Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
(USC Thesis Other)
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 1
DOES SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING ENCOURAGE AND EQUIP SCHOOL
BOARD MEMBERS TO EXHIBIT THE BEHAVIORS OF EFFECTIVE
GOVERNANCE?
by
Issaic Gates
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 Issaic Gates
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents. My mother Lessie defines strength,
inspiration, and courage. A single mother raising four children, she silently encouraged
my siblings and myself to attribute our success and failures to preparedness, hard work,
and perseverance. By example, she demonstrated that these characteristics are far more
impactful than any excuse. I am also grateful to my father Oscar and my mom, Jenetta,
for keeping me grounded while encouraging me to fly. I have never been afraid to fail,
because I knew they were there to catch me, guide me, and support me in trying again.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my wife Rasheedah, and my two children,
David and Grace. Rasheedah is the pillar of my life. She has encouraged me and sup-
ported every endeavor that I have ever dreamed of. She has toiled with no consideration
for her personal sacrifices, while sustaining our family throughout. I am truly blessed.
David and Grace are the loves of my life. Both of them have sacrificed more than they
may realize, as a father’s time with his children, particularly at their current ages, is
extremely significant. My simple prayer is that my effort to achieve this goal demon-
strates what can be achieved with hard work, preparedness, and perseverance.
My siblings—Eyvate, John, Latrice, and Octavia—collectively continue to
inspire me. I have never been anything less than their brother, regardless of how unique
my perspective of the world is. Their love and support anchors me.
To the minority students who dare to color outside of the line, I say that they
should dance to their own music and challenge the status quo. They should protect their
future, set their moral and ethical compass toward heaven, and continue to dream.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 3
However, they should not just dream. They should research, become experts on their
dreams, and then do the work that will bring their dreams to fruition. The only liable
limitation is themselves. Fight on!
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 4
Acknowledgments
It is with the deepest and most sincere appreciation that I acknowledge those
who have encouraged and guided me along this educational journey. They have exer-
cised humanity’s greatest and most powerful strength: the power to influence and
inspire.
Many thanks go to Dr. Michael F. Escalante. As my dissertation chair, he set the
expectations bar high and then outlined how I was to achieve the goal. He respectfully
demanded the best of me, and I will be forever thankful. The specific feedback along
with the connections made by Dr. Robert Rueda with his students truly set the tone for
my doctoral experience; he has truly impacted life. I thank Dr. Cynthia Livingston and
Dr. Pedro Garcia for agreeing to be members of my dissertation committee. Dr. Living-
ston’s kind approach and commitment to excellence was appreciated; and as for Dr.
Garcia, one never forgets who teaches one how to tie a bowtie. I thank him and Dr.
Livingston for dedicating their time to ensuring my success.
I am internally grateful to Kristina Turley for her unwavering dedication and
support to our success. We were committed to seeing each other through this doctoral
program. From the Los Angeles campus on Thursday nights to the Orange County
campus for Friday nights and Saturday mornings and all the writing days between, I
thank her for grinding it out with me. I truly value her and her friendship. I am grateful
to Letitia Bradley for keeping me from going over the edge. We have agreed that now
the hard work begins, and let us do that work. My “big brothers,” Rocky Murray and
Sergio Canal openly shared their knowledge and expertise with me; they are true
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 5
leaders. I think that Joshua Arnold knows that the true purpose of mangos is to seed
other mango trees; I thank him for that and urge him to continue to do that work.
Thanks go to the other members of my research team—Vivian Choi, Lena Richter,
Marco Nava, Mercedes Gomez, and Becky Gogel—for all their hard work and their
commitment to our research. Nothing works like teamwork!
I would also like to acknowledge the school board members and superintendents
who graciously offered their time to participate in our study as well as the California
School Boards Association for supporting our study.
Finally, I would like to give a special thanks to the Thursday Night Cohort. It
was said that we would develop special bonds with one another. Laughing, arguing, and
learning together, we did. I am extremely grateful for every moment.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 6
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 4
List of Tables 9
Abstract 11
Chapter 1: Introduction 12
Background of the Problem 13
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose 18
Research Questions 18
Importance of the Study 18
Limitations 19
Delimitations 20
Assumptions 20
Definitions of Related Terms 20
Academic Performance Index (API) 21
Accountability 21
Accountability Assessments 21
Average Daily Attendance 21
Board of Trustees 21
California School Boards Association 22
Effective Board Leadership 22
Governance 22
Mandate 22
Masters in Governance Training 22
NCLB 23
Professional Development 23
School Board 23
School Board Members 23
School District 23
Superintendent 24
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 25
History and Evolution of Local School Boards 25
Modern-Day Responsibilities of School Boards 28
Leadership 31
Governance Board Relationship 32
Effective School Governance 35
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 7
School Board Training 37
Accountability 42
Moral and Professional Accountability 44
Financial Accountability 45
Legal and Constitutional Accountability 46
Conceptual Framework 47
Leadership 48
Effective School Board Practice 50
School Board Training 56
Chapter Summary 58
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 60
Research Questions 61
Research Design 61
Participants 62
Sampling Strategies 62
Instrumentation 63
Survey 64
Interviews 65
Data Collection and Analysis 65
Ethical Considerations 65
Chapter Summary 66
Chapter 4: Research Results 67
Participants 68
Survey Participants 69
Interviewed Participants 69
Results for Research Question 1 71
Culture 72
Professional Collaboration 78
Summary of Results for Research Question 1 80
Results for Research Question 2 81
Collaboration and Aligning of Goals 82
Defining Roles and Responsibilities 88
Summary of Results for Research Question 2 94
Results for Research Question 3 95
Increased School Governance Effectiveness 96
Accessibility 101
Summary of Results for Research Question 3 106
Chapter Summary 108
Chapter 5: Discussion 110
Summary of Findings 111
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 8
Limitations 115
Recommendations for Future Research 117
Conclusion 118
References 120
Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey Questions 127
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey Questions 130
Appendix C: Interview Questions 133
Appendix D: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 134
Appendix E: School Board Member Recruitment Letter 135
Appendix F: MIG Observation Tool 136
Appendix G: Information Letter for School Board Recruitment 140
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 9
List of Tables
Table 1: Primary Factors Influencing School Board Members’ Participation
in the Masters of Governance Training 73
Table 2: Responses of School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding
Developing a More Collaborative Relationship With Fellow School
Board Members as a Result of Masters in Governance Training 84
Table 3: Responses of School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding
Ability to Accept the Majority Decision as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training 84
Table 4: Responses of School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding
Whether Masters in Governance Training Equips Board Members to
Understand the Importance of Aligning the Decision-Making Process
to the District’s Vision and Goals 85
Table 5: Summary of Responses From Research Team Regarding Whether
Five Actionable Steps Were Covered in Masters in Governance
Training to Equip School Board Members to Exhibit Behaviors of
Effective Governance (N = 10) 88
Table 6: Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents
Regarding Whether Masters in Governance-Trained Board Members
Exhibit Clearer Understanding of Difference Between Their Roles
and Responsibilities and Those of Superintendent 90
Table 7: Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents
Regarding Whether Masters in Governance Training Helps Board
Members Differentiate Between Policy and Management Leadership 90
Table 8: Summary of Responses From Research Team Regarding Whether
Four Actionable Steps Were Covered in Masters in Governance
Training to Equip School Board Members to Develop Collaborative
Relationships (N = 10) 94
Table 9: Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents
Regarding Whether Board Members’ Focus on Student Achievement
Had Increased During School Board Meetings as a Result of Masters
in Governance Training 97
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 10
Table 10: Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents
Regarding Whether Board Members Certified by Masters in Gov-
ernance Training Encourage Fellow Board Members to Con-
sistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions About Student
Achievement 98
Table 11: Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents
Regarding Whether Board Members Exhibited Behaviors of
Effective Governance as a Result of Masters in Governance Training 99
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 11
Abstract
The framework of Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four-frame model, The Lighthouse
Inquiry conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards, and the California School
Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program was used
by the 10-member research team as guides for the study. The framework was the basis
for the surveys and interview guide and provided structure for the MIG observations
conducted by the research team. The purpose was to determine whether school board
member training, particularly CSBA’s MIG, impacted school board members’ ability to
adhere to best practices for effective governance. Purposeful sampling was used to
identify the participants. The participant pool was restricted to six southern California
counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura.
Survey data were sent to 226 school board members and 100 school superintendents; 2
board members and 2 superintendent pairs were chosen to participate in one-on-one
interviews. Each member of the research team also observed MIG school board mem-
ber training. The study revealed the following findings: Through the focus on goals
alignment and defining roles and responsibilities, the MIG program encourages and
equips school board members to exhibit behaviors of effective governance. Culture and
professional development were significant factors influencing school board members’
decision to attend the MIG training. In conclusion, the study supported the literature
review in asserting that school board members should engage in continuous profes-
sional development and build capacity for exhibiting characteristics of effective school
governance.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 12
Chapter 1
Introduction
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES; as cited in
Aud et al., 2011) the nation’s estimated 100,000 school boards oversaw the governance
of more than 51 million students enrolled in K-12 public schools. These school boards
collectively maintained a national education budget of nearly $50 billion (Aud et al.,
2011). Throughout this era of educational reform, there are increasing pressures for
educational agents to be held accountable for more effective, efficient, and evidence-
based educational practices that deliver improved outcomes of student academic
achievement. Underlying these increasing pressures is a common assumption that the
quality of instruction and administration are the only factors that contribute to changes
in student learning (Webster-Wright, 2009). As a result, the educational community is
looking to professional development and evaluations as the foundation for improving
the quality of educational instruction and teacher accountability. This assumption
grossly overlooks the influence that the school board has on student academic achieve-
ment and the overall success of the school district. The demands of increased account-
ability and student academic achievement throughout the education system have ex-
panded the role of the board. These changes have created a need for a system that
ensures that school board members are knowledgeable and informed about the complex
educational system of the district they govern.
In the next section of this chapter are the key elements of the history of school
boards and background information about the establishment and fundamental purpose
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 13
of the boards. Linking roles and responsibilities of the original school boards to current
school boards, the background section provides important insight into significant factors
that helped to shape the current school boards, including roles and responsibilities,
school board leadership, federal and state legislation, accountability, and school board
training programs. The roles and responsibilities of a school board have many inter-
woven components, with each role addressing different agendas. A conceptual frame-
work constructs the lens through which the research of the factors shaping the current
board will be explored. Generally, school board training is ambiguously categorized
and underdeveloped, thus adversely impacting board efficiency today (Webster-Wright,
2009).
School board leadership is connected to its relationship with the superintendent,
community members, and board members. The conceptual framework provides a lens
in which to view the three aspects of school board governance effectively. The over-
arching goal of this research was to reveal how effective training of school board mem-
bers better prepares them for the current governing tasks for which they are accountable.
Background of the Problem
In a time of increased accountability and high expectations for student academic
achievement, every aspect of the public educational system’s effectiveness is being
challenged (Webster-Wright, 2009). Employers and higher educational institutions are
questioning the public education’s system’s ability to prepare graduating students with
the basic skills needed to be successful employees or college students (Brenner, Sulli-
van, & Dalton, 2002).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 14
Lawmakers sought to address these concerns and subsequently improve the
nation’s confidence in the public educational system with federal legislation such as the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; 1965) and the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act (2003). These compulsory education acts established a system of man-
dated standards and accountability measures intended to ensure that teachers and admin-
istrators were knowledgeable and prepared to effectively educate public school students.
Success or failure of a school district has many components. Although teachers and
administrators typically bear the significant percentage of the educational reformers’
scrutiny, current research implies that effective school governance is an affirmative
indicator of successful school districts. Most educational reform legislation is aimed at
educator preparation programs, teachers’ instructional practices, and administrators’
effectiveness (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). This reform fails to address perfor-
mance standards, school boards’ responsibilities, or school boards’ accountability. Ac-
cording to Danzberger et al. (1987), experts in the field of education policy, school
boards are the forgotten players on the education team. Danzberger et al. (1987) further
suggested that state educational reformers should consider the influences that school
boards have on school improvement and aim educational reform at strengthening the
capacity of local school boards and accountability measures to monitor effectiveness.
For the most part, current boards are still fashioned after the original school
boards that were established more than 200 years ago in the state of Massachusetts.
Current literature suggests that the original school boards as elected governance bodies
were comprised of laymen whose chief purpose was to oversee public education while
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 15
promoting the interest of the local community (Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002).
Modern-day school boards continue to be comprised of laymen who are entrusted to
effectively perform tasks usually reserved for trained professionals. However, increased
responsibility and accountability measures have changed the role of the modern-day
school boards over the last few decades. Although the roles and responsibilities of the
school board have increased, there has been little educational reform legislation ad-
dressing the need for a system that ensures that school board members are knowledge-
able and have the capacity to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance responsibili-
ties, such as setting the district’s direction, developing and implementing effective
policies, efficiently managing school finance, and sustaining an environment of student
learning and academic achievement. In this standards-based era of educational reform,
the school board’s role, effectiveness, and professional development is gaining a fair
amount of attention as the focus of empirical research in education (Danzberger et al.,
1987; Land & Stringfield, 2005; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
The role of today’s school board is far more extensive than the role of school
boards established in Massachusetts in the 1800s. Modern-day school boards are now
responsible for understanding and ensuring implementation of educational legislation,
managing multimillion-dollar budgets, and maintaining facilities (Bianchi, 2003).
Current research indicates that educated or trained school boards govern more effi-
ciently than school boards that are not trained (Bianchi, 2003). Bianchi’s (2003)
research implies that school board training programs such as California School Board
Association’s (CSBA; 2007) Masters in Governance (MIG) program encourages and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 16
prepares school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school board gov-
ernance. It is unreasonable to expect a regulating body, unskilled or ignorant regarding
educational governance, to govern effectively. Outdated standards that fail to require
school board members to be trained or even knowledgeable about educational gover-
nance have left 21st-century school boards ill equipped to meet the needs of current
school systems. The absence of an educational policy stipulating that school board
members attend professional development or have minimum school governance knowl-
edge creates a need to ensure that school board members are prepared to effectively
govern a school district. Policies that mandate attendance at school board training
programs such as the MIG may impact school board governance and ultimately student
academic success.
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 (Land, 2002). With
increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and advancements in tech-
nology, school board members need to understand their roles and responsibilities in
order to create an effective district environment (Brenner et al., 2002; Danzberger,
1994). School board members must demonstrate professionalism and be knowledge-
able enough to make informed policy decisions regarding student achievement, finance,
litigation, human resources, and facilities (Bianchi, 2003). Because the duties of school
board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school
board professional growth are vital characteristics for success.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 17
The local school board is often viewed as the forgotten member of the education
system. The local school board is responsible for demonstrating professionalism and
making informed policy decisions about student academic achievement, finances, liti-
gation, human resources, and facilities (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
In response to the demand for educational reform and increased student academic
achievement, federal and state government have developed and implemented complex
accountability measures with substantial consequences. These accountability measures
and consequences fail to provide a structure for systematic, improved school gover-
nance.
Current school board policy requires very minimum qualifications for its board
members. Therefore, school boards continue to be comprised of laymen who are as-
signed responsibilities that are typically executed by professionals (Bianchi, 2003;
National School Boards Association [NSBA], 2010). In this era of education reform
and accountability, it appears that state and federal legislators have ignored the impor-
tance of the local school board members. Antiquated qualifications for school board
members’ eligibility, the absence of state and federal standards for school board mem-
ber training, local school board members’ lack of relevant skills and ignorance of edu-
cational governance may undermine reform or the performance of school boards (Land,
2002; Land & Stringfield, 2005).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 18
Purpose
Collaboratively developed by the thematic dissertation group, the purpose of this
study is to determine whether MIG training impacts the school board’s ability to adhere
to best practices for effective governance.
Research Questions
The following research questions will be explored in this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Importance of the Study
Current research literature indicates that school board members who receive
school board member training or continual professional development exhibit the charac-
teristics of effective school governance. Almost every level of public education leader-
ship is being carefully scrutinized for its efficiency and effectiveness. Often this
scrutiny disproportionately assigns culpability for poor student academic achievement
to the most visible members of the educational system, specifically teachers, principals,
and superintendents. Reformers regularly neglect the role of school boards and their
members when auditing public education leadership for efficiency and effectiveness.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 19
This study examined current literature and research on the impact that school
board training has on a board’s practices. The data collected from the study should
serve to support, or possibly change, the current perspectives of school board members,
superintendents, as well as federal, state, and local legislators, about school board
member training. This research should allow policymakers to make better informed
decisions when considering new legislation regarding the qualifications and training of
school board members. Upon identification of the correlation between increased effec-
tive school governance and school board member training, current school board mem-
bers and superintendents should find value in research that supports establishment of
policy that stipulates school board professional training. Finally, the research should
significantly contribute to the literature on effective school board training and effective
school board governance.
Limitations
The major limitations of this study were largely dictated by the participants of
the study and the study team. The responses given by the participants were subjective,
reflected personal viewpoints, and were based on best recollections of their school
board training experiences. Additionally, these viewpoints and may not have
represented all superintendents and board members. The research team was limited in
terms of time allotted for completion of the surveys and interviews. Finally, the study
results are limited to southern California due to geographical constraints and the limited
time of the research team.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 20
Delimitations
The assumed delimitations of this study were as follows:
1. School districts considered had an ADA of 2,000 to 50,000 ADA and an API
growth of 21 points over the past 3 years.
2. No consideration was given to socioeconomic status or whether the district
is elementary, secondary, or unified.
3. Districts with CSBA MIG-trained members were the only ones sampled.
Assumptions
The major assumptions of this study were as follows:
1. The instruments were valid and reliable.
2. The qualitative approach was appropriate for the study.
3. School boards and their members have a direct governance impact on their
districts, and training improves practice; therefore, school board members should
commit to training.
4. The MIG training offered by the CSBA (2007) improves school board mem-
bers’ effectiveness and relations with the superintendent.
5. The information provided by the CSBA is accurate and the MIG program
was research based.
Definitions of Related Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 21
Academic Performance Index (API)
Refers to a single number, ranging from 200 to 1,000, that summarizes a
school’s or local education agency’s (LEA) performance level, as measured by the
results of statewide testing (California Department of Education, 2012).
Accountability
Refers to a requirement that all students meet a specific level of proficiency in
math and English, as measured by state standardized tests. Accountability includes but
is not limited to the acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility for contributing
to the achievement of students under one’s jurisdiction through the implementation of
best practices and effective governance (Larsen, Lipscomb, & Jaquet, 2011).
Accountability Assessments
Refers to the API, the California High School Exit Exam, and the federal annual
year progress (AYP) and program improvement guidelines (Gemberling, Smith, &
Villani; Larsen et al., 2011).
Average Daily Attendance
Refers to 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 number of total ADA (NSBA, 2010).
Board of Trustees
Refers to the representative body, of three, five, or seven elected officials
charged with the responsibility of the governance of the local school district (CSBA,
2007).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 22
California School Boards Association
Refers to an organization entrusted with responsibility to provide guidance,
resources, and training for school board members throughout the state of California
(CSBA, 2007).
Effective Board Leadership
Refers to school boards that do not interfere with the superintendent’s obliga-
tions to manage the school system and conduct day-to day affairs by avoiding micro-
managing of the superintendent (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Leithwood, Harris &
Hopkins, 2008; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Governance
Refers to the systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA,
2007; Gemberling et al., 2000).
Mandate
Refers to the term used to describe a direction that is not voluntary and required
by all members of a certain group, with specific emphasis on school board members.
Masters in Governance Training
Refers to the nine module training offered by the CSBA (2007) for the purpose
to provide the necessary knowledge and skills to school board members to support an
effective governance structure.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 23
NCLB
Refers to the reauthorization of the ESEA (1965) in 2001. This legislation sets
forth aggressive guidelines for schools and school districts to meet student performance
goals by 2016 (Larsen et al., 2011).
Professional Development
Refers to continuing education that keeps school board members abreast of
educational issues to increase their skills while empowering the organization (i.e.,
school district) to be forward thinking (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School Board
Refers to a group of nonpartisan citizens who live within the corresponding
school district’s boundaries elected to a school governing board only by residents of that
area to represent their interests (CSBA, 2007).
School Board Members
Refers to members of the public who are elected to govern schools and comprise
the public portion of a school district’s governance team. Elected by the public, these
members bridge the public’s values and the values of the district, and their decisions
have a long-term impact on their communities and schools (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
School District
Refers to an education agency at the local level that exist to operate public
schools; synonymous with LEA (NSBA, 2010).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 24
Superintendent
Refers to the professional member of the school district’s governance team. The
superintendent is accountable for the direction of the school district (B. C. Fusarelli,
2006; Land, 2002).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 25
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
History and Evolution of Local School Boards
In order to understand the current state of school boards, it is beneficial to look
at the grassroots ideological movement of the of the local educational governance team.
The establishment of local school boards is a direct consequence of the separation of
school governance from town governance. After the states were granted authority over
education by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, citizens of small towns
and cities sought to keep governance of the educational system within city limits. The
towns initially delegated the responsibility of overseeing all aspects of school govern-
ance to selectmen. In a separation of the school governance authority from municipal
duties, selectmen delegated responsibilities of school governance to a board of trustees.
(Land, 2002; Hopkins, O’Neil, & Williams, 2007). The process of electing laymen to
represent the interest of the community is at the heart of democracy and local educa-
tional governance. Currently school board members continue to be elected by citizens of
the community to represent local interests in student academic achievement and educa-
tion trends (Berry & Howell, 2007).
The establishment of the local educational governance team in Massachusetts
was later followed by educational reform. Elite business people and education reform-
ers led the school board reorganization of the early 1900s. The reform is characterized
by the centralization of school governance, restructuring of the school board member
election process, and restructuring of the roles of school board members (Land, 2002;
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 26
Land & Stringfield, 2005). The reformed school board was reconfigured to operate less
as a board of trustees—laymen—whose chief purpose was to oversee the daily adminis-
tration of public education while promoting the interest of the local community (Gold-
hammer, 1964; Land, 2002). The reconfigured school board was restructured to operate
as a corporate board and featured board members and a chief operation officer, with the
superintendent establishing what is now known as a local school board. The reconfig-
ured role of the school board member was to focus on educational policy and less
involved in daily administration compared to the role prior to reform. The superinten-
dent’s role was to act as the board’s chief executive officer (CEO), with daily adminis-
tration of public education responsibilities (Land, 2002). The governance structure,
election process, and member requirements of school boards have remained relatively
stable from the reform era of the late 1800s to the present day (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Currently, school boards continue to be centralized, representing counties, cities,
or even sections of cities. According to the CSBA (2007), most states have a minimum
education requirement of high school diploma or equivalent. Additionally, most states
have a minimum age requirement of 18 years of age to become a school board member
(CSBA, 2007). However, the duties of school boards and the matters for which they are
held accountable have changed significantly and often require advanced education to
complete. These changes are discussed later in this section.
Since the 1900s, there has been significant shifting of power from local school
boards to federal and state governments (McGuinn, 2006) due to educational reform.
Motives for reforming education have been (a) the push to emphasize science and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 27
technology to increase international competitiveness and (b) a weak perception of
public education (Bracey & Resnick, 1998). The role of federal and state governments
in education has increased as a result of these reforms. Because of this shift in power, it
is imperative that the current school board understands its role as only one of many
decision makers plotting the course of public education. The school board must recog-
nize its increased accountability and responsibilities engendered by education reform.
In particular, school boards are a larger source of educational funding; they define the
standards to which children are held; and they administer the process by which teachers
are certified. The 1976 reauthorization of ESEA committed $50 billion federal dollars
over 5 years to public education. The 1988 reauthorization of ESEA required school
districts to assess the effectiveness of federal funded programs and develop standard,
evidence-based improvement plans for underperforming schools (McGuinn, 2006). The
2001 reauthorization of ESEA (i.e., NCLB) outlined standards for teacher preparation
and professional development. These legislative acts were proposed and implemented
to satisfy the political drive to improve the public educational system through increased
federal oversight and clearly defined academic standards. Accordingly, the role of local
school boards in these respects has declined (Land & Stringfield, 2005).
The addition of federal standards for student academic achievement and teacher
quality, each of which is a criterion for obtaining much-needed federal funds, have
increased the responsibility and accountability for the local school boards. The added
responsibilities and measures of accountability support a change in school board policy
to increase requirements for the training and professional development of school board
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 28
members (Timar, 2003). This shift from traditional policy, which does not require
school board members to be knowledgeable about public schooling governance and
therefore increased the district’s susceptibility to ineffective governance, is now essen-
tial to the continued success and relevancy of current school boards (Roberts & Samp-
son, 2011).
Modern-Day Responsibilities of School Boards
Board members and superintendents have very complex school governance roles
that which they must carry out in a highly charged political environment (Campbell &
Greene, 1994). Unclear responsibility within the school governance structure encour-
ages behaviors that are characteristic of ineffective school governance. Views on the
fundamental roles and responsibilities of the school board within current research are
mixed. Studies suggest that the primary responsibility of the board is to hire the super-
intendent, set performance expectations, and formally evaluate superintendents based
on effective managing of the school district (Brenner et al., 2002; Land, 2002). The
findings of Danzberger et al. (1987) indicate that the chief role of the school board is
policymaking and implementation. The primary role of the superintendent is to func-
tion as CEO of the school board. Fundamentally, the superintendent is accountable for
successful fiscal and facilities management, for developing and sustaining relationships
with the school board, for district morale, and for student safety (Brenner et al., 2002).
Waters and Marzano (2006) held that the duties of an effective superintendent are to
collaboratively set goals for student achievement and teacher instruction, to ensure that
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 29
the school board’s goals align with those of the district, and to effectively use resources
to achieve district goals.
From its inception, the school board was designed as the sole policy and deci-
sion maker for the school district (Campbell & Green, 1994; Hopkins et al., 2007). Cur-
rently, the school board derives its authority from several different levels of decision
makers. Each level, through independent actions, ultimately has an increment of control
over the school board’s authority to act in specific situations (Goldhammer, 1964).
Numerous decision makers naturally create a contentious environments and complexi-
ties within the decision-making process. This is particularly the case because federal
and state policy makers often respond to special interest groups and because the busi-
ness community wants its perspective reflected in the policies that govern public
schools (Danzberger, 1994). School board members, elected to promote the interest of
the local community, often express goals and values from a community service perspec-
tive that is often not aligned with of the broader view of goals and values shared by
special interest groups and the business community and that emphasizes the grassroots
ideological movement to keep school governance local. As a governing body, it is
imperative that the school board understands its role as only one of many decision
makers plotting the course of public education. The current school board must be able
to recognize, accept, and incorporate decisions made by the federal and state legislators
and courts, if it is to fulfill is role (B. C. Fusarelli, 2006).
General ambiguity in defining of the role of school boards spurred the NSBA
and the CSBA to form a task force to develop a concise definition of the governance
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 30
responsibilities of school boards (Campbell, 1994). The CSBA (2007) defined as the
role of the school board the establishment of a long-term vision for the school system.
It also mandated the establishment and maintenance of a basic organizational structure
for the school system, including the employment of a superintendent, the adoption of
governance policies, and the creation of a climate that promotes excellence.
The CSBA (2007) has a definition of school boards very similar to that of the
NSBA. According to the CSBA, the responsibility of the school board is to be respon-
sive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of its community. This definition was based on
the idea that some responsibilities are so fundamental to school system accountability,
to the public, and to the democratic system that they can only be performed by elected
representatives (Campbell & Green, 1994). Additionally, the CSBA (2007) lists five
essential responsibilities of the school board: (a) setting the direction for the district, (b)
ensuring that district staff have the resources needed to achieve their highest potential,
(c) establishing effective organizational structure, (d) providing support for staff posi-
tions, and (e) acting as community leaders. Role definition clarity aids the board and
superintendent in the understanding of their responsibility, encourages attention to
critical education issues and new development, and therefore is vital to the success of
the governance team (Campbell & Green, 1994).
In summary, the lack of clarity encourages a meshing of laymen–school board
members’ policy-making responsibilities with educational expert (superintendent)
administrative responsibilities. Undefined roles, ambiguous expectations, and vague
scope of authority contribute to success, thereby paralyzing conflict between school
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 31
members and superintendents (Thomas, 2001). The research of Brenner et al. (2002)
and Campbell and Green (1994) research indicated that many school board members are
unaware of their individual role as school board members. Moreover, board members
seem to be unaware of the role of the school board itself. These authors further implied
that when school board members recognize, understand, and respect their individual
roles as well as the roles of other players in the system, clearer and more effective
actions are exhibited.
Leadership
Leadership is arguably the highest valued trait that organizations search for
when seeking organizational reform. Ambiguous in definition, leadership has been
conceptualized as a trait or behavior (Bono & Judge, 2004). Leadership has also been
described as a skill or ability to process multiple forms of information effectively while
maintaining positive collaborative relationships (Bono & Judge, 2004). For the purpose
of this literature review, Northouse’s (2010) description of leadership, a process where-
by an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal, will serve
as the operational definition. Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences
a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. The process of leadership, as outlined
by Northouse, is a cyclical event in which the leadership in not relegated to the specific
leader of the group but rather is available to everyone in the group whose attention and
energies are directed to the achievement of a common goal.
Author Elmore’s (2000) work, Building a New Structure for Leadership, sup-
ports Northouse’s (2010) in a prescription to “de-romanticize” leadership, particularly
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 32
in school culture. Elmore suggested dismissing the idea that effective leadership is a
trait and noted that this dismissal will have a positive effect on the quality of schools
when stakeholders internalize leadership as a process whereby an individual influences
a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Elmore also suggested that in any
group or organized system, individuals of the group will have particular skill sets or
competencies based on their own predispositions. Distributed leadership is effectively
organizing individuals’ particular skills and competencies. By providing each school
board member with opportunities to participate and use their individual strengths col-
lectively, distributive leadership fosters inclusivity, professional growth, and systemic
and sustainable organizational excellence (L. D. Fusarelli, Kowalski, & Petersen,
2011).
Governance Board Relationship
The collaborative relationship between board members and the superintendent is
the cornerstone of the school board. A strong local educational governance team, com-
prised of the school board and superintendent, is essential in supporting the commu-
nity’s educational vision for children, enlisting community support, and developing
long-term goals for student achievement (Brenner et al., 2002). This relationship
between the school board and the superintendent is often characterized as dysfunctional,
being marred with conflict, and as the chief obstacle to a district’s success (Grissom,
2010). There are several origins of conflict on governing boards. The most cited
sources of conflict are undefined board members’ roles, misaligned goals and values,
and micromanagement of the superintendent (L. D. Fusarelli et al., 2011; Grissom,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 33
2010). A result of conflict is a structural change in the relationship between groups that
supports a declining work effort and performance (B. C. Fusarelli, 2006; Wall &
Roberts-Callister, 1995).
According to Brenner et al. (2002), school board members inherently have one
of three particular perspectives to effective school governance and forming district
policy; these roles are professional, political, or personal judgment. The least effective
of these perspectives to forming policy is the political perspective. Political decision-
making boards are characterized by conflict. They include split votes on policy issues
and contentious policies without deferring to the superintendent. Frequently these
board members yield to their represented constituency (Brenner et al., 2002). Conflict
occurs when the overall goals of the district and the board member’s individual goals
are not aligned (Danzberger, 1994).
Because of the disparity in education, increasingly school boards members have
conceptualized their roles as representative of a specific group of constituents (Land,
2002). This conception causes conflict because authority to govern local education is
given to school boards as a singular governing body to form district policy and prohibits
individual school board members from acting solely on behalf of their own constituents.
School board members who view their roles as a representatives of only particular
groups are likely to use their positions to promote the values or interests of that particu-
lar group rather than the interest of the whole educational community; this view is
characterized as misaligned values (Goldhammer, 1964) and is problematic because
misaligned values encourage success-inhibiting conflict. This type of conflict usually
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 34
arises when persons or groups are vying for similar resources but have different goals
and values for the resources (Grissom, 2010; Wall & Roberts-Callister, 1995).
Leadership does not exist without the power to influence (Northouse, 2010). As
a leader, the superintendent potentially has the power to influence and motivate the
school board to collaborate in decisions and policy making (Petersen & Short, 2001).
Poor collaborative relations between board members and the superintendent decreases
the power to influence and is a determinant of poor governance (Grissom, 2010).
Thomas (2001) suggested that a superintendent’s relationship with school board is the
single most significant factor for the board’s ability to effectively govern the district.
The research of Petersen and Short as well as Thomas concluded that poor relationships
between the superintendents and the school board deters school improvement, affects
the quality of educational programs, and impedes critical reform efforts such as district
restructuring. These issues are likely to keep a school district from establishing and
achieving long-term student achievement goals.
As with the school board, there are several sources of conflict within the super-
intendent–school board relationship. Of those cited by current research, three of them
are the superintendent’s interpersonal skills, superintendent’s overreach of power, and
superintendent’s expectations (Grissom, 2010; Thomas, 2001). As the latter two of the
three have been previously described, the role that poor communication plays in facili-
tating conflict will now be the focus of this discussion. A superintendent who operates
within a dictatorial leadership style that lends itself to leadership autonomy and poor
communication tends to foster conflict (Grissom, 2010; Petersen & Short, 2001; Wall &
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 35
Roberts-Callister, 1995). Poor interpersonal skills in the area of communication leave
board members feeling alienated and limit the superintendent’s ability to positively
influence the school board (Thomas, 2001).
The interpretation of respective roles of superintendents and school board
members contributes to the conflict within the superintendent–school board relation-
ship. Often there are different understandings among the governance board regarding
who should direct and control decision making and lack of appreciation for the expertise
of professionals versus lay representatives (Tallerico, 1989). This situation can lead to
school boards overriding decisions made by the superintendent and implementation of
board-generated decisions (Thomas, 2001). The need for a collaborative board—
superintendent relationship and effective interpersonal skills such as communication
and persuasiveness that lends clarity to roles is critical to building these relationships
(Petersen & Short, 2001). The success of the superintendents in an era of school reform
is dependent on their ability to build these collaborative and cooperative relationships
between themselves and the school board. Evidenced in a 2002 study of the school
board’s challenges, Hess cited the superintendent–school board relationship as an
essential building block for effective leadership.
Effective School Governance
Successful school governance is contingent on a collaborative school board–
superintendent relationship and both the school board and superintendent exhibiting
effective characteristics. Continuous professional development has been identified as a
factor that contributes to effective practices (Marino, 2011). The work of Brenner et al.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 36
(2002) focuses on perspectives to effective school governance and forming district
policy. The authors suggested that school board members inherently view formulating
policy through one of three lens. The authors noted that effective school boards view
policy making from a professional lens as opposed to a political or personal lens.
School boards that take a professional perspective are characterized as engaging in best
practices. According to Brenner et al., these characteristics include deferring to the
educational and administrative expertise of the superintendent; striving to seek consen-
sus on issues, often resulting in unanimous voting patterns on policy issues; and allow-
ing professional administrators to implement the policies that the board has adopted
with little to no micromanaging. Land (2002) supported these assertions when citing
the findings of two independent studies that measured the effects of school board
influence on student’s achievement:
The characteristics of high quality governance included focus by the board on
student achievement and policy, effective management by the board without
micromanagement, a trusting and collaborative relationship between the board
and superintendent, creation by the board of conditions and structures that allow
the superintendent to function as the CEO and instructional leader of the district,
evaluation of the superintendent according to mutually agreed upon procedures,
effective communication between the board chair and superintendent and among
board members, effective board communication with the community, board
adoption of a budget that provides needed resources, governance retreats for
evaluation and goal-setting purposes, monthly school board meetings for which
the superintendent drafts the agenda, and long-term service of board members
and superintendents. (Land, 2002 p. 250)
Waters and Marzano (2006) discussed the findings of a meta-analysis study
conducted by Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). The meta-
analysis examines over 26 studies that involves 2,817 district achievement scores, 3.4
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 37
million students, and was designed to determine the characteristics of effective superin-
tendents. The findings of the meta-analysis indicate that effective superintendents
concentrate their efforts on creating districts that are focused on setting goals and ana-
lyzing results. Waters and Marzano detailed five characteristics of superintendents that
keep districts focused on achieving goals: (a) collaborative goal setting, (b) non-
negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, (c) board alignment and support of
district goals, (d) monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, and (e) use of
resources to support achievement and instruction goals
A study conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB; 2000)
offered specific indicators of a school governance teams that are moving forward suc-
cessfully: (a) a shared level of understanding about how to stimulate and maintain an
improvement effort focused on helping their staff succeed, (b) shared understanding that
staff development is necessary to produce change, and (c) a clear understanding that
school board members’ and superintendents’ efforts and objectives must be aligned
when defining roles and setting a positive direction for the district. The results of the
Iowa study supported other studies—namely Land (2002) and Waters and Marzano
(2006)—by indicating that professional development and collaborative relationships are
essential characteristics of governance teams that are successful in setting and achieving
goals.
School Board Training
School boards are potentially very powerful governing organizations whose
decisions have a significant impact on student academic achievement. As the scrutiny
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 38
of teachers’ instruction and school boards’ governance intensify from public and educa-
tional reformers, school board members must also participate in sustained continuous
professional development similar to teachers and administrators. Currently, increasing
accountability for academic achievement has expanded the roles of the 21st-century
school board to include policy setting, monitoring of academic achievement, and formu-
lating the organization’s vision. School board members are eligible for election with
minimum education requirements to govern the school systems (CSBA, 2007). With
minimum knowledge, if any, of the business of schooling, newly elected school board
members are ill prepared to effectively administer school finance, academic standards,
facilities, and compliance with state and federal mandates (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Developing written policies regarding orientation and training, particularly for new
board members, can improve school board leadership (Brenner et al., 2002).
Just as in other sectors of education, training and professional development is a
relevant source to increase the effectiveness and competency of school boards. The
expansion of the school board’s role has increased the demand for school board
members who are intellectually equipped with the knowledge of legislative procedures,
fiscal budget expertise, and effective communication skills (Dahlkemper, 2005).
Because the intricacies and nuances of current educational reform present many new
challenges, school board training is essential, and it must be ongoing and focused on the
needs of the board and district in order to meet these new challenges and govern effec-
tively (McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). These intricacies emphasize the
critical need for training school board members (Marino, 2011).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 39
The utility of training for school board members is seldom more prevalent than
in the case of newly elected members without any previous experience in school admin-
istration. Often new board members are very unaware of the scope of their elected
position. Training is available and important in clearly defining their roles. Bianchi
(2003) suggested that without training, new board members need an average of 12
months on the job before they begin to clearly understand their role and work effec-
tively. Bianchi and other authors (Brenner et al., 2002; McAdams, 2003; Roberts &
Sampson, 2011) further implied that school board training decreases the average time
on the job before new members make consistent, positive contributions to the board.
Many states have voluntary training available to their school board members.
Only 18 out of the 50 states have mandatory school board training policies (Roberts &
Sampson, 2011). The mandatory training policies vary from state to state. Some states
stipulate a few hours of orientation for new members only, while others require several
continuous hours of learning for senior members as well as new members. Enforcement
of school board training policy supports one of the objectives of that training. Enforce-
ment of these polices varies; some states have no enforcement legislation at all, while
others have significant consequences, such as requiring members who fail to meet state
requirement to vacate their position.
School boards often fail to exhibit characteristics of effective governance and
appear dysfunctional due to conflicts throughout the governance team resulting from
undefined roles or an overreach of power, such as involvement in daily administration
(Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Conflict caused by undefined roles often manifests as
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 40
a relationship lacking trust, communication, and aligned values between the board and
the superintendent. Avoidance of micromanagement of the superintendent, a keen
focus, and collaborative efforts on broad policy decisions are characteristics of an effec-
tive board (Grissom, 2010). School board training and professional development dis-
courage overreaching of powers and micromanagement by providing school board
members and superintendents with the scope of their perspective roles and responsibili-
ties. The 12-year longitudinal study by Brenner et al. (2002) of more than 1,800 board
members from across the United States further supports exhibiting effective governance
practice and conflict resolution through school board training.
The chief characteristic of an effective school board is its ability to create effec-
tive policy (Land, 2002). Effective policy plots a course for comprehensive success by
implementing tools such as the board’s vision for the district; harmony with other
federal, state, and local policies; measurable objective goals; sustaining resources;
results-oriented, intentional board practices; continuous learning; revitalization; and
clearly defined roles and responsibilities (BoardSource, 2005; Land, 2002). Without
sufficient knowledge of the business of schooling or effective governance, it is difficult
to view the governance board as an effective governing body. In today’s era of educa-
tional reform, professional development and training are essential for teachers, adminis-
trators, and school board members.
There is widespread consensus among school board experts that school board
members should obtain training and development to improve board effectiveness
(Bianchi, 2003; Land, 2002; Roberts & Sampson 2011 ). The CSBA provides training
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 41
for school board members. CSBA is a membership organization that represents more
than 1,000 school districts and school boards throughout California. With a clear
mission to support the governance team in its complex leadership role, CSBA (2010)
offers a nine-module MIG program. These nine modules include training in the follow-
ing areas of school board governance: Foundations of Effective Governance, Setting
Direction, Human Resources, Policy & Judicial Review, Student Learning & Achieve-
ment, School Finance, Collective Bargaining, Community Relations & Advocacy, and
Governance Integration (CSBA, 2010).
Professional development and continuous training is an indispensable part of
21st-century educational reform, because the responsibility to ensure that each member
of the educational system is qualified and prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of his or
her position is essential to the overall success of the district and of its students (Dahl-
kemper, 2005). The school board plays a very large role in this success. The research
cited above indicates that the current role of school boards has expanded to include
professional duties that require particular expertise and has rendered the layman’s
qualifications to function as a school board member insufficient. School boards com-
prised of unqualified and/or untrained members are more likely to be unaware of the
scope of their role. Undefined roles leads to an exhibition characteristic such as poor
communication and conflict that are associated with ineffective school boards. To
address the issue of undefined roles, CSBA (2012) provides school board member
training that focus on nine components of effective school governance, clarifying the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 42
role of each member of the school governance team. CSBA’s professional development
training will be outlined in the conceptual framework section of this chapter.
Accountability
Accountability for all educational stakeholders, especially for the governing
board, is another essential element for the overall success of a district and its reform
efforts. Accountability is the manifestation of the governing board actions being sub-
jected to certain procedures, rules of conduct, and oversight and consequences
(Schedler, Diamond, & Plattner 1999). Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) defined
accountability as a “contractual” relationship between two parties—the “provider” of a
good or services and the “director” with the power to reward or punish or replace the
provider. Schedler et al. (1999) supported Hentschke and Wohlstetter in describing a
two-dimensional framework for political accountability. The first of these two dimen-
sions is answerability. According to Schedler et al., answerability is the obligation of
public officials to provide the public with information and explanations regarding their
actions. The second dimension is enforcement, which is the capacity of accounting
agencies or agents to impose consequences when public officials violate their public
duties (Schedler et al., 1999). For the purpose of this literature review, the two-
dimensional accountability framework of Schedler et al. (1999), who outlined what the
educational governing board is accountable for and concluded with the agents and con-
sequences that hold the governing board accountable for its actions, will serve as the
operational definition.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 43
Prior to the increased role of the federal and state government in education, the
school governance team operated independently, with little accountability to outside
external agency (McGuinn, 2006) However, the advent of academic standards has
increased schools governance teams’ accountability for educational achievement,
morality and professionalism, fiscal responsibility, and education legislation. (Gember-
ling et al., 2000; Schedler et al., 1999). Educational achievement has been defined as
more than performing well on academic assessments; rather, it is the attainment of
academic achievement, job and skills preparation, and character development (Bracey &
Resnick, 1998). This description supports current societal views regarding the responsi-
bility for students’ educational achievement as more than ensuring that students perform
well on standardized test (Gemberling et al., 2000). The public also holds local school
districts responsible for civic and economic standards (Bracey, 1998; Gemberling et al.,
2000; Schedler et al., 1999). The above-cited authors have characterized civic and
economic standards as access to a challenging curriculum that allows all students to
obtain the knowledge and skills they need to accept the responsibilities of citizenship,
understand economic opportunities, and make positive contributions as participants in a
democratic society.
Schedler et al. (1999) suggested that for each of the elements of student educa-
tional achievement for which the governing board is responsible, there is a politically
accountable agent who ensures that the responsibility is being fulfilled. The authors
further described the broad definition of political accountability. Applying a political
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 44
accountability lens to the school governing board involves a more narrow perspective,
looking at some of the smaller components that compose political accountability.
Moral and Professional Accountability
This moral and professional obligation manifests itself as an expectation to
represent the interests of communities by providing curriculum and programs that are
valued by the educational community as necessary to ensure student academic achieve-
ment (Gemberling et al., 2000). Goldhammer (1964) identified six responsibilities that
local citizens expect the governance team to be accountable for as the providers. These
responsibilities are to be promoters of the public interest in education, to be the defend-
ers and upholders of accepted values of the community, to be an appellate body to hear
complaints and grievances, to provide supervision over professional personnel, and to
act as conservators of resources. Practical examples of the school board fulfilling these
responsibilities include public dialogues with parents, students and community mem-
bers, attracting high-quality teachers, and creating programs to better understand what
local communities what from their schools (Dahlkemper, 2005)
As accountability agents or “directors,” the citizens of the community are able to
oversee the governing board and implement consequences for inadequate fulfillment of
duties with little to no legislative red tape. The community’s legislative, judicial, and
executive powers are all tied together in the power of election. The community mem-
bers are the agents of accountability for moral values and interest. Their power is ex-
hibited when they reward school board members by reelecting them or enforce negative
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 45
consequences when the member is not reelected. Thus, the accountability of the school
board to the public is enforced by its citizens.
Financial Accountability
The governance team has an extremely large financial responsibility that comes
with several people and organizations that hold governors accountable on these specific
issues—that is, accountability agents. In 2009–2010, there were about 13,600 public
school districts (NCES, as cited in Aud et al., 2011) comprised of over 98,800 public
schools. The 2010–2011 projections for public elementary and secondary school expen-
ditures were estimated at $596.3 billion, with an estimated $10, 826 per student expen-
diture (NCES, as cited in Aud et al., 2011). Since the establishment of the public school
system, state and local government has provided the largest share of public school
financial support. Local and state governments generate roughly 90% of the K-12 total
revenue, with the remaining 10% coming from the federal government (NCES, as cited
in Aud et al., 2011). With funding being generated from local, state, and federal
governments, each of the agencies uses its own measures of accountability and enforce-
ment strategies to ensure effective use of the funds generated.
The federal government provides funding for K-12 public education through
block grants. These grants are restricted funds allocated to the states, thereby encour-
aging inclusion of particular groups and compliance with standards and with federal
laws (McGuinn 2006; Timar, 2003). For this funding, the governing board is account-
able to federal government accountability agents. Programs such as Title I and the Indi-
viduals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and, most noticeably, NCLB are
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 46
funded with categorical funds that come with a list of programmatic and reporting
requirements (McGuinn, 2006). The federal government relies on the district’s AYP
and the state government on the API to measure the successful implementation of the
funds; budget reporting is used to oversee appropriate use of funds. The federal and
state governments implement financial sanctions as an enforcement tool for districts
that fail to meet requirements. As defined by NCLB the state government also has the
authority to restructure or shut down school districts that fail to meet minimum state
requirements (McGuinn, 2006).
Legal and Constitutional Accountability
The governing board has a constitutional and litigious responsibility to uphold
state and federal court decisions and to ensure implementation of state education legis-
lation. Landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Tinker v. Des
Moines (1969) ensure students’ constitutional rights while at school. In some cases, due
to its enforcement responsibilities, the federal government has used its military in a
limited capacity to ensure compliance—for example, the 1957 escorting of the “Little
Rock Nine” and the 1960 escorting of Ruby Bridges into all-White schools to enforce
the federal court order of de jure public school segregation. The governing board is also
held accountable for execution of state legislation. Because of the Improving America’s
Schools Act of 1994 and the NCLB Act of 2001, the state of California established The
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA; California Department of Education, 2003).
In summary, the governing board’s accountability has increased the significance
of the role of the federal government and introduction of academic standards.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 47
Community advocates, business and community leaders, and government officials hold
the school board accountable for meeting these standards. The local educational gover-
nance team is responsible for ensuring the school district’s financial solvency. To fulfill
the responsibility, the governance team must meet the federal and state standards that
are linked to federal funding. Moreover, the governance team needs to understand that
state educational legislation such as NCLB and other federal mandates are comprised of
numerous accountability measures that are designed to ensure student academic
achievement. Wirt and Kirst (2005) suggested that the school board is the only entity
that can ensure that various components of NCLB are linked coherently and do not
become disjointed or unrelated projects. Therefore, training is essential for ensuring
that the school board is equipped with knowledge to make informed decisions when
aligning new district-created education policy with federal and state policies.
Conceptual Framework
Throughout the review of the literature, current research seems to indicate that
particular variables substantially contribute to the success of school districts, leadership,
effective school governance, and school board training. Definitions of these key vari-
ables such as leadership are often ambiguous and vary greatly from study to study. This
section will focus on defining and organizing leadership regarding the effective charac-
teristics of school boards and school board training by constructing a conceptual frame-
work for each of the variables. This framework will serve to support and guide the
operational definition of each variable as it is used in this research. The foundation for
each framework is based on literature from renowned authors in the field of education,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 48
prominent educational organizations, and peer-reviewed studies. The literature includes
Bolman and Deal’s (2003, 2008) four-frame model (leadership), The Lighthouse Study
(Delagardelle, 2008; best practices for effective school boards) and the CSBA’s (2005)
effective governance system map (school board member training).
Leadership
Bolman and Deal’s (2003, 2008) Reframing Organizations takes a unique
bilateral perspective to defining leadership. Drawing upon insight from both research
and practice, the authors constructed four lenses through which to define and view
leadership: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. The authors suggested
that the frames provides organizational leaders with an accurate map and tools to navi-
gate the world of leadership and management. They further suggested that each of the
frames has distinctive strengths and limitations, and although uniquely different, often
work harmoniously for skilled leaders. The strengths and weaknesses of each frame are
described below.
In the structural frame, the emphasis is on goals, specialized roles, and formal
relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2003, 2008). The structural frame derives its theoretical
framework from the fundamental basis of sociology and management science. Struc-
tures are deliberately constructed to optimize an organization’s environment and re-
sources. These structures allocate responsibilities to all members of the organization
and establish the policy, procedures, and leadership gradation of all activities. Accord-
ing to the authors, these characteristics of the structures are viewed as the strength of the
structural frame. Bolman and Deal (2003) noted that a weakness of the structural
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 49
framework is emphasized when the resources needed to support a structure are ex-
hausted. Because these frame are interdependent and reliant on one another to fulfill the
assigned responsibilities, if expended resources cause one structure to fail, the integrity
of the organization is compromised.
Deriving its theoretical basis from psychology, the human resource frame
emphasizes the need to recognize the individuality of those who comprise the human
capital resource of an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003, 2008). The fundamental
principle of the human resource frame is that although people have a great capacity to
learn, each individual comes with particular skills and limitations. This frame relies on
leadership that recognizes the skill sets of individuals who are able to fulfill their re-
sponsibilities. A weakness of this framework is that individuals come with needs,
feelings, and prejudices that encourage defense of old investments, ideas, and beliefs
(Bolman & Deal 2003).
Establishing its theoretical basis on fundamental principles of political science,
the political frame emphasizes the realist process of making decisions and allocating
resources in a context of scarcity and divergent interests of all internal and external
participants of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003, 2008). An effective leader
whose approach is based on the political framework is adept at setting agendas, map-
ping the political terrain, networking, relationships, and negotiation while successfully
using a moral compass to navigate through ethically ambiguous issues. Conflicts arise
due to the differences in perspectives and competition for the limited resources needed
to advance individual and group interests. Weaknesses of the frame are evident when
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 50
there is a saturation of misplaced political influence in one particular area, and a lack of
political influence in the others. Skilled politicians use bargaining, negotiation, coer-
cion, compromise strategies, and tactics to resolve routine problems (Bolman & Deal,
2003).
Establishing its theoretical basis on social and cultural anthropology, the sym-
bolic frame rejects many of the logical approaches and assumptions that are embedded
into many of the other frames (Bolman & Deal, 2003, 2008). The symbolic frame
embraces the culture, rituals, and ceremonies of an organization. Moreover, these ele-
ments seem to construct the organization’s identity. From the symbolic frame’s per-
spectives, the members of the organization have particular roles to fulfill in support of
the organization’s goals. Weaknesses are exposed when neglecting roles undermines
the goals and the identity of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Effective School Board Practice
As states’ educational reform policies face the complexities of restructuring
under the restless scrutiny of increased accountability standards and measures, the
governing board—“forgotten players” of the educational team (Danzberger et al., 1987)
—are being recognized as very significant team managers. As team manager, the gov-
erning board has great influence over the overall success or failure of the school district.
A successful school district is an indicator of effective school board governance. Bell
and Kozlowski’s (2010) research suggests that school boards in high-achieving districts
are significantly different in their knowledge and beliefs than school boards in low-
achieving districts. High-achieving school districts are described as prepared to utilize
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 51
knowledge of legislative procedures, fiscal budget expertise, and effective communica-
tion skills. Low-achieving districts are described as unprepared in these areas. How-
ever, both high- and low-functioning districts exhibit several common variables that are
present within successful school districts, which are referred to best practices. This
section will focus on identifying and defining best practices of school boards by con-
structing a conceptual framework of variables. The framework will serve to support and
guide the operational definition of best practices as it is used throughout the research.
This framework will concentrate on the practices of both the school board and the
superintendent. The Lighthouse Inquiry, conducted by the IASB (Delagardelle, 2008),
will serve as the foundation of the framework.
In an effort to increase student academic achievement through educational
reform, the largest percentage of reform policies are focused on the school site level.
These reform policies are aimed at improving principals’ administration strategies,
teachers’ pedagogy, and schools’ culture. Additionally, most of the current school
improvement research is in these areas as well (Danzberger et al., 1987). The Light-
house Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) is quite different. This study takes a comprehensive
look at the commonalities and differences among school boards that are governing suc-
cessful school districts. Delagardelle (2008) characterized these successful goal-
achieving school boards and districts as “moving” districts and those that underperform
as “stuck” districts. The present study will use The Lighthouse Inquiry as the founda-
tion for a conceptual framework to measure and understand the differences between
effective and ineffective school boards and the practices implemented. The conceptual
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 52
framework is comprised of seven conditions for effective school board practice. These
practices are delineated below.
Emphasis on building a human organizational system. In the comparison of
successful goal-achieving boards and underperforming boards, the moving and stuck
districts revealed significant consistencies within and across districts. Overall, the vast
majority of people expressed knowledge and beliefs matching the following descrip-
tions. First, there was shared decision making. Board members of moving school
districts seemed internally compelled to continuously improve the state of education in
their districts. They viewed descriptive characteristics of their student population as
obstacles with which to contend, not as limitations of the students. Board members of
moving school districts anticipated the efforts of their student initiatives to be immedi-
ately evident throughout student academic achievement (Delagardelle, 2008).
Board members of stuck school districts were found to be more avoidance goal
oriented and motivated by extrinsic factors. They expressed their chief reasons for
improving education levels as state legislation and accountability measures. Not want-
ing to be the lowest academically performing district was also expressed as a motiva-
tion. These board members also expressed descriptive characteristics as factors that
ultimately prevented students from reaching their academic potential. Finally, board
members of stuck school districts anticipated several years before their efforts of student
initiatives would be evident in student academic achievement (Delagardelle, 2008).
Ability to create and sustain initiatives. Board members of moving school
districts expressed a shared culture of sustained improvements through communication
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 53
and learning. They found improvement measures among themselves and throughout the
district. Board members of moving school districts were aware of specific strategies
that were used to communicate the goals and actions of the board to other district stake-
holders. Additionally, these board members were aware of specific communication and
team-building strategies and structures used for fostering and improving communica-
tion. They also knew the participants of various improvement teams and what role each
team played in sustaining improvement (Delagardelle, 2008).
Stuck board members expressed a culture void of a designed structure for
communication and for facilitating collaborative learning. Board members of these
districts held the superintendent responsible for seeking, interpreting, and delivering all
information to the board and throughout the district. Board members of stuck school
districts were not aware of all district improvement initiatives. They had an assumed
level of communication among themselves and throughout the district. They were
unaware of teaching teams or other staff members who held essential roles in the im-
provement efforts. They assumed that their boards’ actions and goals were being
communicated throughout the district (Delagardelle, 2008).
Supportive workplace for staff. Board members of moving districts main-
tained and demonstrated professional confidence in district staff. They expressed a
belief that significant positive change was achievable with the current staff and other
district stakeholders. These members were aware of specific staff members and their
individual or collective contributions of commitment. Additionally, the board made an
effort to acknowledge staff members’ commitment through a show of appreciation.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 54
Board members of stuck districts were not positive about the ability of the staff, com-
munity, or students to make significant positive change. These board members sug-
gested that significant positive change was more likely with new staff, students, and
increased parental involvement. These board members were less likely to be aware of
and acknowledge staff contributions (Delagardelle, 2008).
Staff development. Board members of moving school districts expressed an
understanding and demonstrated the significance of staff development and its influence
on student academic achievement. They were able to identify specific staff develop-
ment activities, opportunities for teachers, and how the opportunities supported the
goals of academic achievement. Board members of stuck school districts viewed
teacher professional development as the responsibility of the teachers. These board
members failed to see the connection between professional development and student
academic achievement. They were unaware of professional development activities or
opportunities for teachers, although funds for professional development were available.
Support for school sites through data and information. Board members of
moving school districts expressed working within an environment in which they sought
out and used information for multiple sources, which were not limited simply to in-
house staff such as superintendents, principals, and data specialists. Board members
expressed receiving and discussing outside resources that would potentially support the
district in meeting its student academic achievement goals. Board members expressed
using information to identify specific student needs. They were able to clearly describe
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 55
specific data sources and what district initiatives were supported by the data (Dela-
gardelle, 2008).
Board members of stuck school districts expressed perspectives that viewed the
superintendent as the chief source of information. Receiving, discussing, and using data
or information to support the district’s goals was not a priority among these board
members. They expressed feeling of intentionally be left out of the “information loop.”
They viewed the board’s data-driven decision-making process as limited to discussing
and deciding to move forward on superintendent recommendations (Delagardelle,
2008).
Community involvement. Board members of moving school districts ex-
pressed pride in the community. They actively sought ways to include the community’s
perspective in decision making. Stuck board members emphasized the lack of parental
involvement as a key contributor to the inability of the district to sustain or achieve its
academic goals. They suggested that level of involvement was an indicator of the com-
munity’s interest in education. They failed to also include the community’s perspective
in the board’s decision making (Delagardelle, 2008).
Shared leadership. Board members of moving school districts had high expec-
tations for all students and were aware of district initiatives that supported this shared
belief. These board members knew specific details of the support programs that were
available to meet the needs of students in need of alternative instruction. They were
able to articulate how the support programs were aligned with the district’s overall goal
and had knowledge of the teachers and administrators who staffed the support
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 56
programs. These board members had first-hand knowledge of the curriculum and
instructional strategies being implemented in classrooms (Delagardelle, 2008).
Board members of stuck school districts did not share a common belief of high
expectation for all students. These board members acknowledged the district’s improve-
ment plans as documents but could not describe the fruition of these plans. These board
members expressed that obtaining knowledge of classroom instruction was outside of
their job descriptions (Delagardelle, 2008).
School Board Training
Throughout the review of the literature, current research seems to indicate that
school board training substantially contributes to successful school board governance.
For improved school board governance effectiveness, several studies have cited the fol-
lowing areas of need for school board training: finance; academic standards; mandates;
facilities; special education; and curriculum (Bianchi’s 2003; Roberts & Sampson,
2011). While several states require some increments of training for school board
members, the definition of training is ambiguous and often varies greatly across states
(Bianchi, 2003; Hess, 2002; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). This section will focus on
defining school board training by constructing a conceptual framework based on the
CSBA’s (2012) MIG training program. This framework will serve to support and guide
the operational definition of school board training as it is used in this research. The
MIG is comprised of nine modules that are designed to define the roles and
responsibilities of school governance teams and provide tools that keep efforts focused
on student learning.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 57
Foundations of Effective Governance. This module covers the roles and
responsibilities of the governance team and focuses on the two core concepts of the
MIG program: trusteeship and governance (CSBA, 2012).
Setting Direction. This module covers the roles and responsibilities of the gov-
ernance team and focuses on the two core concepts of the MIG program: trusteeship and
governance. This module will help the governance team understand how a district’s
vision, beliefs, and strategic goals are interwoven into every facet of the district’s
education programs (CSBA, 2012).
Human Resources. This module covers the elements of employing a superin-
tendent who meets the district’s needs, maintaining a positive working relationship with
the superintendent, evaluating the superintendent according to established criteria, and
establishing a framework for sound and personnel practices across the district (CSBA,
2012).
Policy & Judicial Review. This module will help governance teams develop
skills in setting policy, learning to identify policy issues, developing an appropriate
process for developing sound policies, communicating and supporting policies, and
reviewing and revising policies to ensure their effectiveness (CSBA, 2012).
Student Learning & Achievement. This module will help governance teams
discover how to set expectations for student learning; ensure that appropriate processes
are in place for curriculum development, review and adoption; communicate and
support the curriculum; and assess student achievement and district programs (CSBA,
2012).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 58
School Finance. This module will help governance teams learn how to achieve
a balance between district goals and student achievement by establishing budget priori-
ties; to develop appropriate processes for budget development, adoption and revision; to
implement the budget; and to monitor and audit the district’s finances (CSBA, 2012).
Collective Bargaining. This module provides an overview of the history of
collective bargaining and the legal framework for collective negotiations in public
schools. Topics covered include the board’s responsibilities during negotiations, collec-
tive bargaining methodologies, and setting goals and objectives for the collective bar-
gaining process (CSBA, 2012).
Community Relations & Advocacy. This module helps governance teams to
explore strategies and proven methods to build community support, keep the commu-
nity and media informed, be responsive to community concerns and interests, encourage
community engagement and involvement, and engage in advocacy efforts at the state
and national levels (CSBA, 2012).
Governance Integration. This final module in the series integrates the con-
cepts of trusteeship and the governance team with the jobs of the board. At the end of
the session, graduates of the program receive the MIG certificate (CSBA, 2012).
Chapter Summary
In summary, the research holds that school board members who engage in con-
tinuous professional development exhibit characteristics of effective school governance
(Dahlkemper, 2005; McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). With responsibili-
ties such as ensuring the district’s fiscal solvency, selecting a progressive curriculum,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 59
and administration staffing, the policy and decisions that school board members make
and implement have a significant impact on student academic achievement. Therefore,
it is imperative that school board members acquire sufficient knowledge of school gov-
ernance, the role that board members play on the school governance team, and their role
as it relates to the superintendent’s role as CEO of the school board (Delagardelle,
2008).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 60
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
Effective school board governance teams exemplify many of the same character-
istics and engage in some of same best practices. Many of these characteristics may be
established from conceptual frameworks of leadership, school governance, and school
board training. The purpose of this study was to determine whether MIG training
impacts the school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective government.
Chapter 2 provided an overview of history, roles and responsibilities, leadership, ac-
countability, and school board training. This chapter will examine the mechanics of this
study: (a) the research design, (b) recruitment of participants, c) instruments utilized, (d)
validity and reliability, (e) data collection procedures, (f) data analysis, and (g) ethical
considerations.
In order to assess the components of the study, the research team comprised of
10 doctoral students directed by Dr. Michael Escalante from the University of Southern
California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education met regularly in collaboration to design
research questions, discuss relevant research literature, meet with current school board
members, and construct operational definitions and conceptual frameworks. All of
these processes provided insight into determining whether a correlation exists between
effective school boards and a commitment to seek out school board training.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 61
Research Questions
For the purpose of investigating whether a correlation exists between effective
school boards and a commitment to seek out school board training, the following
questions were explored in this study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Research Design
After an analytical examination of appropriate theoretical frameworks, the
research team decided to use a qualitative method approach for collecting and analyzing
the data for this study. According to Creswell (2011), a qualitative design approach to
research is useful for exploring and understanding a central phenomenon. Patton (2002)
further characterized qualitative research as an approach that facilitates study of issues
in depth and details and contributes to the depth, openness, and details.
Consistent with Creswell’s (2002) definition of qualitative research questions,
the survey questions were open-ended and focused on school board members’ and
superintendents’ opinions regarding effective school governance (see Appendices A and
B, respectively). The surveys were mailed to current and school board members and
superintendents who met the established criteria. Additional qualitative elements of this
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 62
study were interviews with school board members and superintendents. The research
team conducted the interviews for the purpose of gaining insight into the individual
perspectives regarding school board governance practices and school board training.
Participants
The sample population was comprised of school board members who completed
CSBA’s (2007) MIG program from six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Based on survey responses, the research team
characterized the groups by MIG-trained members: full participation, partial participa-
tion, or nonparticipants. These groups were defined as follows: (a) full participation—
majority of school board members received MIG training, (b) partial participation—dis-
tricts where less than half of the board and the superintendent did not receive MIG
training (this group was discarded and not used), and (c) nonparticipants— districts that
had no school board members or superintendents trained.
Once the data gathering was complete, the research group focused solely on
school districts that met established criteria for full participation. Upon receipt of the
survey and categorization of the data, the group elected to follow up the survey with an
interview only for those districts that fell into the full-participation category. The
purpose of the interview was to further understand how MIG training had impacted
board membership practices and governance.
Sampling Strategies
A significant number of districts fell into the full participation category. To
further narrow the field of potential participants, specific criteria were applied to the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 63
qualifications: (a) 2,000–50,000 ADA; (b) elementary, secondary, or unified school
districts; (c) no consideration to socioeconomics or academic achievement; and (d) a
21-point growth in API over a 3-year span.
The research team designed the criteria for the participating school board mem-
bers and superintendents of this study and elected to use an intensity purposeful sam-
pling strategy for selecting participants. Patton (2002) identified purposeful sampling
as studying information-rich cases that yield in-depth insight into a particular phenome-
non of interest rather than empirical generalization. Patton further identified intensity
purposeful sampling as seeking information-rich cases that are excellent samples of the
manifestation of the phenomenon.
Surveys were mailed to all districts in the chosen counties that met established
criteria. Once surveys were gathered and sorted, follow-up interviews were scheduled.
Interviews were established based on those districts that demonstrated full participation
or nonparticipation in training; those falling into the partial participation category were
discarded.
Instrumentation
The research team will used surveys, interviews, and the MIG observations as
instruments for this study. Through the Spring of 2012, the research team met regularly
to collaboratively design the surveys and interview questions (Appendix C), as well as
superintendent and school board recruitment letters (Appendices D and E, respectively).
To support the results of the surveys, one participating district will be selected for an
interview. The purpose of the interview is to add description to the survey answers and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 64
place them in context. The research team used the comprehensive review of literature
and conceptual framework discussed in Chapter 2 as a foundation when designing the
instruments. The MIG Observation Protocol is contained in Appendix F.
The research team piloted the survey and interview questions with school board
members and superintendents from school districts that did not meet the study’s initial
participant qualification requirement. The research team, excluding Dr. Escalante,
formed teams of two. Each team was randomly assigned one region of the six counties
designated as the research area: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura. Each team assembled survey packets to mail to the designated
research area. The survey packets contained the superintendent and school board
recruitment letters, an information letter (Appendix G), and survey. The recruitment
letter advised the superintendent to present the board members survey to a board mem-
ber who had completed all modules of CSBA’s (2007) MIG program.
Survey
The frameworks to support the development of the survey questions were based
on the work of several authors: the Lighthouse Inquiry study (Delagardelle, 2008),
CSBA’s (2007) MIG training topics, and leadership traits (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Surveys were distributed to superintendents and school board members in counties that
qualified as full participants: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura.
The survey was designed for participants to answer questions using a Likert-type
scale and multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Members of the research team
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 65
distributed the survey to superintendents and school board members via email and the
U.S. Postal Service. The surveys were also available to the participants online via
Survey.Monkey.com, an online survey tool.
Interviews
Completed and return surveys were organized and the resulting data analyzed to
determine areas in need of further investigation; follow-up interviews were then sched-
uled. The purposeful interview sampling focused on selecting information-rich cases
whose responses would add to the depth of understanding to the research questions
responses (Patton, 2002).
Data Collection and Analysis
Each research team collected the data generated from both the surveys and
interview responses. The information was then presented to the entire research team for
discussion. The data were analyzed to identify patterns and commonalities that sup-
ported answers to the research questions. To explore possible answers to the first
research question, investigative survey questions were designed. These answers were
analyzed to determine which factors motivated and influenced school board members’
participation in training. To further analyze and support the results of the survey,
follow-up interviews were scheduled to add description and context to the findings.
Ethical Considerations
All members of the research team completed USC’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) process. The Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI) was an essential com-
ponent in the IRB process. The CITI is an online component that is designed to
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 66
promote ethical conduct with respect to human subjects in research studies. The online
component is designed with information presented as reading material and supported by
online evaluations, the chief objective being to ensure that researchers are aware of and
implement practices that ensure the physical and emotional well-being of the study
participants.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 has presented the research design method utilized to study the effect
that school board training has on the practice of school board members. The research
team used a combination of collective and individual data collection and analysis in its
Fall 2012 quantitative research. Surveys, interview questions, and the MIG Observation
Protocol were the instruments used to collect data for the study. The research team
developed and implemented the instruments collectively. Prior to contacting and pre-
senting the study’s participants with the designed instruments, the USC’s IRB approved
the thematic study and its instruments. Additionally, each member of the research team
completed the CITI, the online ethical training component, and successful passed sub-
sequent assessments.
The findings of the research are presented in Chapter 4, including compre-
hensive analysis of the data collected. The analysis identifies the impact that MIG
training had on school board members’ ability to exhibit effective governance practices.
Designed as a summary of the study, Chapter 5 presents implications of this study and
recommendations for future studies.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 67
Chapter 4
Research Results
The ever-changing world of education continues to expand the roles and respon-
sibilities of the present-day educator. The increase in accountability for academic
results has brought about increased legislation for teachers and administrators to dem-
onstrate competency in effective public schooling. Remaining unchanged since the
early 1800s, outdated and inadequate school board membership requirements fail to
encourage school board members to participate in ongoing professional development or
even demonstrate knowledge of any aspect of educational governance. This situation
emphasizes the need for continuous professional development of school board mem-
bers. As the governing body of the public school district, the school board is responsi-
ble for making informed decisions regarding student academic achievement, curricu-
lum, school finance, and other aspects of effective public schooling. Therefore, it is
essential that the members of the school board continue to participate in effective
professional development.
This qualitative study was designed to explore whether the CSBA’s MIG school
board training program impacts the school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. Using the framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2003, 2008) Re-
framing Organizations, The Lighthouse Inquiry conducted by the IASB (Delagardelle,
2008), and CSBA’s (2012) MIG training program, the research team applied the theo-
retical framework to describe and guide the research. The research questions derived
from the theoretical framework served as the basis for the surveys and interview guide
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 68
for the school board members and superintendents who participated in the study. The
framework also provided structure for the MIG observation conducted by the research
team.
This chapter presents the analysis of the research data collected throughout the
study from all the participants of the study and explores the results that surfaced during
the analysis. The research data were compiled and triangulated from three sources—
survey responses, individual interviews, and MIG observations—and based on the
frameworks that guided the study. The chapter will conclude with findings made based
on results of the analysis.
Participants
The participant pool was restricted to school districts within the following
southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura Area. As defined by Patton (2002), the research team applied the
intensity purposeful sampling strategy for selecting participants. Patton identified pur-
poseful sampling as the study of information-rich cases for the purpose of yielding in-
depth perspectives into a particular phenomenon of interest rather than empirical gener-
alization. Patton described intensity purposeful sampling as purposeful sampling
utilizing cases that are excellent samples of the manifestation of the phenomenon. Per-
spective participants for the study met several criteria with respect to the school district:
(a) 2,000-50,000 ADA; (b) elementary, secondary, or unified school districts; (c) no
consideration to socioeconomics or academic achievement; and (d) a 21-point growth in
API over a 3-year span. At least one member of the school board having graduated
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 69
from the MIG training was an additional stipulation. The superintendents who partici-
pated in the study did not have to meet the requirement of having completed the MIG
training program.
Survey Participants
The superintendents and board members were selected from 219 school districts
across six southern California counties. Selected from the 219, 100 school district were
chosen to participate in the study. The research team mailed 100 surveys to school
districts within the six southern California counties. Of the 100 superintendents who
received surveys, 61 responded. The research team mailed surveys to 226 school board
members. Of the 226 those, 86 school board member surveys were returned.
Interviewed Participants
In order to maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants, the
names and district locations have been changed to protect their identities. Therefore, for
the purpose of this case study, Lynn Haven Unified School District (LHUSD), Superin-
tendent Grace, and Board Member Upshaw represented District #1; and Calloway
School Unified District (CUSD), Superintendent Rasheedah, and Board Member David
represented District #2.
LHUSD, located in southern California, was home to 10 elementary schools,
two middle Schools, 2 high schools, and one continuation school serving over 14,200
students. The student population of the school district was comprised of 51% Hispanics
or Latinos, 30% Whites, 9% Blacks or African Americans, and 1% multiracials. The
demographics included 12.3% English learners and 43.9% receiving a free or reduced-
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 70
price lunch. With API scores of 808 in 2010, 807 in 2011, and 825 in 2012, LHUSD
had a sustained growth of 18 API points over 3 years. The district employed 122 cre-
dential teachers.
LHUSD’s school board had five members. Because a vote of 3 to 2 was needed
for board approval of any measure, LHUSD’s board was characterized as a 3-2 board.
Board Member Upshaw, selected to participate in the interview, was first elected as a
member of the school board in 2003. He had since been reelected as a board member
several times. A resident of the city, Mr. Upshaw’s current term was set to expire in
2012.
LHUSD’s superintendent was also selected for an interview. With over 30 years
in education, a master’s degree and doctorate from local southern California universi-
ties, and 4 years as superintendent in another southern Californian school district,
Superintendent Grace was elected as superintendent of LHUSD in 2005.
Located in southern California, CUSD was home to 26 schools: 18 elementary
schools, four middle schools, two high schools, 1 continuation school, and one
alternative School serving approximately 23,400 students. CUSD’s student population
was comprised of 81% Hispanics or Latinos, 8.5% Whites, 6% Blacks or African
Americans, 2% Asians, 1.5% Filipinos, 0.5% American Indians or Alaska Natives,
0.5% Native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders, and 0.5% multiracials. The student popu-
lation was further described as being 26% English learners and 75% of students on free
or reduced-price lunch. CUSD earned API scores of 710 in 2010, 725 in 2011, and 734
in 2012. The district had a sustained growth of 24 API points over 3 years. CUSD
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 71
employed 1,080 credential teachers. The school board was comprised of seven school
board members. Needing a vote of 4 to 3 for board approval of any measure, CUSD’s
school board was characterized as a 4-3 board.
School Board Member David was selected to participate in the interview
process. First elected as board member in 1997, Board Member David had since been
reelected as a board member and vice president. Still a resident of the city, Board
Member David’s current term was set to expire in 2012.
CUSD’s superintendent was also selected to participate in the interview process.
Before being elected to superintendent of schools by a school board majority vote in
2010, Superintendent Rasheedah was an active member of the CUSD’s education com-
munity. As a lifelong resident of the city, Superintendent Rasheedah had held the role
of student, teacher, principal, and assistant superintendent in the CUSD. Superintendent
Rasheedah earned her master’s degree from a local southern California university.
Results for Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked: What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete school board training program? The aim of the question was to
discover which factors, if any, significantly encouraged or deterred school board mem-
bers with respect to attending or completing school board member training. The analy-
sis of the data revealed two reoccurring themes. One theme, culture, served as the
impetus for completing school board training program and emphasized factors that
seem to have positively impacted the decision of school board members to complete a
school board training program. The second theme, accessibility, seems to highlight
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 72
factors that discouraged or negatively impacted the decision of school board members to
complete a school board training program.
Culture
In their book, Reframing Organizations, authors Bolman and Deal (2008)
described an organization’s culture as a set of interwoven pattern of beliefs, values,
practices, and artifacts that define for members of the organization who they are and
how they are to do things. The data analysis revealed a culture that encouraged school
board members to attend or complete the MIG training to build capacity of successful
school board members. School board members were expected and encouraged to be
knowledgeable about their duties, perform their duties well, and keep student achieve-
ment at the primary focus. The codified data specified the values, practices, and pat-
terns of beliefs that supported the expectation as self-motivation, school board expecta-
tion, and other board member encouragement.
A culture of encouragement to complete school board training program emerged
within the school district. Of the 86 school board members who responded to the
survey question, “Our school board culture highly encourages participation in the MIG
training,” 66 strongly agreed or agreed that their school board had a culture that highly
encouraged participation in the MIG training (see Table 1). A larger portion, 51 of the
six surveyed school superintendents also agreed or strongly agreed that their school
boards’ culture highly encouraged participation in the MIG training. This culture that
highly encouraged participation in the MIG was sustained by three elements: board
member self-motivation, school board expectation, and board member encouragement.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 73
Table 1
Primary Factors Influencing School Board Members’ Participation in the Masters of
Governance Training
S c h o o l board S u p e rin-
m e m bers
a
t e n d ents
b
Primary factors f % f %
School board expectation 20 23.3 12 19.7
Self-motivation 52 60.5 21 34.4
Encouraged by other board members 8 9.3 20 32.8
Other 4 4.7 2 3.3
No answer 2 2.3 6 9.8
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
Supporting culture, school board members participating in the survey were
asked what were the primary factors influencing school board members’ participation in
the MIG training. School board members responding to the survey indicated three
significant influencing factors: self-motivation, school board expectation, and other
members’ encouragement (Table 1). Self-motivation (i.e., an intrinsic stimulus to
attend or complete school board training) was ranked as the chief influential factor.
School board expectation (i.e., the school board’s belief or anticipation that members
would participate in or complete a school board member training in order to build their
capacity to successfully perform their duties) was ranked as the second most influential
factor. Ranked as the third most significant supporting culture was school board
members’ encouragement (i.e., school board members overtly or covertly encouraging
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 74
fellow school board members to participate in or complete school board member train-
ing).
The 61 school superintendents responding to the survey ranked slightly differ-
ently the significant factors influencing school board members to attend or participate in
the MIG. The superintendents chose the same significant factors as the school board
member choose; however, they ranked self-motivation as the chief influential factor,
other school board members’ encouragement as the second most influential factor, and
school board expectation as the third most influential factor.
Self-motivation was the chief influential factor supporting a culture of encour-
agement to attend or complete school board training program. The analysis of the
survey data supported this theme The majority, 52 of 80 school board members re-
sponding to the question regarding the primary factor influencing participation in the
MIG training, selected self-motivation. Additionally, 21 of 53 school superintendents
responding agreed with the school board members that self-motivation was the principal
factor influencing participation in a school board member training program (Table 1).
Data gathered while interviewing selected school board members affirmed the
results of the survey. When asked if they felt any pressure to complete the MIG, both
interviewed school board members stated that they felt none. Board Member Upshaw
stated, “No, in fact it was something I really wanted to do.” Board Member David
responded, “No, I didn’t feel pressure to complete the MIG training. I really enjoyed
it.”
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 75
School board expectation was ranked second most significant influential factor.
Continued analysis of the survey data revealed that 20 of 60 of the responding school
board members indicated school board expectation as an significant factor influencing
participation in the MIG training. Survey results for responding superintendents varied
slightly. While interviewing School Board Member David from CUSD about the
expectation of school board members training, Mr. David responded:
I think that the MIG training has been something that over the period of time we
have expected new board members to participate in. School board members
should want to be educated in that training. I can’t see someone who doesn’t
have a true intent to want to actually serve the students, staff, and the community
in that capacity not to have the knowledge that it’s going to require them to
make good, wise decisions. So as far as I’m concerned, I think that all board
members should want that. If there’s not a want in there, then to me there’s
something lacking.
While being interviewed, Board Member Upshaw from LUSD noted, “I think for new
board members, personally, whether it’s mandated or not, it’s an essential part of your
training; it’s an essential part of your learning.”
School superintendents acknowledged the school board’s belief that board
members would complete school board member training to be significant factor influ-
encing school board members to attend or complete the MIG training. School board
expectation was rank third of the most influential factors. The results of the school
superintendent survey analysis revealed that 12 of 53 school superintendents chose
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 76
school board expectation as the third most influential factor influencing school board
members training in the MIG training. CUSD Superintendent Rasheedah stated:
If school board members are going to be leaders in the educational institution,
then they should model those expectations they have of the teachers, of the ad-
ministrators and they should attend the governance trainings also to acquire
those skills.
Collectively, these statements strongly suggest that the interviewees definitively
felt that school board members should participate in school board member training.
Moreover, these statements indicated the presence of a culture of expectation that
school board members participate in the training. The anecdotes conclusively linked the
expectation of successfully understanding the role of board members, maintaining
student-centered goals, and the capacity to make informed and wise decisions to school
board member training.
The research team’s observations of CSBA’s MIG school board training further
supported the survey and interview data that indicated a presence of a culture that
encouraged school board members to attend or complete school board member training.
Collectively, nine of nine members agreed or strongly agreed that the MIG program
taught governance teams the importance of taking collective responsibility. The obser-
vations allowed the research team a more in-depth perspective into the coaching of
school board members. One observation made by the research team was that MIG
training serves as vehicle for the establishment and promotion of a school board culture.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 77
The MIG explicitly defines who school board members are: their roles and what is
expected of them (i.e., school board member responsibilities).
School board members indicated that other board members’ encouragement was
a significant factor influencing board members’ participation in the training. Of the
other significant factors influencing participation, other board members ranked this
factor as the third most important. Only eight of 60 responding school board members
chose board member encouragement as a primary factor. Although encouragement of
other school board members was ranked 3rd and only eight of 60 school board member
selected it as a significant factor influencing school board members’ participation in the
MIG training, other data indicated that encouragement of other school board members
played a very significant role in influencing board members’ participation in MIG
training. Eighty-three of 86 board members participating in the survey strongly agreed
or agreed that they encouraged fellow school board members to participate in the MIG
training as a means of professional development. Additionally, 83 of the responding
school board members indicated that they would strongly recommend or recommend
the MIG training to fellow school board members. Underscoring this point of the 86
responding school board members, none indicated that they disagreed or strongly dis-
agreed with recommending the MIG training to fellow school board members. Al-
though school board members ranked encouragement by other board member as the
third most influential factor, these data substantiated encouragement by other board
members as a significant influential factor (Table 1).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 78
In addition to the school board members’ responses, 20 of 53 responding school
superintendents ranked encouraged by other school board members as the second most
influential factor encouraging school board members’ participation in the MIG training.
When interviewed, Board Member Upshaw affirmed these findings:
I was also encouraged by my older sister who at that time was a board member
in another district. If we have a new board member in 2 years, I would actively
encourage them. I think it’s something that MIG-trained board members should
be doing, encouraging. New board members should be encouraged. . . . I en-
courage other people to take the training. I’ve encouraged more board members
not from my district to take it.
Professional Collaboration
Although professional collaboration was not highlighted in the school board
members’ survey responses as a primary factor that influenced school board members to
participate in the MIG training, the data analysis of the interviews and the MIG observa-
tion data revealed that professional collaboration was indeed a significant factor influ-
encing school board members to participate in the MIG training. The interviewed par-
ticipants cited the opportunity to learn from other board members and the opportunity to
learn from and bond with superintendents as influential factors for attending the MIG
training. School Board Member David noted the following about professional collabo-
ration and one of the reason that he enjoyed attending MIG training: “One of the things
I really enjoyed is the networking with other board members from different school
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 79
areas. And to get a feel for what they’re doing versus what we’re doing as far as
districts.” Superintendent Rasheedah added similar sentiments:
It’s an opportunity for me to get to see what other school districts are doing, get
to hear what other superintendents are doing and then to calibrate that with some
of the decisions that we’re making here. That’s how it’s beneficial for me to
say, “Hey, we’re doing this stuff,” or, “We’re doing this stuff but we should be
doing it better because here’s some other districts that are doing it.” So that’s
how I take it. And the real value for me is hearing the other board members that
don’t know me—that don’t know what district I’m from, hearing their frustra-
tions that they’re having with their superintendents and then me taking notes and
coming back and saying to my administrative assistant, “Make sure we do this
next time we have to communicate this situation.”
Superintendent Grace added the following:
I would go through it again, especially with a new trustee or somebody else. I
would at least join them for the sessions or meet them at lunch. I don’t know if
I’d go through the whole nine sessions in the end, but I would, absolutely. It’s a
great opportunity to sit and share that learning experience.
The data analysis of the research team’s MIG observation supported the data
indicating the presence of professional collaborations highlighted in the interviews.
When responding to the research, the research team members strongly agreed that
participants were engaged in and focused on presentations, activities, and discussions.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 80
They agreed or strongly agreed that the MIG participants engaged in activities to foster
teamwork, trust, and cooperation.
Collectively, the data from the interviews and the MIG observations indicated
that school board members valued the opportunity to learn from and collaborate with
other school board members and superintendents. The MIG program designs activities
that support professional collaboration, the value of which was indicated as an influen-
tial factor in school board members’ decision to participate in the MIG training.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The results of the data analysis highlighted two factors that influenced or im-
pacted the decision of school board members to complete the school board training
program. Of these, one factor, culture, seemed to positively impact board members’
decision to attend school board member training. Culture, as described by Bolman and
Deal (2008), is beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts that define for members of the
organization who they are and how they are to do things. These beliefs, values, and
practices manifested themselves in this study as self-motivation, encouragement by
other school board members, and school board expectation for members to attend or
complete MIG training. A common theme presented during the interview process
underlined the sentiments that school board members were expected and encouraged to
be knowledgeable about their duties, perform their duties well, and keep student
achievement as the primary focus. These influential factors were aligned with the
culture of school boards whose members exhibit behaviors of effective governance.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 81
The second theme, professional collaboration, revealed from the responses of
school board members and superintendents alike, indicated professional collaboration
as a real benefit derived from attending the MIG training. This benefit was indicated as
a significant factor influencing the decision of school board members to participate in
the MIG training. The data obtained primarily from the interviews revealed that MIG
participants felt that the MIG training was beneficial for professional collaboration from
two particular viewpoints. School board members felt that it was necessary to hear
from other board members what was going on in their districts and the approaches taken
to find resolution to issues. The second professional collaboration benefit was the
opportunity to bond and learn with the superintendent. Board members and superinten-
dents agreed that some of the time spent during the MIG training was used for collabo-
ration and building professional relationships. These new or strengthened professional
relationships were used to support the boardroom relationships.
Results for Research Question 2
Effective school governance has several characteristics. Research question 2
asked whether MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance. The research of Brenner et al. (2002) suggested
that collaboration between board members and superintendents is the foundation for
effective governance. Their research further suggested that a strong local educational
governance team is essential in supporting the community’s educational vision for
children, enlisting community support, and developing long-term goals for student
achievement. Other current research has proposed that the relationships between school
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 82
board members and the relationships between school board members and the superin-
tendent are often less than collaborative (Grissom, 2010). The research of L. D.
Fusarelli et al. (2011) and Grissom (2010) cited undefined board members’ roles, mis-
aligned goals and values, and micromanagement of superintendent as sources of con-
flict. The analysis of the survey and interview data revealed two recurring themes
related to the aforementioned research. The first theme, increased collaboration and the
aligning of goals and values, emphasized that the MIG training did equip board mem-
bers to exhibit behaviors of effective governance. Defining the foundation for effective
school governance was the second theme highlighted by the data analysis.
Collaboration and Aligning of Goals
The analysis of the survey and interview data highlighted an increase in school
board member collaboration and aligning of goals. When responding to the survey
question, “As a result of MIG training, I have developed a more collaborative relation-
ship with fellow school board members,” of the 83 total responding school board
members, 77 either agreed or strongly agreed. Additionally, 52 of 61 responding super-
intendents strongly agreed or agreed that school board members who were MIG trained
developed a more collaborative relationship with their fellow school board members.
These data, independently solid, were supported by the responses of school board
members to the survey question, “As a result of the MIG training, my ability to con-
structively accept the majority decision, even if I hold the minority view, has increased.”
Of the 83 responding school board members, 74 either agreed or strongly agreed with
this statement. Responding superintendents concurred with the results of the school
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 83
board members’ surveys. Of the 61 superintendents who responded to the survey, 55
strongly agreed or agreed that school board members who were MIG trained were able
to accept the majority decision of the school board even if they held the minority view.
Fifty-seven of 60 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that school board members
who were MIG trained understood the importance of aligning the decision-making
process to the district’s vision and goals. Underscoring these data, 83 of 83 responding
school board members agreed or strongly agreed that the MIG training had positively
impacted their ability to govern effectively. Additionally, 81 of 82 responding school
board members agree or strongly agreed that MIG training had allowed them to contrib-
ute to the effectiveness of their school board meetings (see Tables 2–4).
The interview data further supports the survey data. When interviewing board
members and superintendents were asked if the MIG training had equipped board
members to exhibit behaviors of effective or increased collaboration and overall school
governance effectiveness, School board Member David of CUSD responded to the
question as follows:
You know, I think that when we as a board are able to come into decisions based
on being united and thinking in the common direction for the district. I think
that’s a positive indicator and that’s something that we have learned through this
training. I think that’s a big plus right there.
I think it’s given us a guideline, something to follow. I think that it
allows those who—I’m thinking of our current board right now—I think with
the exception of maybe two or three, they have not completed the whole training
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 84
Table 2
Responses of School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Developing a
More Collaborative Relationship With Fellow School Board Members as a Result of
Masters in Governance Training
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 34 39.5 21 34.4
Agree 43 50.0 31 50.8
Disagree 5 5.8 9 14.8
Strongly disagree 1 1.2 0 0.0
No answer 3 3.5 0 0.0
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
Table 3
Responses of School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Ability to Accept
the Majority Decision as a Result of Masters in Governance Training
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 30 34.9 24 39.3
Agree 44 51.2 31 50.8
Disagree 8 9.3 6 9.8
Strongly disagree 1 1.2 0 0.0
No answer 3 3.5 0 0.0
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 85
Table 4
Responses of School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Whether Masters
in Governance Training Equips Board Members to Understand the Importance of
Aligning the Decision-Making Process to the District’s Vision and Goals
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 55 64.0 30 49.2
Agree 24 27.9 27 44.3
Disagree 3 3.5 3 4.9
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
No answer 4 4.7 1 1.6
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
program. It aligns the way we think; we reference that training in decision
making. Prior boards that I’ve sat on, it was a big influence on how we made
decisions. So I think that overall it’s effective because once again, it’s the
knowledge that we base our decisions on.
School board Member Upshaw responded:
Well I think it helped . . . it helped me and it helped me in some closed sessions
with some of my experiences. It kind of helped me to facilitate a couple of
conflicts that we had and a little give and take. How can we make the outcome
acceptable to everybody? I think we spent some good time with that in the MIG
training. Not really a conflict resolution, but certainly we need to do this in the
spirit of what is intended. For example, in almost 10 years, we’ve had five votes
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 86
that weren’t 5–0 on our board. And it’s not because . . . it’s just because I think
we’ve had some excellent leadership on the superintendents’ level. Everything
is explained to us beforehand so we can talk . . . we discuss things and we reach
a resolution. Sometimes even if we don’t agree completely, we can support that
because it’s in the best interests of the kids and it’s in the best interests of the
district. . . . And there’s no . . . and I’ve been to school board meetings and
there’s no name calling; there’s no disrespect, even when we disagree. It doesn’t
happen often. In most districts it does, but not all.
Superintendent Grace responded:
Again, just being a shared learning experience with the trustees, having lunch
with them, being out with other trustees. We have a really healthy board that
really likes each other, and sometimes you get some very interesting board
members. And as we sit and listen to them either complain about each other or
complain about their superintendent, you can’t help but value and appreciate the
great working relationship you have. So it’s an odd benefit but we always would
come back and say, “Gosh, we have something that’s worth hanging onto be-
cause we’re not a dysfunctional board; we don’t have internal conflict; we value
each other; we listen to each other”—and that’s not true everywhere.
Additionally, it has because as a result of the MIG training, we brought
back the governance standards and handbook that CSBA recommends as a
template for establishing protocols and norms for your shared work as a
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 87
governance team. And that has been adopted and revisited each year as a part of
our board’s self-evaluation of the governance, and that came out of MIG.
Superintendent Rasheedah commented:
The MIG has played a great role—great role for those board members that at-
tended. It gave them the opportunity to see that not everybody is always going
to agree but it’s about the issue, not the person. So this board that I have right
now—they may not always agree; they don’t take things personal, and they
know that decisions that they’re making—it could be a 4 to 3, but when that
decision is made, they’re all moving forward.
The answers given by the interviewees revealed their perspective of the effec-
tiveness of the MIG training to encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
behaviors of effective governance. The interviewees conclusively noted an increase in
behaviors that are characteristic of effective governance teams. The common thread
that tied each of the interviewee’s responses together was an unquantifiable awareness
of increased collaboration and effectiveness governance. These increases were recog-
nized after contentious voting, while establishing norms for governance, and during
personal conversations.
The results of the research team’s observation data analysis revealed that the
school board training conclusively encouraged and equipped school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance. During the observation, the research
team sought to answer questions that would either support or refute the claims that the
MIG training encouraged or equipped school board members to develop collaborative
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 88
relationships. Using the theoretical framework as a guide for the observation, five
actionable steps related to collaborative relationship were observed by the research
team. After observing for the five actionable steps, all 10 members of the research team
agreed or strongly agreed that each step was noted (see Table 5).
Table 5
Summary of Responses From Research Team Regarding Whether Five Actionable Steps
Were Covered in Masters in Governance Training to Equip School Board Members to
Exhibit Behaviors of Effective Governance (N = 10)
Strongly Strongly Not ob-
Observed action agree Agree Disagree disagree served
Teaches governance teams to govern in a
dignified and professional manner, treating
everyone with civility and respect 2 8 0 0 0
Teaches strategies for governance teams to
operate openly, with trust and integrity 6 4 0 0 0
Teaches strategies to develop and/or keep
focus on common vision 4 6 0 0 0
Provides activities to foster teamwork, trust,
and cooperation 7 3 0 0 0
Ensures opportunities for discussion of a
diverse range of views and opinions 7 3 0 0 0
Defining Roles and Responsibilities
The second theme revealed by the results of the data analysis, defining roles and
responsibilities, indicated that the MIG training encouraged school board members to
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 89
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance through defining of roles and decreased
micromanagement of the superintendent. The analysis of data representing the MIG’s
impact on clarifying the roles of school board members and superintendents yielded the
strongest data set of the research. Eighty-three of 83 responding school board members
agreed or strongly agreed that the MIG training clarified the differences between their
roles and responsibilities as a school board member and those of the superintendent.
When asked, 48 of 61 responding school superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that
school board members who were MIG trained exhibited a clearer understanding of the
difference between their roles and responsibilities and those of the superintendent (see
Table 6).
While the MIG seemed to have a significant impact on the clarification of roles,
its role on decreased micromanagement of the superintendent was equally powerful.
When asked, 77 of 81 responding school board members agreed or strongly agreed that
the MIG training helped them to differentiate between policy and management leader-
ship. Fifty-eight of 59 responding school superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that
the MIG training helped school board members to differentiate between policy and
management leadership (see Table 7).
Underscoring the aforementioned data, the MIG has nine modules that substan-
tially contribute to successful school board governance: Foundations of Effective Gov-
ernance, Setting Direction, Human Resources, Policy & Judicial Review, Student
Learning & Achievement, School Finance, Collective Bargaining, Community Rela-
tions & Advocacy, and Governance Integration. When asked to rank the nine MIG
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 90
Table 6
Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Whether
Masters in Governance-Trained Board Members Exhibit Clearer Understanding of
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of Superintendent
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 57 66.3 23 37.7
Agree 26 30.2 25 41.0
Disagree 0 0.0 12 19.7
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 1 1.6
No answer 3 3.5 0 0.0
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
Table 7
Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Whether
Masters in Governance Training Helps Board Members Differentiate Between Policy
and Management Leadership
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 47 54.7 27 44.3
Agree 30 34.9 31 50.8
Disagree 4 4.7 1 1.6
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
No answer 5 5.8 2 3.3
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 91
modules in order of importance, 39 of 72 responding board members ranked Effective
Governance as most important. Forty-nine of 60 responding superintendents also
ranked Effective Governance as most important.
The data gathered from the interviews supported and helped to codify the data
gained from the survey responses. When interviewing board members and superinten-
dents about whether MIG training encourages school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance, particularly in reference to establishing a foundation
for effective governance, School Board Member Upshaw responded:
Well, it has certainly on my part. This board follows very, very much the guide-
lines that CSBA has on board governance, so it’s a natural kind of thing. I was
trained in it, but it’s also something that I’ve seen practiced since the day I was
on the board, so I think it’s been a benefit to me ‘cause it’s just a very smooth-
functioning board that adheres to what CSBA’s guidelines are about—what our
governance responsibilities are and how we conduct ourselves.
School Board Member David’s response was in agreement with Board Member Up-
shaw’s statement:
There have been times where . . . and I could say yes . . . there’s been times
where we’ve referenced the training and the policies and how they presented
certain policies and we’ve changed our protocol, our procedures to be more in
line with theirs, CSBA’s, because we found it to be more holistic and better
understood.
Superintendent Rasheedah responded:
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 92
Absolutely with 100%. The MIG has encouraged school board members to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, particularly in reference to estab-
lished foundation for effective governance. It’s allowed us to provide a structure
for the decision-making process. If individuals try to work around that structure,
then we refer back to the training or to our school board policy, and so it’s been
a blessing. It’s helped tremendously to educate school board members on what
their role is and the scope of being a board member. When an individual starts
acting as an individual instead of working together at the board meetings . . .,
we’ve been trained in those strategies and those skills to refer back to them
saying, “No, no, no, wait a minute. We need consensus from the board. We’ll
be happy to have that discussion, but right now we’re asking for a decision, and
one person or two people or even three people talking is fine, but I’m going to
need direction from a majority of the board.” And so that’s where the training
has helped me and helped the board members that have been through it with the
understanding of, “Yep, the superintendent is right; we need the consensus so
we need to start either take a vote or give the superintendent direction.” That’s
where it’s helped.
Superintendent Grace noted:
The adoption of the Governance Handbook that kind of puts forth very specific
norms of some things like what are the expectations for trustees if they’re going
to drop in and go to a site—what do you do if somebody in the community asks
you a controversial question and you’re kind of out of role in trying to answer it.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 93
A time or two we’ve had a trustee get out of the governance role and into opera-
tions, and they have used the handbook as a way to give feedback. We have this
agreement and—“Gosh, this isn’t consistent with the way we operate; let’s talk
about that.” We’ve had that two or three times in the last 8 years where espe-
cially one individual board member who’s just deeply passionate just gets ahead
of himself in that role a little bit, but the others have kind of reined him back in
by drawing attention to the Governance Handbook. So yeah, it’s been useful.
The narratives provided by interviewees highlighted the perspectives of the re-
sponding members in regard to the MIG training. The narratives provided an insightful
look at the significant impact that the MIG training had on school board members and
subsequently on the school board itself. The responses given by the participants also
illustrated an implementation of the skills, concepts, and framework of school gover-
nance provided by the MIG.
The results of the research team’s observation data analysis revealed that the
school board training conclusively encouraged and equipped school board members to
develop collaborative relationship. During the observations, the research team sought
to observe particular elements that would indicate whether the MIG training encouraged
or equipped school board members to establish foundations for effective governance.
Using the theoretical framework as a guide for the observation, the research team sought
to observe four elements related to collaborative relationship: (a) roles and responsibili-
ties of governance teams being clearly defined; (b) student learning at the focus of the
training; (c) strategies taught to develop and/or keep focus on common vision; and (d)
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 94
importance of governing within board adopted policies, procedures, and structures
taught. The analysis of data collected from the research team’s observations indicated
that the factors that support the development of collaborative relationship were present
in the modules. After observing for the four elements, all 10 members of the research
team agreed or strongly agreed that each element was observed (see Table 8).
Table 8
Summary of Responses From Research Team Regarding Whether Four Actionable
Steps Were Covered in Masters in Governance Training to Equip School Board Mem-
bers to Develop Collaborative Relationships (N = 10)
Strongly Strongly Not ob-
Observed action agree Agree Disagree disagree served
Roles and responsibilities of governance
teams clearly defined 10 0 0 0 0
Student learning at the focus of the
training. 5 5 0 0 0
Teaches strategies to develop and/or keep
focus on common vision 4 6 0 0 0
Teaches the importance of governing
within board-adopted policies, pro-
cedures, and structures 10 0 0 0 0
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
Two findings were noted from the responses to this research question. It was
determined that as a result of the MIG school board training, participating board
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 95
members and superintendents felt that board members were significantly encouraged
and equipped to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, particularly in the areas
of collaboration, aligning of goals, and defining school board members’ roles and re-
sponsibilities. The findings emanating from the results of the data analysis were that
board members who participated in the MIG training were not only aware of but also
exhibited effective collaborative relationship-building strategies, were knowledgeable
of their specific role and that of the superintendent in school governance, were team
players in sustaining structures used for fostering and improving communication, and
exhibited an increased focus on student academic achievement. The interviews high-
lighted both superintendents’ and school board members’ value for other school board
members’ participation in the training. The observation data indicated that the compo-
nents of the MIG program encouraged participants to exhibit behaviors of effective
governance.
Results for Research Question 3
Currently, there are 23 states that mandate school board member training; Cali-
fornia is not one of them. Research question 3 of this study asked in what ways could
mandating the MIG program impact school board governance. The analysis of the
survey and interview data for ways that mandating the MIG program could impact
school board governance highlighted two themes. The first theme, a comprehensive
increase in school board effectiveness, seemed to emphasize factors that would en-
courage mandating the MIG school board training program. The second theme,
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 96
accessibility, seemed to highlight factors that negatively impacted the decision of school
board members to complete a school board training program.
Increased School Governance Effectiveness
Current research suggested that effective school boards focus on student
achievement and policy, effective management void of superintendent micromanage-
ment, and a trusting and collaborative relationship among the board members and
between school board members and the superintendent (Land, 2002 ). The analysis of
the survey data revealed that the MIG, as professional development, increased the board
members’ focus on student achievement, which is arguably the board’s primary respon-
sibility. Supporting these results, 71 of 81 responding school board members agreed or
strongly agreed that as a result of the MIG training, their focus on student achievement
had increased during school board meetings. Similarly, 58 of 61 responding superinten-
dents agreed or strongly agreed that as a result of the MIG training, those members of
their school board exhibited an increased focus on student achievement during school
board meetings (see Table 9).
Strengthening these data, 75 of 83 responding school board members agreed or
strongly agreed that as a result of the MIG training, they encouraged fellow school
board members to consistently use data to make informed decisions regarding student
achievement. The opinions of 50 of 59 responding school superintendents were aligned
with those of the school board members. School superintendents agreed or strongly
agreed that as a result of the MIG training, school board members who were MIG
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 97
Table 9
Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Whether
Board Members’ Focus on Student Achievement Had Increased During School Board
Meetings as a Result of Masters in Governance Training
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 24 27.9 14 23.0
Agree 47 54.7 44 72.1
Disagree 9 10.5 3 4.9
Strongly disagree 1 1.2 0 0.0
No answer 5 5.8 0 0.0
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
certified encouraged their fellow school board members to consistently use data to make
informed decisions regarding student achievement (see Table 10).
Highlighting the decreased micromanagement of the superintendent, 83 of 83
responding school board members agreed or strongly agreed that the MIG training had
clarified the differences between their roles and responsibilities as school board mem-
bers and those of the superintendent. Forty-eight of 61 responding school superinten-
dents agreed. The analysis revealed that the MIG was responsible for an increase in a
third aspect of effective governance—namely, increased collaboration. Seventy-seven
of 83 school board members responding to the survey question either agreed or strongly
agreed regarding their development of more collaborative relationships with fellow
school board members as a result of MIG training. Fifty-two of 61 responding school
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 98
Table 10
Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Whether
Board Members Certified by Masters in Governance Training Encourage Fellow Board
Members to Consistently Use Data to Make Informed Decisions About Student Achieve-
ment
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 36 41.9 10 16.4
Agree 39 45.4 40 65.6
Disagree 7 8.14 9 14.8
Strongly disagree 1 1.2 0 0.0
No answer 3 3.5 2 3.3
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
superintendents also agreed. All 84 school responding board members who had partici-
pated in the MIG training agreed or strongly agreed that all board members would
benefit from completing the MIG training. Fifty-seven of 61 responding school superin-
tendents also agreed or strongly agreed that all board members would benefit from
completing the MIG training (see Table 11).
School Board Member David’s personal sentiments on how the MIG training
impacted his competency and overall effectiveness as a board member emphasized
factors that would encourage mandating the MIG school board training program:
After going through the school board training that I went through—and I found
it to be very, very helpful because for a variety of different reasons, once again it
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 99
Table 11
Responses From School Board Members and Superintendents Regarding Whether
Board Members Exhibited Behaviors of Effective Governance as a Result of Masters in
Governance Training
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 71 82.6 44 72.1
Agree 13 15.1 13 21.3
Disagree 0 0.0 4 6.6
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
No answer 2 2.3 0 0.0
a
n = 86.
b
n = 61.
allowed me to have more than just basic knowledge, knowledge in the given
areas that I would have to have some kind of expertise in, in order to make
quality decisions for our district—but I think that we have a lot of individuals
who don’t have the background and the knowledge in those variety of areas and
they need to be trained. They need to know what is the right and wrong and why
is it so important to make good, sound decisions when it comes to voting for a
particular issue that’s on the agenda. But I also learned that because I was able
to take some of these courses that opened my eyes so that I knew how to allow
that process to develop—how to be a good school board member and not micro-
manage, how to be able to put my input in and allow those whose jobs are sup-
posed to do that, let them do their jobs comfortably. And then also to take a
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 100
look at what’s the best for the whole district and for our students—No. 1. So I
truly believe that it should be a California mandate, I really do, because I think
that we as any other entity—we need to be educated in a way that we’re able to
be able to learn as much as we can because the decision may affect a lot of
people.
School Board Member Upshaw’s opinion of the MIG training and its impact on
his competency and effectiveness as a board member supported the opinion of Board
Member David:
Well, you know, I think just the whole concept of learning the governance
program. One of the things that CSBA stresses—you know, they have the whole
governance wheel and we talk about roles of superintendents, roles of board
members, and it’s a clock, and when you . . . [name of board member] and I had
gone through it, and every now and then we could look at each other and go,
“Yeah, we’re getting down to that part there.” So I think for me that just really
clarified roles ‘cause I was surprised when talking to some of the board mem-
bers that were in the classes with me what they thought their role was and what I
thought my role was. And I think my role was probably closer to what CSBA
says. But some of them thought they were really responsible for running the
district, and I was saying they must give some superintendents nightmares.
Superintendent Rasheedah confirmed through her response during the interview
that she acknowledged the MIG’s effectiveness and supported that school board mem-
ber training should be a state mandate:
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 101
I feel it should be a mandate. I absolutely feel it should be; and the reason why I
think it should be is because if they’re going to be leaders in the educational
institution, then they should model those expectations they have of the teachers,
of the administrators, and they should attend the governance trainings also to
acquire those skills. Some of them haven’t been to school, haven’t been to
college, and they don’t have any particular training in management-level posi-
tions but yet they’re making high-level, multimillion dollar decisions.
Through their responses, the participants supported the idea of mandating school
board member training. Structured around the responsibility to acquire and exhibit
skills that would allow school board members to make the most informed decisions, the
idea of mandating school board member was embraced. Collectively, the participants
agreed that not all school board members are aware of their roles as school board
members. Moreover, the scope of their responsibility demands accountability for
acquiring the skill set for school governance that is focused on student achievement and
knowledge about the nuances of the business of public schooling.
Accessibility
The second theme revealed through analyzing the survey and interview data
revealed that mandating the MIG training could negatively impact school board gover-
nance due to limited access to the MIG program. Access is described as time schedul-
ing, training location, and direct and indirect monetary costs. The limited accessibility
of the MIG may have a negative impact on the decision or the ability of board members
to complete a school board training program if the MIG training program is mandated.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 102
Of the 79 school board members who responded to the survey, 61 strongly agreed or
agreed that if the cost of the MIG training program were subsidized or free, more school
board members would participate. Forty-three of 60 responding superintendents also
agree or strongly agreed. Of the 82 school board members who responded to the survey,
59 strongly agreed or agreed that a complete, online MIG certification program would
encourage more school board members to participate. Fifty-three of 61 school superin-
tendents also agreed or strongly agreed that a complete, online MIG certification pro-
gram would encourage more school board members to participate.
The analysis of the survey and interview data indicated that the MIG’s schedul-
ing and economic accessibility, as related to mandating the MIG program, might nega-
tively impact school board governance. School Board Member Upshaw’s sentiments on
the MIG’s accessibility supported the data. Mr. Upshaw stated the following about the
economic limitations:
You know, there is a cost involved, and I thought the training was excellent.
Given the situation with state school financing now, that would, especially for
some smaller districts—the current fees could have an impact and could cause
some dissension. We’re asking employees to take furlough days and yet we’re
spending thousands of dollars on . . . you know, on training and depending on
what probably can come out of it, what resources are available. For example, we
didn’t go to CSBA this year because we had to make the reservation before Prop
30 passed, and we’re saying if Prop 30 doesn’t pass and we’re asking employees
to take 10 more furlough days, it’s going to be harder for me to justify going up
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 103
to San Francisco. So I think it would have a financial impact, and I think how
you approach the stockholders would be significant. And I think it all depends
on what your relationship is with those involved. I think parents would support
it because you’re saying we’re really getting training for the kids. I could see
classified and certificated, depending on what the relationship is going . . .
especially if you’re saying teachers can’t go to this training because we don’t
have the training funds but school board members can go to this training. I think
you have to be very sensitive to that.
Superintendent Rasheedah’s comments also echoed concerns regarding eco-
nomic accessibility of the MIG program:
This one is saying as a district, I’m going to have to pay for it because the state’s
going to mandate it—which doesn’t surprise me. But if the state is going to
mandate the districts to pay for it, then what we’re going to do is we’re going to
allocate money like we do with every other mandate. Well, if it’s a mandate, we
have to, so I think they would as long as we’re not talking hundreds of thousands
of dollars. If it’s a mandate, the money is going to come from the classroom.
It’s going to come from textbooks; it’s going to come from something.
School Board Member Upshaw expressed concerns regarding scheduling:
You know, I think should the MIG be mandated is a hard question to answer,
and I think yes and no. I think a lot of it depends on . . the way it’s structured.
Now I think it could be difficult for some board members to complete it ‘cause
it’s an all-day Friday and an all-day Saturday, the modules, and my schedule was
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 104
flexible enough that I could take a Friday off, but some people can’t do that. So
I think how you structured it . . . maybe if they went to some kind of an online
program, which I think is going to miss out because the best part, I think, [of]
the training was sitting with the other board members and then interaction. I
think scheduling could be an issue. I think you’d have to have a little more
flexibility when you offered the modules and so forth, because some people’s
work just doesn’t accommodate that.
Board Member David added:
I think that maybe one of the hardships to that and maybe going back to another
question is that when I first got on the board, the majority of all the board
members were retired; I was still employed. So a lot of us are still employed, so
it’s difficult to break away for 2, 3 days in order to go to training in Sacramento,
for example.
Superintendents Grace and Rasheedah shared similar opinions about the MIG
current scheduling and its impact on board members’ ability to attend training. Superin-
tendent Grace stated:
It’s a time commitment and it’s a bit of a travel commitment, depending on
regionally where you happen to be located in relation to where they’re offering
it. So I’m sure accessibility is a part of it. You know, I’m reluctant to say it but
as our population changes, I think going to distance learning webcasts—there
are probably some avenues. I happen to be that guy who likes the engagement
part of it, but maybe a mix where there’s engagement, but in between there are
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 105
—instead of an 8-hour day, maybe two or three sections are webcasts and you
get together for some applied learning experience—would allow people to flex
training according to their own schedules a little better. Many of our trustees are
employed full-time and raising families, and finding the time to devote could be
a challenge, so maybe a blended program would be a good idea.
Superintendent Rasheedah added:
I think the timing of the trainings and maybe if they offered some online ses-
sions. I’m okay with online sessions. They’re not the same, and you don’t get
the value of face-to-face because face-to-face you can see people’s expressions;
you can hear and understand tones. You can’t get that online. If you’ve ever
had to take an online class, you do the work and it’s done, but there’s no dialog.
The real learning takes place when people say, “Well, that’s not what I would
do; here’s what I would do.” And then you start to learn from that process. But
timing is an issue. I have one board member that just can’t go because he owns
his own business and a day away . . . he works on Fridays and Saturdays, and if
he misses Friday and Saturday from working, he’s not getting paid. So he’s not
going and I’m not pushing him. He’s a guy that I always joke around with. I do
give him the material when I come back, but it’s not the same. But I think the
timing of it—if it was an online process, maybe he would value the opportunity
at 10:00 at night or 8:00 at night when he was home and able to sit down and do
this online. It might be a possibility. Or even an evening session split up over a
period of time.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 106
These narratives highlighted the obstacles that limit the accessibility of the MIG
training program. Access to the MIG program, described as time scheduling, training
location, and direct and indirect monetary costs, was indicated as a significant factor
influencing school board members’ participation in the training. Collectively, the data
seemed to indicate that the time commitment ultimately presents a financial impact that
could negatively affect school board members’ decision to start or complete school
board member training. If the MIG were mandated, difficulty in accessing the MIG
training may have a similar negative impact on school board governance. Each state-
ment by interviewees individually supported the fact that school board members are
elected to their position and these elected positions are not their primary source of
income. In other words, school board members electing to attend school board member
training subsequently may be electing to forego income from their place of employment.
When considering the impact of mandating the MIG training, the participants acknowl-
edged the potential time conflict between attending school board member training and
lost wages. They clearly agreed that ensuring the monetary solvency of their households
was their individual chief priority. The participants were very transparent in acknowl-
edging that access to the MIG would have to increase or improve if a mandate for
school board training was to have a positive impact on the school board.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Professional development remains an essential vehicle that many teachers, ad-
ministrators, and other education decision makers use to increase their effectiveness and
competency regarding effective public schooling. The need for the school board mem-
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 107
bers to participate in professional development that is ongoing and focused on the needs
of the district and its students is essential to the success of school board governance
(McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). According to NSBA (2012), only 23
out of the 50 states have mandatory school board training policies. The analysis of the
data highlighted two reoccurring themes indicating ways that mandating the MIG
program could impact school governance. Indicated by the data analysis, mandating the
MIG training could significantly impact the overall effectiveness of school board gover-
nance. Participating school board members and school superintendents agreed that
members who attended the MIG school board training exhibited behaviors that are
characteristic of effective school board members.
Additionally, the findings suggested that due to the current access to MIG
training, mandating school board members’ participation in the program may have an
unintended adverse economic impact on school governance. The findings suggested
that some school board members were reluctant to attend or complete the MIG training
due to the economic impacts, including cost of the training, cost of travel to attend the
training, and loss of income that may occur while attending training. Superintendents
and board members alike cited time conflicts as a significant factor influencing school
board member participation in MIG training. In addition to the “block” scheduling of
the MIG, the scheduled dates, and training location presented issues. School board
members reiterated that being a school board member was not their occupation; there-
fore, attending school board member training often presented a financial problem
through lost wages. The financial impact to school board members might encourage
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 108
some members to wait until the financial aspect of the training has been covered by the
district. In times of budget issues, school boards may be unable to shoulder the cost of
supporting the mandate. The data analysis indicated that if board members have to take
on the cost of the MIG, they would be less likely to attend the training.
Chapter Summary
Using the literature review, the theoretical framework, and the research to
triangulate the results, the findings were six items. For research question 1, there were
two findings. The first was that there is a culture that supports and encourages school
board members to attend or complete a school board training program. This culture is
manifested as self-motivation, school board expectation, and encouragement by other
board members. Of these manifestation of culture, self-motivation was most influential
in impacting the decision of school board members to participate in the MIG training.
School board expectation and encouragement by other board members were cited as
slightly less significant than self-motivation. The second finding indicated that the
value of professional collaboration influenced school board members to participate in
the MIG training. School board members viewed the MIG program as an opportunity to
collaborate with other school board members and superintendents in a learning environ-
ment.
The responses for research question 2 led to two findings. The first finding was
that participants in school board training exhibited increased behaviors of effective
governance. These behaviors included an increased focus on student achievement
during school board meetings, consistent use of data to make informed decisions regard-
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 109
ing student achievement, and a more collaborative relationship with fellow school board
members. The second finding, clarity the of roles and responsibilities, highlighted the
MIG program’s capacity to increase behaviors of effective governance through defining
and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of school board members as distinct from
the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent.
In response to research question 3, there were two findings. The first finding
indicated that mandating the MIG could potentially positively impact school gover-
nance. Support from the findings from responses to research question 2 suggested that
mandating the MIG would comprehensively increase the effectiveness of school board
governance. The second finding indicated that due to the MIG program’s current
accessibility, mandating the MIG would have a negative financial impact. The financial
impact of the mandate could potentially have an unintended and adverse political
impact on school governance.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 110
Chapter 5
Discussion
Accountability for increased student academic success is at an all-time high. All
sectors and role players of the public education system are being highly scrutinized for
effectiveness to prepare students with the fundamental educational skills (Brenner et al.,
2002; Webster-Wright, 2009). As politicians and other public school stakeholders seek
to address these societal concern, legislation, compulsory education acts, and district
mandates are the accountability measures being implemented to ensure that educators
are knowledgeable, competent, and exhibit the behaviors of effective school gover-
nance. Traditionally, educational reform has been aimed at teachers and site administra-
tors and has failed to address the members of the public schools’ governing. The article
by Danzberger et al. (1987) suggests that in order to ensure the success of school dis-
tricts and its students, it is essential to increase the focus of accountability and profes-
sional development for public school governance team.
Still fashioned after the school board of the 1800s, requirements to become a
school board member are grossly inadequate for effective school governance. In other
words, current membership requirements allow for school boards to be comprised of
unqualified members who are unaware of their roles as a board, behaviors, and appro-
priate goals for effective school governance. The purpose of this study was to deter-
mine whether school board member training, particularly CSBA’s MIG program,
impacted school board members’ ability to adhere to best practices for effective gover-
nance. Survey data were collected from 86 school board members and 61 school
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 111
superintendents, and interview data were collected from two school board members and
two school superintendents. The results of the qualitative study sought to answer the
following research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
The research methodology was comprised of a several different elements. Pur-
poseful sampling, as defined by Patton (2002), was used to identify the participants of
this qualitative research. The theoretical framework described in Chapter 2, was used to
guide the survey questions. Following the survey, two board members and two superin-
tendent pairs were chosen to participate in interviews.
Summary of Findings
In response to the research questions, six significant findings emerged from this
study. The first finding was that there is a culture that supports and encourages school
board members to attend or complete a school board training program. This culture that
is manifested in many ways was the impetus or influential factor impacting the school
board members’ decision to attend or complete the MIG training. The second finding,
professional collaboration, was also an significant factor that influenced school board
members’ decision to attend or complete MIG training. Board members and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 112
superintendents highlighted the value in working with board members and superinten-
dents from other school districts. Third, increased collaboration and the aligning of
goals and values emphasized the MIG program’s capacity to equip board members to
exhibit behaviors of effective governance. Fourth, board members exhibited the behav-
iors of effective governance through defining of roles and decreased micromanagement
of the superintendent. Fifth, comprehensive increase of school board effectiveness was
indicated as a potential impact of mandating the MIG training on board governance.
Finally, the MIG program’s accessibility time scheduling, training location, and direct
and indirect monetary cost were highlighted as ways that mandating the MIG training
program could negatively impact school board governance.
The first finding, culture, was identified as a factor that positively influenced
school board members to attend or complete the MIG school board training. Defined as
a set of beliefs, values, practices, culture was manifested in the results as self-
motivation, encouragement from other school board members, and school board expec-
tation. This finding indicated that the most influential factor impacting school board
members’ decision to attend or complete the MIG training was school board culture.
This finding demonstrates that school districts that exhibit behaviors of effective gover-
nance seek out, participate in, and value training that will aid school board members in
building the capacity to be successful board members. Chapter 2, the review of the
literature, highlighted the difference between effective districts (“moving” districts) and
ineffective districts (“stuck” districts). The fundamental difference between effective
and ineffective school boards is that board members of effective school districts
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 113
expressed a shared culture of sustained improvements through communication and
learning.
The second finding, professional collaboration, was described by the interview-
ees as an opportunity to learn from the superintendent, board members from other
districts, and relationship building with the superintendent as an influential factor in
school board members’ decision to attend or complete school board member training.
This finding was relevant to the study as it highlighted the need for research-based
school board training programs that intentionally design activities for participants to
work and learn from one another. The literature review emphasized the relevance of
professional collaboration. Effective school districts were cited as being aware and
using specific communication and team-building strategies to encourage improved
communication and overall effective governance.
The third finding, collaboration and aligning of goals, highlighted an increase in
school board members exhibiting behaviors of effective governance. The Lighthouse
Inquiry, CSBA, and literature review all suggested that effective school boards exhibit
particular behaviors of governance. Research suggests that effective school board
members are informed and knowledgeable regarding legislative procedures, fiscal
budgets, and effective communication skills and exhibit behaviors of effective gover-
nance Bell and Kozlowski’s (2010). Bolman and Deal (2003, 2008) described effective
leadership under the political framework approach as being adept at setting agendas,
mapping the political terrain, networking, relationships, and negotiation while success-
fully using a moral compass to navigate through ethically ambiguous issues. This
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 114
description is relevant to the present study in that the MIG program does equip school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance.
The fourth finding, defining of roles and responsibility, highlighted the capacity
of MIG training to equip school board members to define the elements of effective gov-
ernance. The research team’s observation data supported the finding that school board
members participating in the MIG training were equipped and encouraged to exhibit the
behavior of the effective governance. This finding was relevant to the present study
because misinterpretation of respective roles of superintendents and school board
members and different understandings among the governance board regarding who
should direct and control decision making have been cited as contributing factors to
board conflicts and characteristics of ineffective board governance (Tallerico, 1989).
The fifth finding, increased board effectiveness, revealed that mandating the
MIG could have a significant positive impact on school governance. This research
indicated that the MIG program plays a significant role in increased effective gover-
nance of its participants. The relationship between MIG training and an increase in
school board member effectiveness underscores the relevance of this finding to the
research. The need for board member training was articulated in the literature review
as essential to meet today’s challenges and to govern effectively (McAdams, 2003;
Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
The sixth finding, access, demonstrated concerns regarding the impact of MIG
training accessibility on school governance. The research findings indicated that the
MIG program access, direct and indirect costs, training location, and time conflicts may
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 115
negatively impact school governance if the MIG training was mandated. The survey
and interview data highlighted these concerns. While interviewed participants were in
support of mandating the MIG, there were definite concerns about the cost of the train-
ing, location of the training, and how the time commitments impacted their personal
lives. These data led this researcher to believe that mandating the MIG would incite
political pushback but would have a positive impact on school governance. The need
for further research into the fiscal impact of mandated training on school board mem-
bers substantiates the relevance of the finding to this study.
Limitations
The study participants and the research team largely dictated the major limita-
tions of this study:
1. Only school board members who had completed all nine modules of the
MIG program were asked to participate in the study.
2. The data represented less than half of the surveyed population.
3. School board training was limited to CSBA’s MIG program.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study have several implications for school board members,
superintendents, and the CSBA in the area of supporting effective school governance.
Based on the fourth finding of the study, the first implication is that school board mem-
bers should participate in the MIG training and seek to clearly understand their primary
role as school board members. The findings of the research indicated a positive rela-
tionship between MIG training and board members understanding their roles and
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 116
responsibilities. L. D. Fusarelli et al. (2011) and Grissom (2010) cited undefined board
members’ roles as a primary source of conflict in school governance. Dahlkemper
(2005) asserted that professional development and continuous training are an indispens-
able part of 21st-century educational reform, because the responsibility to ensure that
each member of the educational system is qualified and prepared to fulfill the responsi-
bilities of his or her position is essential to the overall success of the district and its
students.
Second is the need for the superintendent to attend MIG training with school
board members. This implication is based on the second finding. The research high-
lighted the value that board members and superintendents found in learning together.
Board members indicated that their professional relationships were supported and
strengthened through professional collaborating or “bonding time.” In agreement,
Petersen and Short (2001) articulated the need for a collaborative board–superintendent
relationship. Petersen and Short noted that a collaborative relationship and effective
interpersonal skills that lend clarity to roles is critical to building these relationships.
Thomas (2001) suggested that a superintendent’s relationship with the school board is
the single most significant factor with respect to the board’s ability to effectively govern
the district.
Last is the implication that school board governance teams and superintendents
set the culture of expectation that board members participate in MIG training to build
the capacity of effective governance. This implication is based on the first finding. The
research data indicated that the impetus for school board members to seek out MIG
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 117
training was culture. Culture was described as self-motivation, school board expecta-
tion, and other board member encouragement. Studies by the IASB (2000) and Waters
and Marzano (2006) indicated characteristics of effective school governance cultures.
Effective school cultures encourage collaborative goal setting and a shared understand-
ing that staff development is necessary to produce change and that the efforts and objec-
tives of school board members and superintendents must be aligned when defining roles
and setting a positive direction for the district. Through the development of cultures
that encourage school board members to attend or complete school board member
training, school districts will experience an increase in effective school governance.
Recommendations for Future Research
With consideration given to the limitations of the study, the findings signifi-
cantly contribute to the literature on the impact of professional development on effec-
tive school board governance. Although the this research presents compelling results
that suggest that CSBA’s MIG school board training is effective, there are aspects
within the study that should be the focus of future research. Although the research sug-
gested the mandating the MIG training would comprehensively increase effective
school governance, future research should explore the potential structure of the MIG
that expands its access. These potential structures include an online component of the
MIG and the impact on the effectiveness of the MIG and financial funding for MIG.
The findings of the study suggest that school board members are reluctant to attend
MIG training because of its limited access. An online component of the MIG was
suggested during the interviews. However, professional collaboration was cited as a
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 118
valuable benefit of the MIG. Further research should seek to explore the impact of an
online component of the MIG training on the MIG training overall effectiveness.
Secondly, the impact of mandating the MIG program for school board gover-
nance was also explored throughout this study. Data from this study suggested that the
direct and indirect costs of attending MIG training was an influential factor on school
board members’ decision to attend the program. Further research should seek to
explore the finical impact of such a mandate on school boards and school board mem-
bers.
Finally, in alignment with the second focus for further research, another area for
further research should be an enforcement of mandates. Traditionally, state and federal
mandates have been incentivized with federal funding. If the mandates are supported by
federal funding, further research should seek to explore enforcement strategies that
encourage school board members to adhere to the mandate.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the study supports the literature review presented in Chapter 2 in
asserting that school board members who engage in continuous professional develop-
ment exhibit characteristics of effective school governance (Dahlkemper, 2005;
McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). To that end, the findings of this study
strongly indicated that school board members who participate in and complete the MIG
program exhibit characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the research indi-
cated that the chief impetus for school board members attending or completing the MIG
training was school board culture. Because of the findings of this study, particularly the
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 119
positive relationship between the MIG program and school board members exhibiting
behaviors of effective governance, stakeholders and public school policymakers should
explore implementing policies that support mandating school board training.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 120
References
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The condition
of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2010). Work teams. Retrieved from http://
digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/434
Berry, C. R., & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking
retrospective voting. Journal of Politics, 69, 884–858.
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast , 1(3),
1–4. Retrieved from http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/
forecast1003.pdf
BoardSource. (2005). The source: Twelve principles of governance that power excep-
tional boards. Washington, DC: Author.
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 901–910.
Bracey, G. W., & Resnick, M. A. (1998). Raising the bar: A school board primer on
student achievement. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 121
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. El Paso: Univer-
sity of Texas, Paso, Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
California Department of Education. (2003). California’s Public Schools Accountability
Act (PSAA): Evaluation, findings and implications. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (2012). 2011–12 Academic Performance Index
reports: Information Guide. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
documents/infoguide12.pdf
California School Boards Association. (2005). CSBA effective governance system
(Revision 8). Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/
GovernanceServices/MastersInGovernance/~/media/C5F8D3951BE94B43B444BF
5876A7CEF4.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership. West Sacra-
mento, CA: Author.
California School Board Association. (2010). Education issues brief (2010–11 edition).
Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/media/
AC5BF2C5672340BB9482C3221C645FC9.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2012). CSBA leadership development 2012
[Brochure]. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in
the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391–395.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 122
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2). Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/
sedl-letter/v17n02/school-board.html
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring
local school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 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, 53–59.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy
for education—the right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33), 1-55.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Pub. L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20
U.S.C., chp. 70.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Fusarelli, B. C. (2006). School board and superintendents relations: Issues of continuity,
conflict, and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44–57.
Fusarelli, L. D., Kowalski, T. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2011). Distributive leadership, civic
engagement, and deliberative democracy as vehicles for school improvement.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 43–62.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 123
Gemberling, , K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school
boards guidebook. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. New York, NY: Center for Applied Re-
search in Education.
Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public
organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administra-
tion Research and Theory, 20, 601–627.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. Urban
Education, n.v., 17–19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and
challenges of district governance. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Asso-
ciation.
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board
governance: Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22, 683–700.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000, April). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School
boards/ superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences
in student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.
Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2005). Local school board, politics, and the community. In
M. W. Kirst, & F. M. Wirt (Eds.), The political dynamics of American education
(pp. 133–220). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 124
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in
relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72,
229–278.
Land, D., & Stringfield, S. C. (2005). Educational governance reforms: The uncertain
role of local school boards in the United States. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A.
Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone, International handbook of educational
policy (pp. 260–280). New York, NY: Kluwer.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Marino, J. (2011). A study of school boards and their implementation of continuous
improvement practices. Journal for Quality and Participation, 34(2), 27–30.
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7–
9.
McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal educa-
tion policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
National School Boards Association. (2010). Mandated training for local school board
members survey. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2012). Mandated training for school board
members. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 125
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the
district superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 533–570.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional develop-
ment and effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational
Management, 25, 701–713.
Schedler, A., Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.). (1999). The self-restraining state:
Power and accountability in new democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Tallerico, M. (1989). The dynamics of superintendent–school board relationships: A
continuing challenge. Urban Education, 24, 215–232.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century:
The quest to define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
& Howard University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk.
Timar, T. B. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California.
Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 177–200.
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 126
Wall, J. A., & Roberts-Callister. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of
Management, 21, 515–558.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). Retrieved
from http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/leadershiporganizationdevelopment/
4005RR_Superintendent_leadership.pdf
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understand-
ing authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 702–739.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd
ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 127
Appendix A
Superintendent Survey Questions
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 128
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 129
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 130
Appendix B
School Board Member Survey Questions
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 131
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 132
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 133
Appendix C
Interview Questions
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members/superintendent to
complete a school board training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members/superintendent to
exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
3. Should school board training be a California mandate? Why or why not?
4. What was the most beneficial aspect of MIG training?
5. How could the MIG be improved upon?
6. Would you recommend the MIG to fellow board members/superintendents?
7. Have you recommended the MIG to other board members/superintendents?
8. What was their response?
9. Has the MIG training impacted your decision-making and governance practices?
10. Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
11. Has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district? If so, please
explain.
12. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative
process (teamwork) in your district?
13. What indicators, if any, were observed to measure the increments of change that the
MIG had on school board governance?
14. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members/
superintendents?
15. What would it take to make all school board members/superintendents want to be
trained?
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 134
Appendix D
Superintendent Recruitment Letter
Date ____________________
Dear__________________________,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact the
Masters in Governance training has on the ability of school board members to exhibit characteristics
associated with effective board governance. This study may serve as a source for best practices for super-
intendents who strive to strengthen the effective governance of their board members through training
designed to further support their understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
My name is ___________________________, and I am part of a thematic research team under the direc-
tion and guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. Your district has been identified as a successful district in which at least one board
member has completed the Masters in Governance training offered by the California School Boards
Association. Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the superintendent survey and
return it in the self- addressed stamped envelope. We would also appreciate your assistance in facilitating
the process of your board members in completing the survey. A copy of the school board survey is
enclosed for your review.
Your participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Informa-
tion obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance,
for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Issaic Gates Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (818) 802-4769
I have read this recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent
to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 135
Appendix E
School Board Member Recruitment Letter
Date ____________________
Dear_______________________________,
I would like to congratulate your school district for being identified as a successful district in which at
least one board member has completed the Masters in Governance training program offered by the
California School Boards Association. My name is __________________, and I am a doctoral student
from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California conducting a research study
under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact the
Masters in Governance training has on the ability of school board members to exhibit characteristics
associated with effective board governance. It is my hope that this study will serve as a resource of best
practices for school board members who strive to govern effectively. Thank you, in advance, for taking
the time out of your busy schedule to review and complete the information enclosed in this packet.
Your participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Informa-
tion obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance,
for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Issaic Gates Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (818) 802-4769
I have read this recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent
to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 136
Appendix F
MIG Observation Tool
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 137
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 138
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 139
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 140
Appendix G
Information Letter for School Board Recruitment
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 six 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 com-
pletely voluntary. It is recommended that you read the information below prior to
consenting to participate in this study.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association
(CSBA)-Masters In Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to
best practices for effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands
of accountability, and advancements in technology, school board members need to
understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an effective district environ-
ment. 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 conve-
nient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 141
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.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participa-
tion may add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG
training on effective 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 par-
ticipation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and
confidentiality. 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 investiga-
tor’s office and a password protected computer.
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
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of re-
search 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
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE 142
research subject, contact the University 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
Issaic Gates at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at
mescalan@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study applied 3 theoretical frameworks--Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal's four frames, the Lighthouse Inquiry of the Iowa Association of School Boards, and effective governance characteristics--to examine the impact of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by the California School Boards Association on the ability of school board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. This inaugural investigation of the MIG training program included interviews of 2 MIG-trained board members and their corresponding superintendents utilizing qualitative methodology. The resulting data were then triangulated against MIG training observations and survey data collected from 86 MIG trained board members and 61 superintendents to answer the following 3 research questions regarding (a) factors impacting the decision of school board members to complete a school board training program, (b) whether and how MIG training encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and (c) in what ways mandating the MIG training could impact school board governance. ❧ The findings suggested that the MIG equips board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance by fostering board collaboration and hastening the understanding of various roles and responsibilities of school board trustees. This study should add to the scholarly body of work by expanding current school board research to include a comprehensive analysis of the ability of the MIG to impact effective governance practices of school board members in California and examining the case for potential mandates in the future.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership
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 governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
The significant correlation between school board member training and effective school governance
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gates, Issaic
(author)
Core Title
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/29/2013
Defense Date
02/22/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
California School Boards Association,effective school governance,mandating training,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board leadership,school board training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Livingston, Cynthia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
issaicgates@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-228918
Unique identifier
UC11294539
Identifier
usctheses-c3-228918 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GatesIssai-1496.pdf
Dmrecord
228918
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gates, Issaic
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
California School Boards Association
effective school governance
mandating training
Masters in governance
school board leadership
school board training