identifying the expectations of both school board members and
superintendents, as well as confusion regarding the authority of both parties, complicates
this relationship. Prior to the NSBA and CSBA identifying roles and responsibilities for
school board members, there was significant overlap, and both parties encountered
difficulties as they tried to perform their jobs. When these duties were established, it did
not necessarily alleviate the problems because role negotiations were not addressed.
Currently, superintendents tend to make recommendations to their boards and, if the
school boards are not properly trained or lack a background in education, they may often
disagree with the superintendent (Thomas, 2001). This adds to the tension as
superintendents can be released from their contracts by the board at any time.
Because leadership can often be viewed as a style, it is important to ensure a good
fit with superintendents and school board members. A complimentary relationship fosters
a team approach to leadership.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 32
Indicators of Effective Leadership
Bainbridge and Thomas (2003) argued that strong leadership is needed for school
governance to hold school personnel accountable and yet not interfere with daily
decisions. Superintendents and school board members must understand their roles and
support each other. Identifying characteristics of effective school boards helps both
parties to achieve success.
Seven conditions created in effective districts by both superintendents and school
board members were identified: shared leadership, continuous improvement, sustained
initiatives, supportive workplace for staff, utilization of data, staff development, and
community involvement (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003). Unfortunately the reality in
many districts is that school boards do not create these positive environments; rather, they
actually create conditions that impede progress. This ineffectiveness can be identified
through a district’s high number of students failing skills tests, poor attendance, high
failure rates, high turnover in school administration, and few students in honors or
advanced classes (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003). The New England School Development
Council released a study with recommendations to improve school board/superintendent
relationships and leadership. Clearly defining the roles of each and providing training for
both parties would facilitate them working as a team (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003;
Thomas, 2001).
Board alignment and support of district goals are indicators of effective
leadership. This implies the need for school boards to work together in adopting and
adhering to the goals outlined by the district. By leading as a collective board, individual
IMPACT OF THE MIG 33
agendas do not get in the way. School boards can contribute to the overall success of
districts and their schools when they focus on effective leadership responsibilities
(Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Accountability
Accountability in education has increased significantly over the past two decades.
In the mid-1980s, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a
study titled A Nation at Risk. This study identified flaws in the educational system and
predicted the demise of the United States as an industrial leader if major changes did not
occur in education (Timar, 2003). This led to intense school reforms, with accountability
at the forefront.
In order to grasp the flawed accountability system in education, it is important to
understand that at the center of accountability is a “contractual relationship between two
parties with one being the provider of a good or service and the other being the director
with the authority to reward, punish, or replace the provider” (Hentschke & Wohlstetter,
2004, p. 17). This is quite evident in schools and districts with multiple layers of
providers and directors. The first layer extends from the federal or state level as a director
and the individual districts as the providers. This then translates into the districts
becoming the director and the individual schools becoming the providers, after which the
school administrators or principals become the directors and delegate to the teachers, who
become the providers (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). The roles are interchangeable, as
an entity can be both a director and provider. Problems arise when barriers impede the
ability of the directors and providers to act accordingly in fulfilling their responsibility.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 34
In California, this was manifested with the PSAA of 1999. This act contained
three main components: (a) the API, which was originally meant to be based on multiple
measures but was instead based only on assessment results; (b) the Higher Performing/
Improving Schools Program, which provided financial bonuses for schools that met or
exceeded API targets; and (c) the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program, which provided focused intervention for schools that failed to meet API targets
and did not show growth. The original intent was that this combination of requirements,
incentives, sanctions, and support would build capacity and increase performance (Timar,
2003).
In 2001, Congress passed NCLB, which essentially stated that all students would
be proficient or advanced in Language Arts and Mathematics, as measured by each
state’s tests, by 2013-2014 (Bracey & Resnick, 1998; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004;
Land, 2002; Lashway, 2002; Timar, 2003). The act did not set clear expectations as to the
determinations of what would be the scores indicating proficiency but delegated that
determination to each individual state. It also did not mandate that all states have a
national set of standards; consequently, a fourth-grade student in Texas might have a
curriculum or set of standards that was different from that of a fourth-grade student in
California or Virginia. However, the act created an additional layer of accountability for
schools, districts, and individual states.
Currently, school boards in California are required to address both PSAA and
NCLB and ensure compliance, as well as to adjust appropriately to act in accordance with
their roles as directors. Unfortunately, this can be challenging, as policies and collective
IMPACT OF THE MIG 35
bargaining agreements can get in the way. In addition, school boards must demonstrate
their accountability to the public in these two areas. In particular, NCLB called for a
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for each school to be published and made
public. The SARC provides data regarding school’s background and information, student
achievement as measured by test scores, teacher certification, and facilities.
School boards are accountable to the public regarding policy formulation and
adoption related to current issues. These issues can be anything related to schools, such as
curriculum, personnel, and student safety. Most recently, due to current legislation about
bullying, school boards have had to develop and adopt policies to reduce and eliminate
bullying. This has become a heated topic for debate as the public seeks actions by school
boards.
Given this increase in accountability for schools and school boards, a potential
need for training has arisen (Roberts & Sampson, 2010). Because there is no educational
prerequisite or work experience requirement to run for school board, board members
come from a variety of backgrounds. Providing some form of professional development
in key areas, including roles and responsibilities of school board members, school law,
and school operations, may help to increase the effectiveness of board members (Roberts
& Sampson, 2010).
School Board Member Training
Purpose of Training
The role of the school board member has evolved considerably since its inception.
The board is responsible for a multitude of tasks, as well as an increase in responsibility
IMPACT OF THE MIG 36
and accountability. School board members can feel overwhelmed because they may not
be adequately prepared to fulfill all aspects of their job (Bianchi, 2003). In order to
complete their fundamental responsibilities, school boards must possess effective
strategies or techniques that can help to prepare them (Petronis, Hall, & Pierson, 1996).
Specifically, school boards can lose sight of their primary roles as policy makers
and district leaders as they may take on tasks better left to the superintendent. Providing
training would benefit districts as their boards would be able to govern as a focused unit
and not lose valuable time as new board members learn on the job (Bianchi, 2003).
Schools do not have the luxury to lose time. Because training and professional
development are constantly provided for teachers and school-level administrators to
enhance their effectiveness, it seems appropriate that professional development would be
provided for and even required of school boards. Training and professional development
do not refer to a school board member’s personal level of education; rather, the idea
focuses on specific training aimed at enabling school boards to govern effectively while
addressing the various demands that they face (Morehouse, 2001).
Education has many laws and issues that constantly change and school board
members must remain current in these areas (Roberts & Sampson, 2010). Demands are
placed on school boards by legislation and society, and the school board must be able to
act properly as leaders. School board training would help the public to feel confident in
their school board’s ability to lead them to excellence (Bianchi, 2003; Roberts &
Sampson, 2010).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 37
Existing Programs/Mandatory States
There is no consensus in the United States regarding mandatory school board
training. The states decide whether training will be provided. Currently, 23 states
mandate some form of school board training, with less than half actually enforcing that
requirement (NSBA, 2012). These mandates range from any type of training to
requirements of specific content of the training. There are also stipulations as to who is
required to participate in training. Some states urge all board members to attend,
including veteran board members, while other states require only new board members to
attend.
In 2009 Education Week ("Quality Counts," 2009) ranked districts that required
some form of professional development and those without requirements. The states that
required some form of training received ratings of C or B and the states that did not
require training received ratings of C or D. This indicates a “need for some form of
professional development, though the evidence is not altogether conclusive” (Roberts &
Sampson, 2010, p. 710).
The majority of large school districts generally have school boards comprised of
members who are retirees, homemakers, or educators. Within more urban districts there
is more diversity in their board membership than in small or suburban districts. School
board members who desire additional training usually are interested in topics such as
student achievement and community engagement as priorities, with strategic and fiscal
planning secondary (Brenner, Sullivan, & Dalton, 2002).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 38
In California, school board training is not mandated; it is left to the discretion of
individual school districts to determine whether to provide or participate in training. The
CSBA seeks to provide school boards and their members the tools to be effective
governing bodies. CSBA has developed various training programs aimed at reaching this
goal. They have beginner or orientation training sessions developed for new school board
members, including training on the Brown Act, as well as workshops for new school
board presidents.
The CSBA has also developed the MIG training series. The MIG is comprised of
nine 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 governance integration. The program
consists of 60 hours of training. It is expected that, upon completion of the 60 hours and
nine modules, a school board member and collective board (assuming all members have
participated in the MIG) will be able to work together effectively as a unit to address the
needs of their district (CSBA, 2010b).
Implications for Ongoing Training/Professional Development
It is not clear whether simply mandating school board training will have
significant effects on student achievement, fiscal solvency, and policy making.
Additional research in all 50 states is needed. Specifically, this research should identify
whether there is a correlation between school board training and student achievement
(Roberts & Sampson, 2010). Furthermore, a trained board, while acting as a better board,
IMPACT OF THE MIG 39
does not guarantee improved governance, as there are still special interest agendas
(McAdams, 2003).
Professional development and ongoing training will help to bring all parties on
board. While this does not guarantee that everyone will work well together, it will aid in
the process of the school board acting as a collective unit, as opposed to each
representative acting individually (Roberts & Sampson, 2010).
Superintendents and school boards may seek training that is focused on the needs
of their district. This will aid in the school board and superintendent working together in
reaching their identified vision. It can help to instill a collective sense of responsibility
among all parties involved (McAdams, 2003).
Ongoing training and professional development should not be offered only to
newly elected or incoming board members. Experienced and veteran board members can
also benefit, as educational laws are constantly changing (Morehouse, 2001). As school
boards change with elections, training can ensure everyone working together as a
collective unit, as opposed to any one individual acting independently.
Funding can be a factor in the decision to mandate school board training. Within
the states that mandate training, there are variances as to whether the district or state
covers the costs of the training (Bianchi, 2003). This proves to be challenging during
economic crises, such as the current one, especially in K–12 education.
Conceptual Frameworks
The review of literature identified many prevalent themes. In order to narrow the
scope of the research, conceptual frameworks will be used. These frameworks will guide
IMPACT OF THE MIG 40
the research to delve into the main components, including leadership, effective practices,
and training for school board members. Leadership will be defined through the four
frames of Bolman and Deal (2008). The effective and best practices of school boards will
be defined from the research presented in the Lighthouse Study (Delagardelle, 2008;
IASB, 2000). Effective governance for school board members will be framed through the
Professional Governance Standards of the CSBA (CSBA, 2007).
Leadership
Understanding the framework that school board members may currently bring and
knowing what strategies to employ to possibly reframe, if necessary, is important to help
school board members as they navigate their roles and responsibilities. Everyone carries
specific frames or “ideas and assumptions” of how to understand and possibly handle
specific situations (Bolman & Deal, 2008). These frames dictate responses in everyday
life, particularly in the work setting, as there may not be a manual or set instructions as to
how to perform every aspect of a job properly. In the event that a particular frame should
be adjusted to improve the situation, frame breaking or reframing is attempted.
Reframing allows for proper use of the tools and strategies based on the event or situation
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Bolman and Deal (2008) defined four specific frames and argued that successful
individuals can act in all the frames as needed, rather than specifically in one at all times.
This is important, as school board members often must handle various issues and tasks
and should be able to navigate smoothly between each. Reframing also helps to “increase
effectiveness for managers and leaders” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 19).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 41
The structural frame operates under the assumption that systems are in place and
that rules and policies must be followed. It focuses on the structural and architectural
elements within the organization, including the rules, policies, and goals. It does not
focus on the individual but instead is intent on forming a strong team within the structure
to work effectively. The goal of the structure is to function in a broad sense while
adhering to set protocols established within the structure (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
People are at the heart of every entity. The human resources frame examines how
people interact with each other and what they do to and for each other. In general,
organizations try to hire qualified and motivated people; however, school board members
are not hired, they are elected. If the school board is a good fit and members work well
together, positive results will be experienced. Providing services and employing
strategies to promote positive relations aid in creating motivation and meaning for
employees to carry out their duties properly (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The political frame focuses on the unique relationship between power and
conflict. It attempts to explain that within school districts, even while the school board
and the superintendent are the leaders, the teachers union can sometimes set the agenda
and usurp power. It is not a mystery that districts will be political; the importance comes
in the ability to use the politics to achieve support and build collaboration and
relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Bolman and Deal’s fourth frame is the symbolic frame. This frame attempts to
make sense of the chaos that ensues in the world. This may include spiritual, patriotic, or
emotional connections that allow meaning to be created. Within an organization,
IMPACT OF THE MIG 42
members form beliefs and values associated with the goals of the organization. This does
not occur simply by mandate or forming a team. There is pomp and circumstance and
team building to grow and foster the spirit and soul of an organization (Bolman & Deal,
2008). Especially during fiscal crises, school boards are faced with difficult decisions and
may not withstand the fallout without the ability to work within a symbolic frame.
Being an effective leader is not an easy task, and governing a school district is
quite challenging. Multiframe thinking is a skill set that enables leaders to be artists as
they navigate the bureaucracy, personnel, and background of a district. Essentially,
school board members must wear many hats, as they may be called to be “architects,
catalysts, advocates, and prophets” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 438).
Effective School Board Practices
The IASB conducted a study titled the Lighthouse Inquiry under the guidance of
Mary Delagardelle, with the purpose of identifying what impact, if any, school boards
had on the academic achievement of their districts. The findings indicated both
similarities and differences; however, seven conditions for productive change and school
renewal were identified as being consistently present across high-achieving districts: (a)
emphasis on building a human organizational system, (b) ability to create and sustain
initiatives, (c) supportive workplace for staff, (d) staff development, (e) support for
school sites through data and information, (f), community involvement, and (g) integrated
leadership (Delagardelle, 2008). In describing the extent to which the seven conditions
were present in the school districts, IASB used two terms borrowed from Susan
Rosenholtz in 1989 (IASB, 2000). Moving referred to school districts whose student
IMPACT OF THE MIG 43
achievement was on the rise and moving above the norm, whereas stuck referred to
school districts whose student achievement was stable or below the norm (IASB, 2000).
School boards who were considered to be moving in the first condition of
building a human organizational system constantly believed that all children could learn
and that factors such as poverty or lack of parental involvement were simply challenges
to be overcome, not excuses. Stuck districts tended to concentrate on these challenges
and did not see a means as to overcome them (IASB, 2000).
In creating and sustaining initiatives, school boards whose districts were moving
set goals and had structures and systems in place to support the district. Stuck districts
placed much of the responsibility on the superintendent, as opposed to taking ownership
of it as a team. They were also limited in their knowledge of administration and teachers’
collaboration or lack thereof; they simply assumed it was happening (IASB, 2000).
Moving districts demonstrated a supportive workplace for staff by making
frequent positive comments about their staff and identifying specific examples of staff
members’ commitment and the board’s ways of showing appreciation. Stuck districts
either made negative comments about staff or did not make enough positive comments.
They also cited many of the challenges faced by school districts, such as lack of parental
involvement and poverty, as reasons their districts were not performing academically
(IASB, 2000).
Staff development was evidenced in moving districts by clearly identifying the
link between teacher training and the district’s or board’s goals as part of an overall
collective effort to target student needs. Stuck districts handled staff development as
IMPACT OF THE MIG 44
simply a requirement for certification and were often frustrated by the costs associated
with staff development and the lack of evidence of its effectiveness (IASB, 2000).
Support for school sites through data and information was often evident in
moving districts, as they constantly referred information from a variety of sources and
used student needs presented in data to guide their decision making. In districts that were
stuck in their progress, board members considered that information was not shared
equally by all parties. They also felt that they were not necessarily involved in the
decision-making process, as most decisions were recommendations from the
superintendent (IASB, 2000).
Community involvement in moving districts was demonstrated through the school
board’s ability to listen to the community and involve parents. In stuck districts, board
members simply felt that parents were not interested in becoming involved and that there
was nothing that could be done to change that (IASB, 2000).
Shared leadership encompasses the fundamental belief that school board members
are leaders who must govern together, not as individuals. In moving districts, school
board members were knowledgeable of the learning conditions of their schools, as well as
current initiatives and goals. They were aware of what was happening instructionally in
the classrooms. Stuck districts were aware of their goals and plans but were unsure as to
how they were being implemented. They also felt that it was not their responsibility to
know instruction and only referred to events in the classroom if they related to their
children or through some other personal contact (IASB, 2000).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 45
These seven conditions allow for understanding of effective practices for school
boards. They present situations that enable school districts to continue moving their
students and schools. As the age of increased accountability continues, student
achievement is increasingly important. It is no longer acceptable to make excuses or to
allow students to fail to achieve. While there is no concrete evidence to support that
simply implementing these seven conditions will lead to an increase in student
achievement, identifying effective practices provides a foundation upon which to build
(Delagardelle, 2008).
Effective Governance for School Boards
The CSBA is a professional organization that seeks to provide support and
guidance to the many school board members in California. Because school board
members have increasing demands placed on them with minimal prerequisites, CSBA has
identified eight characteristics that help a school board to govern effectively. They also
developed the MIG training program to provide school board members with necessary
tools and knowledge to better perform their jobs. The eight characteristics that CSBA
identified were to (a) keep the district focused on learning and achievement for all
students; (b) communicate a common vision; (c) operate openly, with trust and integrity;
(d) govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civility and
respect; (e) govern within board-adopted policies and procedures; (f) take collective
responsibility for the board’s performance; (g) periodically evaluate its own
effectiveness; and (h) ensure opportunities for the diverse range of views in the
community to inform board deliberations (CSBA, 2007).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 46
Accountability for schools has increased dramatically over the past few decades.
Districts face increasing pressure to ensure high achievement by all students, as measured
by either federal or state mandates (Gemberling, Smith, & Villiani, 2000). The first
characteristic identifies student achievement as the cornerstone of the remaining seven
and maintains the board’s focus on learning (CSBA, 2007). CSBA recognizes the need
for an increase in student achievement as a means to meet accountability demands
currently faced by school districts.
Establishing a common vision is essential to governing effectively (Campbell &
Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007). It allows for a direction to be established to guide all
decisions. It is essential that all board members work together to establish the vision and
communicate it to all stakeholders. The vision, again due to increased accountability, is
often related somewhat to learning or student achievement.
School board members are often asked to make difficult decisions regarding
student issues, human resources, and fiscal matters. Operating with trust and integrity is
imperative to ensure that governance is transparent and upheld at all times. If there are
issues of mistrust among board members, friction can occur, preventing the school board
to govern effectively as a collective body.
School board members come from a variety of backgrounds and their governing
styles vary (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). While a board can consist of three, five, or seven
members, it acts as a unified body and must govern in that manner. Maintaining
professionalism as a foundation enables the board to remain focused on ensuring that
everyone is treated with dignity and respect (CSBA, 2007). The school board should
IMPACT OF THE MIG 47
govern as one body, which is the basis of the need to be collectively responsible. The
governing body is seen as one unit, as opposed to each school board member; all
decisions reflect the governing body.
In order to ensure effectiveness, school boards should monitor and evaluate
themselves. These periodic evaluations can provide insight regarding adherence to
maintaining student achievement and the district’s vision as the main focus. Their
effectiveness is measured by various indicators, including student achievement and
promotion and retention rates, fiscal solvency, community perception/involvement, and
superintendent/board member consistency.
School board members may be appointed in a few instances, although the
majority are elected by their communities. As such, the school board represents the
community. The school board strives to listen to the community and meet its various
needs. These needs may not represent the whole; however, school boards must be
cognizant and consider all diverse views as they make deliberations. This supports their
ability to govern effectively.
These eight characteristics provide a tool with which to measure effective
governance of school boards. According to CSBA (2007), demonstrating the eight
characteristics by each school board member ensures effective governance by the
governing body. While there may be instances in which not all eight are clearly
demonstrated, working toward exhibiting all will guide school boards to govern
effectively as a collective body.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 48
Chapter Summary
In today’s high-accountability era, public schools face increased scrutiny as they
try to meet the mandated academic goals set forth by NCLB and deal with current fiscal
and social issues. Demands placed on school boards are at an all-time high, as board
members attempt to make sound decisions (Brenner et al., 2002). Providing school
boards with tools to perform their job effectively is critical. As supported by the
literature, school boards should have a clear definition of their roles and responsibilities
(Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). They must be kept abreast
of all current issues facing education. It is unclear whether there is a direct correlation
between training offered to school board members and its effect on their ability to govern
effectively. While the CSBA provides a comprehensive training module known as the
MIG, there is no mandate for school board members to complete it, nor is there any
incentive to do so.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 49
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
School board members face a challenging and daunting task. They are called on to
make informed decisions that influence the school systems of the districts in which they
serve. These decisions include personnel, curriculum, facilities, fiscal, and other
considerations. Often, school board members do not come prepared with the background
or necessary knowledge to provide sound guidance to fulfill their responsibilities
(Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002).
Traditionally, school boards have relied on advice provided to them by the
professionals within their organization, including the superintendent and members of his
or her cabinet (Delagardelle, 2008). With the increase in accountability placed on districts
through legislative reforms and policies such as NCLB and the PSAA, school boards are
faced with mounting pressures to ensure that students are progressing and achieving
appropriately. They also face increased scrutiny from the public as student achievement
data are readily accessible. School boards have a moral obligation to ensure that they are
making sound and informed decisions to benefit all students.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training provided by
the CSBA influences a school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance.. The previous two chapters provided an overview of the study
and a review of the literature as it pertains to the history and responsibilities of school
boards, leadership and accountability that school boards face in today’s era, and the
training programs that are available to school board members. This chapter describes the
IMPACT OF THE MIG 50
following components of the study: (a) research design, (b) sample and process for
selection participants, (c) instrumentation, (d) data collection procedures, and (e) data
analysis.
The research team, consisting of 10 doctoral candidates under the guidance of Dr.
Michael Escalante of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California, met monthly to plan, collaborate, and examine current research and practices.
Three research questions were developed to examine the potential need for school
board members to seek training as a means to improve governance and leadership:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact school board
governance?
Research Design
A qualitative approach was determined to be an appropriate means of gathering
the necessary data. Examining the data qualitatively provided the ability to delve deeper
into many of the issues with more detail. It also provided the ability to gather data with a
set of questions for which the responses could be analyzed and the findings aggregated
(Patton, 2002). In identifying the qualitative purpose of the study, it was determined to be
a summative evaluation, since MIG training effectiveness would be measured and
determined (Patton, 2002).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 51
The research methods used in this study involved the use of a survey, interviews,
and an observation protocol. The survey was comprised of questions regarding leadership
practices and governance. Each question was aligned to one or more of the three research
questions, in addition to the frameworks used to guide this study, including Reframing
Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008), the Professional Governance Standards of
CSBA, and the Lighthouse Inquiry by Delagardelle and the IASB (Delagardelle, 2008).
The interviews were designed to be a follow-up after receiving the survey
responses and compiling the data. The interview questions were formulated to be open-
ended and specifically aimed at identifying factors that led to completion of the MIG, as
well as effects of the MIG on governance of the school board and superintendent as a
team. The interview guide was compiled to “ensure basic lines of inquiry are pursued
with each person interviewed” (Patton, 2002, p. 342).
The observation protocol was designed as a tool to be used while attending some
of the MIG modules. The protocol was designed to demonstrate indicators of effective
governance. These indicators were aligned to the professional governance standards of
CSBA (2007), as well as the areas of productive change and school renewal as indicated
by Delagardelle in the Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008).
The findings were triangulated through the research from the literature, surveys,
interviews, and the observation protocol. The literature reviewed in the previous chapter
provided a foundation for school boards and their responsibilities. The surveys were
mailed to superintendents and school board members to provide knowledge regarding
their understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities. Interviews were
IMPACT OF THE MIG 52
conducted to provide insight into school board members’ prior knowledge and any train-
ing in which they may have participated. Observations of the MIG module training
sessions were conducted to provide additional data regarding their effectiveness.
Participants
Purposeful sampling was used to identify the school board members and
superintendents who would participate in this study. There were specific parameters and
indicators that allowed for the focus of the study to be information rich and to allow for
quality assurance because participants were selected only if they met specific criteria.
This allowed for the cases to be studied in depth (Patton, 2002).
The sample consisted of school districts and school boards who met specific
criteria. The sample population was located in six California counties: Los Angeles,
Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura. This allowed for flexibility
with potential geographical constraints. The districts in these six counties were required
to have an API score of at least 800 in the past year or a 21-point average API growth in
the previous 3 years. This performance indicator was determined to be a measure of
success as defined by NCLB and PSAA. There was no consideration of socioeconomic
factors.
Second, school districts were selected based on their size: 2,000 to 50,000
students ADA. Elementary, secondary, and unified districts were all considered. This
allowed for a broad spectrum, affording the opportunity for a larger sample size.
School boards were considered for participation based on whether any of their
board members had completed the MIG program offered by CSBA. As part of the
IMPACT OF THE MIG 53
purposeful sampling, the focus was on those districts with at least one school board
member who had completed the MIG, excluding the superintendent.
Instrumentation
Surveys, an interview guide, and an observation protocol were used as instru-
ments. The research questions guided the development of the surveys. Information
gathered from Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008), the research
presented in the Lighthouse Study (Delagardelle, 2008), and the Effective Governance
System from the CSBA (2007) guided analysis of the data acquired via the surveys.
Two surveys were created: one for school board members (Appendix A) and one
for superintendents (Appendix B). While the questions in the surveys were similar in
nature, they were structured to provide different perspectives. The school board survey
was designed to provide data regarding the effect of the MIG training program on
effective governance by the school board. The superintendent survey was designed to
extract data regarding the superintendent’s perspective of the school board’s
collaboration with the governing body, as well as their effectiveness in governing as a
whole body. Figure 1 illustrates the research frameworks used to guide the development
of the surveys for the school board member and the superintendent.
All school board members and superintendents who met the criteria were sent a
paper copy of the survey in a packet. The survey packet included an introduction letter
and recruitment letter inviting superintendents to participate in the study and to encourage
their board members to complete the survey (Appendix C). The packet also provided an
invitation to both superintendents and school board members to participate in follow-up
IMPACT OF THE MIG 54
interviews (Appendix D). The packet included an information sheet for superintendents
(Appendix E) and school board members (Appendix F), advising the participants that
there were no potential risks associated with this study.
As a means of follow-up to the survey, an interview guide for superintendents
(Appendix G) and school board members (Appendix H) was developed to provide
understanding of the responses gathered from the surveys. The interview guide questions
were designed to be open-ended and carefully worded to avoid questions of little variance
(Patton, 2002).
The interview procedure with open-ended questions is quite useful in a qualitative
study because it allows for analysis. The interview protocol tool also provides focus
during the interview to ensure that new topics are not introduced and that analysis is not
interrupted. This avoids irrelevant information being entwined with meaningful data
(Patton, 2002).
The research team created another tool to gather additional data. The MIG
Observation Protocol (MIGOP; Appendix I) contained 13 identifying factors of effective
governance. It was created to gather evidence of effective governance practices identified
through the frameworks of CSBA (2007) and Delagardelle (2008). It was used by the
research team to record their observations while attending the MIG modules.
All survey and interview questions were aligned to the research questions. The
identifying factors in the MIGOP were also aligned to the research questions, as
evidenced in the Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and MIGOP document
IMPACT OF THE MIG 55

Bolman and Deal
Four Frame Model
for Effective
Leadership, 2003
CSBA Professional
Governance Standards,
2007
Lighthouse Inquiry: Key
Areas of Board Performance
(Delagardelle, 2008)
Structural Frame:
 Rules, policies, and
procedures
 Hierarchical struc-
tures with a specified
division of labor
 Govern within board
adopted policies and proce-
dures
 Operate openly with trust
and integrity

 Creating awareness of the
need to improve–building
commitment to the identified
needs
 Deliberative policy devel-
opment
Human Resource
Frame:
 Productive work-
ing conditions
 Support and guid-
ance
 District focus on student
achievement
 Periodically evaluate its
own effectiveness
 Providing ongoing support
for quality professional
development
 Demonstrating commit-
ment–willingness to learn
Political Frame:
 Negotiation and
diplomacy
 Distributive lead-
ership
 Persuasion and
negotiation
 Govern in a dignified and
professional manner
 Take collective responsibil-
ity for the board’s per-
formance

 Supporting and connecting
with district wide leadership
 Applying pressure for
accountability
Symbolic Frame:
 Rituals, stories,
ceremonies, tradi-
tions
 Vision
 Respect
 Communicate a common
vision
 Ensure opportunities for
diverse viewpoints from the
school community
 Connecting with the com-
munity and building the
public will to improve
achievement
Figure 1. Alignment of the research frameworks by Bolman and Deal, the California
School Boards Association (CSBA), and the Iowa Association of Schools Boards (IASB)
Lighthouse Inquiry. Sources: Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership,
by L. G. Bolman & T. E. Deal, 2003, New York, NY: Wiley; School Board Leadership,
by California School Boards Association, 2007, Sacramento, CA: Author; and “The
Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the Improvement
of Student Achievement,” by M. L. Delagardelle, 2008, in T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The
Future of School Board Governance (pp. 191-223), Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 56
(Appendix J). The Research Protocol Grid (Appendix K) was created to identify which
data items aligned with the three identified research questions.
Data Collection
The research team began collecting data during summer 2012, using the survey
instrument. The study closely followed the steps outlined by Patton (2002). Each survey
was accompanied by a cover letter and informed consent form listing the purpose of the
research and ensuring that participant permission from the school board members and
superintendents was received.
As a means of facilitating the process, mailed surveys included a return-address
stamped envelope. There was also a link to an online survey. A record was kept of the
surveys as they were returned to account for respondents and nonrespondents.
The surveys were mailed to school boards who had at least one school board
member who had completed MIG training. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a
school board member or school board president and the superintendent. Ten school board
members or presidents were interviewed, along with their respective superintendents.
Interviews were taped and transcribed.
Data Analysis
In analyzing the data to be gathered in the study, reliability and validity were
ensured through triangulation. Triangulation, according to Patton (2002), strengthens a
study. The literature review presented in Chapter 2 and the data produced by the surveys
and interviews were triangulated to ensure that the findings are significant to the study.
Triangulation of the data provided valuable information regarding the possible factors
IMPACT OF THE MIG 57
that influence school board members to attend and complete MIG training, as well as the
impact of the MIG training on a school board’s ability to govern effectively.
The surveys were mailed to those districts in the six targeted counties who met the
criteria. Upon receipt, the survey data were coded to provide insight into common
patterns in responses. The responses yielded qualitative data for analysis. The data
gathered via surveys and interviews were analyzed in relation to the three research
questions. The data from each instrument were examined to ensure triangulation.
Ethical Considerations
In order to address ethical considerations, the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
process was completed. Training was conducted through the Collaborative IRB Training
Initiative (CITI), which provided information regarding potential ethical considerations
for the research. The IRB application was submitted and approved as an exempt study.
Chapter Summary
This chapter described the research methodology that was used in this study. The
methodology included the design of the research, sample and population to be studied,
the instruments, data collection and analysis methods, and ethical considerations. The
literature review and research questions guided the process. Multiple efforts were made
to ensure maximum response to the instruments.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 58
Chapter 4
Research Results
School board members are charged with making decisions affecting a school dis-
trict’s major areas, such as personnel, finances, curriculum, and policies (CSBA, 2007).
Given this, it is of utmost importance that school board members have a certain amount
of knowledge or training to equip them to make these decisions (Johnson, 2011). The
CSBA offers the MIG training, consisting of nine modules, designed to equip school
board members to understand the function of their job (CSBA, 2007). While 23 states
currently mandate school board training, California does not do so (NSBA, 2012).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training provided by
CSBA influences a school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance. A research team of 10 doctoral students used the conceptual
frameworks of Bolman and Deal (2008), Delagardelle (2008), and CSBA’s Professional
Governance Standards (CSBA, 2007) to guide the method of inquiry.
Using a qualitative approach, the research team examined the literature relevant to
school board members, effective governance, and the potential role of school board
training in assisting school board members. The researchers developed both a school
board member survey and a superintendent survey. The researchers also created an
interview guide for both superintendents and school board members. Because the specific
training program, MIG, offered by CSBA, was being studied, the research team created
an observation protocol (MIGOP) to use in observing various MIG modules.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 59
This chapter provides an analysis of the data collected. The data were triangulated
using the relevant literature, survey results, interviews, and MIGOP observations. The
analysis of the data provides an explanation of the emerging themes. The chapter
concludes with a summary of the significant findings as they relate to the following three
research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact school board
governance?
Participants
The research team established certain guidelines and parameters for participation
in the study to ensure purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). Given the geographic locations
of the researchers, districts were limited to southern California. Six southern California
counties—Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura—
were selected because they were conducive for any follow-up research that might be
needed. Once the counties had been determined, specific districts were identified. The
first criterion used was ADA between 2,000 and 50,000 students. All types of districts
were considered, including, elementary, secondary, and unified. The second criterion
required the school districts to have demonstrated positive student academic growth as
measured by the California API: a minimum 800 API score in the previous year or a 21-
IMPACT OF THE MIG 60
point average growth in the previous 3 years. The last criterion was that the district have
at least one school board member who had completed the MIG training program offered
by the CSBA. This criterion was necessary because the study focused on the potential
impact of the MIG training program on a school board’s ability to govern effectively.
Survey Participants
One hundred districts met the study criteria in the six identified counties. Within
those 100 districts were 100 superintendents and 226 school board members who were
identified as having been MIG trained. Each research team member selected 10 districts
and mailed surveys to the superintendent and school board member, along with an
introduction letter providing the background of the study. Of the total 100 districts and
superintendents that were invited to participate, 61 superintendents agreed and returned
the survey, resulting in a 61% participation rate. Of the 226 school board members
invited to participate, 86 returned the survey, resulting in a 38% participation rate.
Interview Participants
Once all completed surveys had been received, each research team member
focused on two matching pairs for follow-up with an interview. Matching pairs consisted
of a trained school board member who had returned a completed survey and the
corresponding superintendent who had also completed the survey. This provided a further
in-depth tool for the study.
In order to protect the identities of the districts involved, their superintendents,
and their school board members, and in an effort to ensure confidentiality and anonymity,
names of participants and districts were changed. Names assigned to the locations and
IMPACT OF THE MIG 61
people are strictly fictitious and any resemblance to an actual individual or district is
completely coincidental. For the purposes of this study, the aliases are Valley Unified
District, with Superintendent Wilma and school board member Elias, and River School
District, with Superintendent Jackson and school board member Tom.
Valley Unified District is an average urban district serving kindergarten through
Grade 12 in Los Angeles County. The district covers the entire city and a small portion of
a neighboring city. There are 13 elementary schools, four middle schools, and three high
schools. The ADA is about 22,000 students. The district currently has an API of 801,
representing a 14-point growth from the previous year (California Department of
Education [CDE], 2012).
Superintendent Wilma has been a superintendent for the past 12 years, 10 of
which have been in Valley Unified. She began her career approximately 35 years ago as a
teacher and worked her way up through various site and district-level positions. She has a
doctorate from the University of Southern California.
School board member Elias has served as a board member on Valley Unified’s
board for about 30 years. He has also served in education as a teacher in a nearby district
for the past 20 years. He completed the MIG training approximately 10 years ago.
River School District is a small urban district located in Los Angeles County. It
serves approximately 4,900 students in kindergarten through Grade 8. The district’s
schools primarily cover two cities and consist of seven elementary schools and two
middle schools. Their current API is 839, representing a growth of 19 points from the
previous year (CDE, 2012).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 62
Superintendent Jackson has been a superintendent for the past 12 years, all in
River School District. He began his career in education approximately 35 years ago and
has served in various site and district-level capacities. He earned a doctorate from the
University of California, Los Angeles.
School board member Tom has served on River School District’s board for the
past 13 years. He currently works for a utilities company and did not have a previous
background in education. He also serves as a union steward at his company. He com-
pleted the MIG training in 2001.
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete the MIG training program?
Research shows that many school board members enter public office with little to
no training or educational background (Delagardelle, 2008; Hess, 2002; Land, 2002).
This can prove to be quite daunting as school board members are faced with critical
decisions affecting student achievement and curriculum, policy review and development,
personnel, and finance (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; Hess, 2002; Johnson, 2011;
Land, 2002). Delagardelle (2008) maintained that school boards that seek professional
development and are committed to learning the organizational behaviors of effective
governance achieve higher results.
Data analysis for the first research question revealed two emerging themes:
(a) motivation to participate in the MIG stems from self-motivation and encouragement
IMPACT OF THE MIG 63
from colleagues, and (2) participation would increase if there were additional access to
the training.
Motivation to Participate
Identifying the reasons school board members may be willing to engage in
training was a key aspect of the study, since school board training is optional and
voluntary in California (NSBA, 2012). Specifically, while researchers clearly express the
need for training and its importance, not many have examined the commitment to
participate in professional development (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010; Land, 2002;
Roberts & Sampson, 2010).
Results of the superintendent and school board member surveys indicated that
motivation was an important factor for both superintendents and school board members
to complete the MIG training program. Specifically, 21 of 58 superintendents identified
self-motivation as a primary factor, with 20 of 58 indicating encouragement by school
board members as a secondary factor. School board members also indicated self-
motivation as a primary factor, with 52 of 83 responses. Both superintendents
interviewed also indicated motivation as a primary factor, with Superintendent Wilma
stating that, “they encouraged each other” and Superintendent Jackson reporting a “desire
to seek further professional development.” Table 1 provides a summary of the results for
this survey question.
The surveys also indicated that 57 of 61 superintendents and 83 of 84 school
board members agreed or strongly agreed that they had encouraged school board
members to participate in the MIG training. When superintendents and school board
IMPACT OF THE MIG 64
Table 1

Primary Factors Influencing School Board Members to Participate in MIG Training

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Factor f % f %

Self-motivation 21 34 52 60
School board expectation 12 20 20 23
Encouraged by other board members 20 33 8 9
Other 2 3 3 3

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
members were asked whether they would strongly recommend the MIG training to their
board members, 58 of 60 superintendents agreed or strongly agreed and all 83 school
board members agreed or strongly agreed.
Increasing Participation
Along with motivating school board members to participate in training,
identifying ways to increase participation is key. Interviewees were asked specifically
what would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members (i.e.,
what would it take to make all school board members want to be trained). Time
constraints, online accessibility, and local offerings were among the top responses.
Superintendent Wilma replied, “I offered Valley Unified as a site for them for training, so
they actually did some training right here, so our board members didn’t have to travel.
Not all of them did, but that’s one thing that I think is helpful.” Superintendent Jackson’s
response to the same question was, “Accessible, . . . the time element. . . . When I went
IMPACT OF THE MIG 65
through the MIG training, it was a full day. . . . If the modules were broken down into
half-day components or something like that and held more regularly.” Both school board
members were asked the same question. Elias responded,
The schedule needs to be more board member friendly. I think right now they’re
doing it Thursday and Friday or Friday and Saturday. That’s not board member
friendly. That takes people away from their jobs and discourages people from
wanting to do it. . . . It takes nine days.”
Tom identified proximity as important: “Having the training close by, even in your own
boardrooms, that would be really good.” Both sets of superintendents and board members
stated adjustments in the schedule of the MIG training, as well as the locations in which it
is offered, would yield a larger participation rate.
Both superintendents and school board members indicated accessibility in terms
of location and time as a consistent factor. The surveys asked whether offering the MIG
program online would encourage more school board members to participate; 53 of 61
superintendents agreed and 58 of 81 school board members agreed or strongly agreed.
During the interviews, both superintendents and school board members were asked to
share their thoughts regarding an online option; both Wilma and Jackson considered it to
be a good option, although not as the sole means of training, since some of their board
members were not comfortable with technology. Elias and Tom said that a blend of
online and physical components would be good, , but not strictly an online version; both
expressed concern about losing the networking and camaraderie established during
attendance at the modules. Table 2 summarizes the results for this survey question.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 66
Table 2

An Online MIG Certification Program Would Encourage More School Board Members

to Participate

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 21 34 19 22
Agree 32 52 39 45
Disagree 8 13 21 24
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 2

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The results related to Research Question 1 indicated that school board members
were willing to participate in training to equip them to perform their jobs. In particular,
many school board members had a personal desire to seek professional development and
were encouraged by peers and superintendents. Possible barriers to completing MIG
training included location and time, as the modules are each full-day sessions and are not
always conveniently located. This is consistent with the literature reviewed in Chapter 2.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, Does the MIG training encourage and equip school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
Once the factors that motivated school board members to attend the MIG training
were identified, it was important to determine whether the MIG actually provided school
IMPACT OF THE MIG 67
board members with the necessary tools and strategies to govern effectively. Training can
provide knowledge for school board members to function in their role (Dillon, 2010).
Bolman and Deal (2008) identified, through the structural frame, the importance of rules,
policies, and procedures being clearly defined and adhered to. They also discussed,
within the political frame, how negotiation and diplomacy can lead to effective leadership
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). Similarly, CSBA (2007) identified key areas of professional
governance: following set policies and procedures, being collectively responsible as a
board, and focusing on student achievement. The following themes were evident in the
analysis of responses to Research Question 2: (a) a focus on student achievement,
(b) governing as a unified team, and (c) clear understanding of roles and responsibilities,
as well as protocols to be followed.
Student Achievement
Student achievement was specifically addressed in the surveys when participants
were asked whether school board members who had earned MIG certification
demonstrated an increased focus on student achievement during school board meetings.
In all, 58 of 61 superintendents and 71 of 81 school board members agreed. In addition,
the participants were asked whether those school board members who are MIG trained
encouraged fellow school board members to use data consistently to make informed
decisions regarding student achievement; 50 of 59 superintendents and 75 of 83 school
board members agreed. Table 3 provides a summary of the responses to this question.
When survey participants were asked to rank the characteristics for effective governance
as identified by CSBA (2007), student achievement ranked in the top three for
IMPACT OF THE MIG 68
Table 3

School Board Members Who Have Earned Masters in Governance Certification

Demonstrate an Increased Focus on Student Achievement During School Board Meetings

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 14 23 24 28
Agree 44 72 47 55
Disagree 3 5 9 10
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
superintendents and as the top priority for school board members. Table 4 provides a
summary of these rankings.
Within the interviews, Jackson shared that the MIG training
kept us focused on what’s important, which is students and student achievement.
When we have been pulled off in different directions through negotiations or
fiscal crisis, personnel issues, we’ve always been able to return back to the center
and why we’re here.
Wilma shared that, because the majority of her board was MIG trained, her board
members “are really wonderful at doing what is in the best interest of kids.” Both
superintendents reiterated the focus on learning and student achievement by their school
board members as a result of the MIG training.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 69
Table 4

Ranking of the Characteristics of Effective Governance Proposed by the California

School Board Association

Rank Superintendents (N = 61) School board members (N = 86)

1 Operate with trust and integrity Focus on student achievement
2 Common vision Operate with trust and integrity
3 Focus on student achievement Common vision
4 Govern in a dignified manner Govern in a dignified manner
5 Board policy Board policy
6 Collective responsibility for Collective responsibility for
board performance board performance
7 Evaluate its own effectiveness Opportunities for diverse community views
8 Opportunities for diverse community views Evaluate its own effectiveness

During the MIG modules of Setting Direction and Governance Integration,
student achievement was at the forefront of many of the discussions and activities. In the
Setting Direction module participants were asked to state three words identifying what
was wanted for today’s students. Throughout the session, the trainers consistently
referred back to students and repeatedly redirected conversations and activities toward
what was best for students. In the Governance Integration module the trainers highlighted
that advocating on behalf of children is most important, again suggesting a strong
emphasis on students and achievement.
Unified Team
Governing as a unified team was a recurring theme in both the surveys and
interviews. The survey asked whether school board members who were MIG trained
IMPACT OF THE MIG 70
developed a more collaborative relationship with their fellow school board members; 52
of 61 superintendents agreed or strongly agreed, as did 77 of 83 school board members.
School board members and superintendents were asked whether those who were MIG
trained understood the importance of aligning the decision-making process with the
district’s vision and goals; 57 of 60 superintendents and 79 of 82 school board members
agreed or strongly agreed. The survey asked whether school board members who were
MIG trained accepted the majority decision of the school board even if they held a
minority view; 55 of 61 superintendents and 74 of 83 school board members agreed.
Table 5 provides a summary of these results.
Table 5

School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained Developed a More Collaborative

Relationship With Their Fellow School Board Members

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 21 34 34 40
Agree 31 51 43 50
Disagree 9 15 5 6
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
Interviewees were asked what role, if any, the MIG training played in strength-
ening the collaborative process (teamwork) in the district. Jackson replied,
IMPACT OF THE MIG 71
There is a common interest in moving with the board in a certain direction and I
think we’re able to relate to one another in trying to move the governance team in
that direction. As I said, some of the tools of the MIG training I’ve tried to bring
into our deliberations and use to build the cohesiveness of the team, focusing on
the group as opposed to individual members.
His board member echoed his sentiments: “We have a really collaborative board and we
listen to each other whether we agree with them or not.”
Wilma said that the MIG training provided guidance on how to behave as a board.
Her board member stated, “The MIG improved the collaboration or helped the newer
board members understand the need for collaboration . . . there haven’t been any real
splits or fights.”
In the Setting Direction module, many activities and discussions centered on the
concept of governing and leading as a unified team. The trainers from CSBA had the
participants engage in an activity in which they identified the decade in which they had
graduated high school and charted the major world events during their young adult lives.
They later shared these events and how they had shaped their thoughts and views, with
everyone to have an understanding of their thought process and how to appeal to each
other in forming consensus. The trainers also focused many of the conversations and
discussions on the premise of “what can we agree and work together on,” as well as
looking at the whole picture to shape the vision of the team.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 72
Roles and Responsibilities
Clearly understanding the roles and responsibilities of a school board member
was consistently described as highly important and beneficial by both superintendents
and school board members. The survey asked whether school board members who were
MIG trained exhibited a clearer understanding of the difference between their roles and
responsibilities and those of the superintendent; 48 of 61 superintendents and all 83
school board members agreed. Respondents were asked whether the MIG training helps
school board members to differentiate between policy and management leadership; 58 or
59 superintendents and 77 of 81 school board members agreed. Table 6 and Table 7
provide summaries of the results.
Table 6

School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the

Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 23 37 57 66
Agree 25 41 26 43
Disagree 12 20 0 0
Strongly disagree 1 2 0 0

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 73
Table 7

The MIG Training Helps School Board Members to Differentiate Between Policy and

Management Leadership

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 27 44 47 55
Agree 31 51 30 35
Disagree 1 2 4 5
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
Supporting these responses, Wilma stated that her board members
really know that they’re there to set policy. They rarely ever jump in to actual
operations and it’s very easy for me to say to them, “Listen, I’ll handle that.”
They know I will, so they say, “OK” . . . they understand that they are policy
setters. . . . I really believe that the board members behave better, understand their
role better, and they talk about it; in other words, they talk about, “I learned this in
the training and so I know this is the way I should handle this.” Or, “Wilma, this
parent came up to me but I told them they needed to call, whatever, the principal
to you, whatever.” Usually a board member will refer to the superintendent and
then if—if the person has not been through the proper chain of command, we will
send them back so they don’t think that they can keep jumping chain of command
and go straight to me.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 74
Jackson agreed, stating,
It really enhances their understanding of the role and what it means to be a board
member. . . . It was value added to our roles. . . . districts that tend to go off course
are usually characterized by a board that doesn’t understand its role, either
individually or as a group.
Both Elias and Tom agreed. Elias said that the MIG training “helped newer board
members understand the process . . . how board members are supposed to work and not
work.” Tom shared, “In the governing model, we go ahead and we set the policy and then
we have in a cycle setting we just follow through by getting to the point. . . . We don’t
have meddling board members.” He also stated, “It’s cut back on board members who
were trying to micromanage.”
In the MIG sessions, roles and responsibilities were clearly identified within the
various modules. Specifically, in the Finance module the trainers identified and reviewed
board responsibilities as related to budget and fiscal decision making. In the Setting
Direction module the participants were constantly redirected to the chart of effective
governance provided by CSBA, where the roles and responsibilities are clearly explained,
as well as their relationship to the characteristics of effective governance (CSBA, 2007).
The trainers in the Governance Integration module invited the school board members and
superintendents in attendance to work on an activity in which they examined various
aspects of their job and identified they fit in their roles and responsibilities. They also
focused on the policies and judicial review aspects of the school board.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 75
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
The results from the surveys, interviews, and MIGOP clearly support the
literature pertaining to training enabling school board members to govern effectively. The
MIG training provided by the CSBA allowed school board members to understand their
jobs clearly. The conclusion based on results for Research Question 2 was that the MIG
encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance by helping them to govern as a unified team and to remain focused on student
achievement while understanding their roles and responsibilities.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, In what ways could mandating the MIG training
impact school board governance?
Currently in the United States, 23 states mandate school board training; California
is not one of them (NSBA, 2012). While CSBA offers the MIG training, it is voluntary
for individual districts and school board members. As indicated in the responses to
Research Questions 1 and 2, school board members are interested in participating in the
MIG training and those who complete the training have a clearer understanding of and
foundation in their roles and responsibilities.
The analysis of the data indicated two themes that emerged from the responses to
Research Question 3: (a) The majority of school board members and superintendents
support mandating school board training, and (2) the cost of mandating MIG training
could pose a fiscal problem for districts.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 76
MIG Training Mandate
Mandating school board training can result in school boards performing at
increased levels of efficiency and knowledge (Bianchi, 2003). The training can provide
current and consistent information, enabling school boards to perform as a unified team
(Bianchi, 2003). In 2009, Education Week conducted a study of the overall state
education rankings; the states that required training received a grade of C or B, while the
states that did not require training received a grade of C or D (Roberts & Sampson,
2010).
When asked whether school board members should be required to participate in
the MIG training, 50 of 60 superintendents and 72 of 82 school board members agreed.
Survey participants were asked whether all school board members would benefit from
completing the MIG training; 57 of 61 superintendents and all 84 school board members
agreed. Study participants were asked specifically whether school board training should
be mandated in California; 49 of 60 superintendents and 59 of 83 school board members
indicated agreement. Table 8 provides a summary of these results.
When asked in the interview whether school board training should be mandated in
California, Wilma replied, “Personally, I would say yes. I think that if you’re going to be
committed to being on a school board then you should go have the right training. I would
say yes.” Her school board member echoed her sentiments, but noted that some training
should be mandated for all elected officials. Elias said, “I think school board member
training should be mandated if it’s mandated for all other locally elected officials”;
IMPACT OF THE MIG 77
Table 8

The MIG Training Should Be Mandated in California

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 26 43 34 40
Agree 23 38 25 29
Disagree 10 16 18 21
Strongly disagree 1 2 5 6

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
however, he had reservations that others in public service should have some basis of
training as well.
Cost of MIG as a Deterrent
The concept of mandated training is spreading throughout the United States;
however, a recurring concern is the issue of cost. While currently most school districts
cover the costs associated with training, only a few mandating states provide funding
(Bianchi, 2003). Given the findings related to Research Questions 1 and 2, it can be
suggested that the benefits of school board training can outweigh the costs.
The majority of survey participants indicated cost as a potential factor in
participation. The survey asked whether, if the cost of the MIG training program was
subsidized or free, more school board members would participate; 43 of 60
superintendents and 61 of 79 board members indicated agreement (Table 9).
IMPACT OF THE MIG 78
Table 9

If the Cost of the MIG Training Program Were Subsidized or Free, More School Board

Members Would Participate

Superintendents School board members
(N = 61) (N = 86)
Response f % f %

Strongly agree 15 25 28 33
Agree 28 46 33 38
Disagree 15 25 15 17
Strongly disagree 2 3 3 3

Note. Not all survey questions were answered by all participants.
The interview participants were asked to identify potential conflicts, if any, that
might be anticipated with mandating MIG training in California; every response related
to cost. Jackson shared that training would need to be “a funded mandate by the state.”
His board member, Tom, agreed: “If it’s a mandate, who’s going to subsidize it?” He
commented, “You’re just told you’re going to do this and expect you to fund it yourself.”
Wilma cited time as an additional issue and commented that the cost was worth the
benefit, which could be due in part to the fact that she is in a large district with a healthy
budget, as her board member also indicated. Wilma said, “People wouldn’t be able to get
away from work or that they had obligations that kept them from doing it. For the benefit,
the cost doesn’t matter. . . . I see it as the single best thing that the CSBA does.” Her
board member, Elias, also said that cost could be an issue, although perhaps more in
small districts that in a district of their size.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 79
Cost . . . the problem wouldn’t be in a district the size of Valley because, even if
you’re talking $5,000 for somebody to go off to a bunch of trainings and stay at
the St. Francis in San Francisco—chump change. If you had to train all seven
board members in a 2-year span and it was going to cost $5000? Valley Unified,
$35,000 out of a $160 million budget? Chump change.
This suggests that cost can be a deterrent but, in districts with a healthy budget or in a
different financial climate than the one currently experienced in California, the benefits
could be seen to outweigh the cost.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Due to the high accountability requirements currently faced by school board
members, training is important, even though it is voluntary in California. Mandating
training would be supported by both superintendents and school board members, as
indicated by the responses to Research Question 3. Concerns about costs are reflected in
the study results and the literature; however, there is general agreement that the benefits
of the training outweigh the fiscal implications.
Chapter Summary
This chapter analyzed the data and summarized the findings related to three
research questions. The results of analysis of the survey data, interview data, and MIGOP
data were presented. Several themes emerged and were connected to the literature and
frameworks to support the findings.
School board members and superintendents are self-motivated to improve their
understanding of their job and are willing to participate in school board training. They
IMPACT OF THE MIG 80
encourage each other to participate in the MIG training. A concern remains related to
time and location constraints, as many school board members have full-time jobs and
families and the MIG modules require significant time. Training sessions are not always
conveniently located for participants, who may be required to travel considerable dis-
tances to participate in the training.
As identified in the literature, governing effectively is integral for a school board
to be highly functional. The MIG training equips a school board to act as a unified team
instead of individual trustees. The training clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of
a school board and maintains focus on student achievement as the central goal.
Due to the foundation in governance that school board members receive from the
MIG training, many are in support of all school board members participating in it.
Mandating school board training in California would follow 23 other states already
requiring it of their school boards. In this study, both the superintendents and school
board members suggested that they would support the mandate. The concern, as with
many programs, was cost, which can prove to be significant for the MIG training.
However, given the position of many that the MIG training is a substantial positive
benefit, the cost might be supported by fiscally solvent districts or large districts. During
fiscal crisis times, as the one currently experienced in California, subsidizing or funding
the mandate would be beneficial to the majority of districts, especially smaller ones, as
their budgets are not as large.
In summary, there were three major findings: (a) The MIG is effective in
providing school boards with a clear definition of their roles and responsibilities,
IMPACT OF THE MIG 81
enabling them to govern effectively; (b) the MIG should be adjusted to fit the needs of
school board members’ schedules and locations as a means to increase participation; and
(c) mandated MIG training should be funded or subsidized.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 82
Chapter 5
Conclusion
With the increased accountability placed on schools today by NCLB and the
PSAA, school districts and their boards are facing increasing challenges in performing
their jobs effectively. While in many public government areas experts may be entrusted
or consulted in an effort to govern effectively, such is not necessarily the case with
schools and their district boards of education. School board members are locally elected
officials, often with little to no background in education, which can create a problem for
districts (Bianchi, 2003; Danzberger, 1994; Dillon, 2010; Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt
& Kirst, 2005). Providing professional development to school board members can
improve their ability to lead as a collaborative team and equip them with necessary skills
(Bianchi, 2003; Johnson, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2008; Morehouse, 2001; Petronis et al.,
1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2010).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training provided by
the CSBA influences a school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective
leadership and governance. Survey data were gathered from 61 superintendents and 86
school board members and followed up with matching pairs of interviews with
superintendents and school board members. The following three research questions
guided the study and led to the results of the data analysis:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
IMPACT OF THE MIG 83
2. Does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact school board
governance?
The results of the surveys and interviews were examined and triangulated by
conceptual frameworks and MIGOP. From this examination, relevant themes emerged for
each research question. This chapter provides a summary of those findings, implications
for practice, recommendations for future research, and final conclusions.
Summary of Findings
The results of this study suggested three significant findings: (a) The MIG
training is effective in providing school boards with a clear definition as to their roles and
responsibilities, enabling them to govern effectively; (b) the MIG training should be
adjusted to fit the needs of school board members’ schedules and locations as a means to
increase participation; and (c) mandated MIG training should be funded or subsidized.
The MIG is effective in providing school boards with a clear definition of their
roles and responsibilities. This enables them to govern effectively, which is imperative,
given the increase in accountability and public scrutiny (Johnson, 2011). As Bolman and
Deal (2008) indicated, the structural and architectural elements of an organization are
necessary for it to function effectively. Rules, policies, and goals are key as the focus
moves from the individual to the team and provides the foundation for the formation of a
strong unit (Bolman & Deal, 2008). CSBA recognizes the importance of adhering to
rules, policies, and procedures, as well as governing while following a common vision, as
IMPACT OF THE MIG 84
indicated in their Professional Governance Standards (CSBA, 2007). The MIG training
provides participants with an understanding of their role as school board members and as
members of the governing team. It defines the responsibilities of school board members
and their main function as policy setters, as opposed to implementers. This training helps
school board members to remain focused on students as their main priority as they fulfill
the various aspects of their role.
Participation in the MIG training should increase to yield a larger pool of trained
school board members who can govern effectively. The MIG training opportunities
should be adjusted to meet the needs of school board members. These adjustments should
be made with schedules and locations in mind to increase participation. Delagardelle
(2008) identified a commitment and willingness to learn as a key area of school board
performance. As indicated by the research, school board members are interested and
willing to participate in school board training; however, certain constraints may be
challenging. Removing the barriers associated with time and location can lead to an
increase in participation. Adjustments to the modules in terms of shortening the sessions
or integrating an online component, as well as providing a variety of locations, could lead
to additional school board members completing the MIG training.
Mandated MIG training should be funded or subsidized. The results of this study
suggest that both superintendents and school board members support mandating training
for school boards. Providing training would also keep school board members current with
educational issues, as well as maintain consistency as most professionals in the K–12
system must participate in professional development throughout their careers (Bianchi,
IMPACT OF THE MIG 85
2003; Dillon, 2010; Land, 2002; Roberts & Sampson, 2010). However, simply mandating
training is not the whole answer (Bianchi, 2003). There must be provision for funding to
ensure all districts’ availability to participate and to fulfill the requirements of said
mandate. While the study results indicated that large districts might be able to meet the
costs associated with training, small districts could face a challenge if their fiscal
situation were in crisis, as is the case currently with many districts in California.
Given that school board members are charged with making decisions affecting the
students in K–12 educational system, providing training to ensure that they perform all
aspects of their job successfully is important. The MIG training provides school board
members clearly delineated roles and responsibilities that enable them to govern
effectively. Access remains challenging in ensuring participation rates, as the MIG is
very time consuming and offered in only certain locations. While mandating training
would increase participation and lead to more effective and trained school board
members, funding would need to be secured to ensure the success of the MIG training.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study have implications for school board members in the area
of professional development. School board members who complete the MIG training are
more effective in their governance practices. They understand their roles and
responsibilities and recognize that they must work with their fellow school board
members and superintendent as a collaborative unit. They work together on a common
vision and strive to keep student achievement as a primary focus.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 86
School board members are willing to participate in training, although adjustments
in the schedule and locations of the MIG training could increase participation rates.
Currently, the MIG training is comprised of nine modules, each of which requires a day.
Due to scheduling issues, the MIG generally takes about 2 years to complete. The
modules are not always provided locally, so many school board members must travel
long distances and take time away from home. Providing an online component could
increase access for many school board members. Shortening the modules or the hours
required to complete the MIG training could also increase participation.
While the MIG training has provided school board members with many of the
tools to perform the various aspects of their job, the training remains voluntary in
California. Mandating school board training would ensure that all school board members
receive this valuable training. However, the mandate would not make the training easily
attainable, as cost could be an issue. At the very least, ensuring funding for any school
board team is essential, as funding can be difficult to secure in the current economic
climate. Enacting legislation to support mandating and funding the MIG training would
help to ensure that all school board members complete the training.
Recommendations for Future Research
In conducting this study, areas of future research were revealed. This study could
be replicated with districts in which all of the school board members have completed the
MIG training, instead of just one board member. The study could be conducted across the
state to garner a larger sample from which to gather data. The study could look at a
connection between districts whose school board members are MIG trained and their
IMPACT OF THE MIG 87
academic achievement as measured by the API. A study could be conducted to compare
the effectiveness of MIG training in California to that of other school board training
programs in other states. The literature indicates a need for additional research in the
areas of identifying quality school board training and comparing various programs.
Conclusion
School board members are faced with increasing challenges as they attempt to
navigate the complexities of their roles and responsibilities while making sound decisions
regarding policies, curriculum, personnel, and finance (Danzberger, 1994; Dillon, 2010;
Kirst, 1994; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). As accountability in today’s K–12
education system continues to increase, school board members must clearly understand
their function as members of the district’s governing team and adhere to policies and
procedures (Bianchi, 2003; Brenner et al., 2002; Danzberger, 1994; Johnson, 2011; Land,
2002; Leithwood et al., 2008; Morehouse, 2001; Petronis et al., 1996; Roberts &
Sampson, 2010). Professional development for school board members can aid in that
ensuring effective governance and practices are followed.
The MIG training provided by CSBA equips school board members with tools to
understand their jobs clearly and to govern effectively. School board members are willing
to participate and complete the MIG training; changes in scheduling could yield a larger
participation rate. Mandating school board training would positively affect school board
governance, as evidenced by the results of this study; however, provisions for funding
would be required.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 88
References
Anderson, C. G. (1992). Behaviors of the most effective and least effective school board
members. ERS Spectrum, 10, 15-18.
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2003). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. TQ Technos Quarterly, Journal of the Agency for Instructional Tech-
nology, 11(4). Retrieved from http://schoolmatch.com/articles/TQJAN03.htm
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Retrieved from
http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bracey, G. W., & Resnick, M. A. (1998). Raising the bar: A school board primer on
student achievement. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. El Paso, TX:
University of Texas at El Paso, Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
California Department of Education. (2012). Academic Performance Index report.
Retrieved from http://api.cde.ca.gov/reports/API/APISearchName.asp?
TheYear=&cTopic=API&cLevel=District&cName=los^angeles&cCounty
=&cTimeFrame=S
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and
function of California ’s school boards. Sacramento, CA: Author.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 89
California School Boards Association. (2010a). About CSBA. Retrieved from http://
www.csba.org/en/AboutCSBA.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2010b). Masters in Governance. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/mig.aspx
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in
the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391-395.
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, 69(1), 53-59.
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 (pp. 191-223). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Dillon, N. (2010). The value of training. American School Board Journal, 197(7), 14-19.
EdSource. (2005). School accountability under NCLB: Ambitious goals and competing
systems. Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_NCLB8-05.html
EdSource. (2012). Average daily attendance (ADA). Retrieved from http://www
.edsource.org/1077.html
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 90
Fusarelli, B. C. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity,
conflict, and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44-
57.
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards: A guide-
book. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Glass, T. E. (1992). The 1992 study of the American school superintendency. Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. New York, NY: Center for Applied Research
in Education.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004, Spring/Summer). Cracking the code of
accountability. Urban Education, 17-19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and chal-
lenges of district governance. Alexandria, VA: National School Board Associa-
tion.
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board gov-
ernance: Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psy-
chology, 22, 683-700.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School boards/
superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in
student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.ia-sb.org/assets/FADFDF72-
BE9D-48D7-8CF9-19B823F0CDA1.pdf
IMPACT OF THE MIG 91
Johnson, P. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a changin’. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1-20. doi:10.1177/1555458911413887
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75,
378-381.
Kolb, R. F., & Strauss, R. P. (1999). State laws governing school board ethics. Retrieved
from ftp://amusing.mit.edu/afs/andrew/supa/wpapers/1999-8.pdf
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in rela-
tion to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72,
229-278.
Lashway, L. (2002). The superintendent in the age of accountability. ERIC Digest, 161,
1-6.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7-9.
Morehouse, W. R. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Adminis-
trator, 58(2), 68-70.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
National School Boards Association. (2012). Mandated training for school board
members. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
IMPACT OF THE MIG 92
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petronis, J., Hall, R. F., & Pierson, M. E. (1996). Mandatory school board training: An
idea whose time has come. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED
400625)
Quality counts: 2009 state report cards. (2009, January 8). Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2009/17src.h28.html?r=1014374166
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2010). School board member professional develop-
ment and effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational
Management, 25, 701-713.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The
quest to define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University &
Howard University Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk.
Timar, T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Pea-
body Journal of Education, 78, 177-200.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: McREL.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 93
Appendix A
Board Member Survey

IMPACT OF THE MIG 94

IMPACT OF THE MIG 95

IMPACT OF THE MIG 96
Appendix B

Superintendent Survey

IMPACT OF THE MIG 97

IMPACT OF THE MIG 98

IMPACT OF THE MIG 99
Appendix C
Superintendent Recruitment Letter
Date
Dear Superintendent ,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet. You
have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact of the Cali-
fornia School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program on school
board members’ ability to govern effectively. This study may serve as a source of best practices for super-
intendents who strive to strengthen and support the professional development and growth of their school
board members. Enclosed you will find an information sheet outlining the purpose of the study, as well as
additional information related to the research.

My name is Mercedes Gomez. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and guidance of
Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Your
district has been identified as a successful district, in which at least one board member has completed the
Masters in Governance training program. Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the
enclosed Superintendent Survey and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. We would also
appreciate your assistance in facilitating the process of your identified school board members in completing
the enclosed School Board Member Survey. An additional copy of the School Board Member Survey is
enclosed for your review.

Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your
participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any
time. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact me or Dr.
Michael F. Escalante. Thank you, in advance, for your time and participation.

Sincerely,

Mercedes Gomez Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
email address email address
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (xxx) xxx-xxxx

I have read this recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to
my participation in the research described above.

( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
IMPACT OF THE MIG 100
Appendix D
Board Member Recruitment Letter

Date

Dear School Board Member ,

I would like to congratulate your school district for being identified as a successful district in which at least
one board member has completed the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Gov-
ernance (MIG) training program. My name is Mercedes Gomez and I am a doctoral student from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California conducting a research study under the
guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante.

As a graduate of the Masters in Governance training program, you have been invited to participate in this
study that may shed light on the impact the Masters in Governance training program on school board
members’ ability to govern effectively. It is our hope that this study will serve as a source of best practices
for school board members who strive to grow and develop as educational leaders. Thank you, in advance,
for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review and complete the information enclosed in this
packet.

Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your
participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any
time. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact me or Dr.
Michael F. Escalante. Thank you, in advance, for your time and participation.

Respectfully,

Mercedes Gomez Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
email address email address
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (xxx) xxx-xxxx

I have read this board member recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask
questions. I consent to my participation in the research described above.

( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits

__________________________________________________________________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
IMPACT OF THE MIG 101
Appendix E
Information Sheet: Superintendent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE ON
SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at the
University of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one of the five
Southern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done
in completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. It is recom-
mended that you read the information below prior to consenting to participate in this study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association (CSBA)-
Masters In Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and
advancements in technology, school board members need to understand their roles and responsi-
bilities in order to create an effective district environment. School board members must
demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board
professional growth are vital characteristics for success.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists
of 21 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance.

You may be asked to participate in a 30-60 minute interview at a time and place convenient to
you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission and include
questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the interview without
audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.

POTENTIAL RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts that you
may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the question.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 102

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participation may
add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG training on effec-
tive governance practices. These findings will benefit school board members who strive to
improve conditions that lead to effective governance.

PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and confidential-
ity. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only the researcher and
the dissertation committee members will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored in a secure location in the investigator’s office and a password protected com-
puter.

The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity.

The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern Califor-
nia’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any time
without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want
to answer and still remain in the study.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Univer-
sity Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272 or uprib@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Mercedes
Gomez at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at mescalan@usc.edu.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 103
Appendix F
Information Sheet: School Board Member
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE ON
SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at the Uni-
versity of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one of the five
Southern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done
in completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. It is recom-
mended that you read the information below prior to consenting to participate in this study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association (CSBA)-
Masters In Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and
advancements in technology, school board members need to understand their roles and responsi-
bilities in order to create an effective district environment. School board members must
demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board
professional growth are vital characteristics for success.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists
of 21 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance.

You may be asked to participate in a 30-60 minute interview at a time and place convenient to
you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission and include
questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the interview without
audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.

POTENTIAL RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts that you
may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the question.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 104

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participation may
add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG training on effec-
tive governance practices. These findings will benefit school board members who strive to
improve conditions that lead to effective governance.

PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and confidential-
ity. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only the researcher and
the dissertation committee members will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored in a secure location in the investigator’s office and a password protected com-
puter.

The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity.

The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern Califor-
nia’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any time
without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want
to answer and still remain in the study.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Univer-
sity Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272 or uprib@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Mercedes
Gomez at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at mescalan@usc.edu.
IMPACT OF THE MIG 105
Appendix G
Interview Guide: Superintendent
* NOTATES QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IF APPLICABLE

1. Is receiving Masters in Governance (MIG) training a cultural expectation in your school
district?

2. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school board train-
ing program?

3. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members, i.e. what
would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?

4. Have you recommended MIG training to non-trained board members? What was their
response?

5. Did you feel any pressure to complete the MIG training?
6. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (team-
work) in your district?

7. Has the MIG training impacted the decision making and governance practices in your
district?

8. Has the MIG training affected the way your board members govern? If so, please explain.

9. What indicators suggest that the MIG training was effective or ineffective?
10. Have you been trained in all nine modules of the MIG?

11. How could the MIG be improved in order to enable school board members to govern more
effectively? *

12. What was the most beneficial aspect of MIG training? *
13. Which of the nine MIG modules was the most effective and why? *
14. Which MIG module failed to meet your expectations, if any? Why? *
15. Should school board training be a California mandate? Why or why not?
16. What potential conflicts, if any, would you anticipate with such a mandate?
17. What potential fiscal impact would mandating training have on your district?
Would this expenditure be supported by stakeholders?
IMPACT OF THE MIG 106
Appendix H
Interview Guide: School Board Member
* NOTATES QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IF APPLICABLE

1. Is receiving Masters in Governance (MIG) training a cultural expectation in your school
district?

2. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school board train-
ing program?

3. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members, i.e. what
would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?

4. Have you recommended MIG training to non-trained board members? What was their
response?

5. Did you feel any pressure to complete the MIG training?
6. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process
(teamwork) in your district?

7. Has the MIG training impacted the decision making and governance practices in your
district?

8. Has the MIG training affected the way your board members govern? If so, please explain.

9. What indicators suggest that the MIG training was effective or ineffective?
10. How could the MIG be improved in order to enable school board members to govern more
effectively? *

11. What was the most beneficial aspect of MIG training? *
12. Which of the nine MIG modules was the most effective and why? *
13. Which MIG module failed to meet your expectations, if any? Why? *
14. Should school board training be a California mandate? Why or why not?
15. What potential conflicts, if any, would you anticipate with such a mandate?
16. What potential fiscal impact would mandating training have on your district?
Would this expenditure be supported by stakeholders?
IMPACT OF THE MIG 107
Appendix I
MIG Observation Protocol

IMPACT OF THE MIG 108

IMPACT OF THE MIG 109

IMPACT OF THE MIG 110

IMPACT OF THE MIG 111
Appendix J

Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and MIG Observation Protocol

Survey Questions and Research Question Alignment
Research Question Survey Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to
complete the Masters In Governance training program?
7, 9, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23
2. Does Masters In Governance training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 17, 18, 20
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
10, 11, 14, 15

Interview Questions and Research Question Alignment
Research Question Interview Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to
complete the Masters In Governance training program?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
2. Does Masters In Governance training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance?
6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
3, 15, 16, 17

MIG Observation Protocol and Research Question Alignment
Research Question MIG Observation Protocol
Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to
complete the Masters In Governance training program?
2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13
2. Does the Masters In Governance training encourage and
equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9

IMPACT OF THE MIG 112
Appendix K

Research Questions/Survey/Interview/MIGOP Protocol Grid

IMPACT OF THE MIG 113

IMPACT OF THE MIG 114

IMPACT OF THE MIG 115

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the effectiveness of professional development for school board members based on best practices identified in the relevant literature to determine the potential impact on effective governance. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Masters in Governance (MIG) training program offered by the California School Boards Association influenced a board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective leadership and governance. This was a qualitative study using data collected via surveys and interviews, as well as observations of the MIG modules. The findings indicated that the MIG training program was effective in providing school boards with a clear definition of their roles and responsibilities, enabling them to lead and govern effectively. It is recommended that the program be adjusted to fit the needs of school board members by allowing for an increase in participation. This study begins to identify the possibility of mandating school board training in California and the positive effect it can have on school board governance, if funded appropriately.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance

PDF

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training

PDF

Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training

PDF

The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California

PDF

Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Gomez, Mercedes (author)

Core Title Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 04/10/2015

Defense Date 02/22/2013

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

Tag Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board governance,school board leadership,school board training

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Escalante, Michael F. (committee chair), Doll, Michele (committee member), Garcia, Pedro (committee member)

Creator Email mercedes21@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-234803

Unique identifier UC11294561

Identifier etd-GomezMerce-1534.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-234803 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GomezMerce-1534-2.pdf

Dmrecord 234803

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gomez, Mercedes

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