University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership

(USC Thesis Other)

Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 1
EFFECTS OF MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE TRAINING AND
SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP
by
Rocky Murray
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 Rocky Murray
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 2
Dedication
I have the best people in my life. I am blessed with unconditional love from
family and friends. This dissertation was made possible by a number of people. First
and foremost, I need to dedicate this to my beautiful wife Krista. She is my rock.
There were many days when she had to take the children out on weekends so that I
could write. All those times when I would scream in frustration were okay because I
knew that I had her undivided support. She has supported me through the entire process
and have never wavered in her commitment to our family. She always puts everyone
before herself and did that for me through this process. Now it is time that I pay her
back!
This dissertation is also dedicated to my amazing children, daughter Peyton and
son Kade. I could not be prouder of my two children, and they are the reason I did this.
It has been incredibly powerful to attend school while they attended school as well.
They are too young now, but they will soon learn that education is the great equalizer
and that through education, anything and everything is possible. I want them to achieve
their dreams.
I also need to dedicate this dream to my awesome parents, Dave and Janeane
Murray. Both have supported me completely for 40 years. They are unbelievable
parents, grandparents, and friends. They provide strength when I need it and keep me
balanced. They are incredibly strong, smart, compassionate, and caring people. They
instilled a work ethic in me at an early age, and I will keep that work ethic for my entire
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 3
life. I feel that this is the greatest attribute that a parent can give a child, and I thank
them for it. I am proud to call them my parents.
This work is also dedicated to my sister Dondee and her family and also to the
Beightol family. Clearly they all mean a lot to us, and we cherish them as our family.
They are all strong, supportive, and committed. They have shown that education and
learning are so very important in what we do and how we raise our children. Family is
everything.
Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to my father-in-law, Don Beightol and
deceased mother-in-law, Jan Beightol. Don has more confidence in me than I have in
myself. It feels really good to know that he believes in me so strongly, and I appreciate
everything that he has done for me. I hope that I can be as great as he thinks I am. Jan
had incredible wit, humor, strength, and courage, all of which are qualities that I want to
pass on to my own children. We miss her.
I am extremely fortunate. I have a great support system, and I need each and
every one of the family members who have helped me. This work is dedicated to them,
and I thank and love them.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 4
Acknowledgments
I am not sure that there is ever a perfect time to make the commitment of going
back to school to get a doctorate because no matter how you cut it, a 3-year commitment
is a huge decision. For years I talked about earning my doctorate, but the timing never
felt right. My wife Krista and I had numerous conversations before we finally made the
decision. One of the key factors that we discussed was that if I was going to get a doc-
torate, it was going to be at the most reputable school I could find, and that was the
University of Southern California (USC).
It was really late when I applied to USC; therefore, I was not sure that I would
even be accepted. There were anxious days between mailing the application and receiv-
ing acceptance. To this day I recall getting the mail, opening it, reading it, and laying
down on the couch with a big sigh of relief. Admittedly, the only time I had set foot on
campus prior to attending orientation was some 16 years earlier when we played USC in
baseball. Safe to say, making this decision was a leap of faith, but it was one of the best
decisions of my life.
USC is an incredible academic institution. The professors, staff, and students
are simply the best. The first time I heard, “Welcome to the family,” I was intrigued.
Three years later, I have come full circle to truly understand what it means to be a part
of the Trojan family. On the first night of academic classes, I met Dr. Michael Esca-
lante, whose class was on leadership. I can honestly say that from the first 10 minutes
that I was in his class, I knew that I had made the right decision. Dr. Escalante has been
a tremendous inspiration. He has been a resource as well as a sensational mentor for me
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 5
as I progress in my career. Without a doubt, I would not be in the position that I am
today without his guidance. He is a true teacher, mentor, and ultimately friend. Having
the opportunity to take his class is reason alone enough to attend USC. He is a great
representative for USC and an ambassador for education.
Another great contact I have made at USC is Dr. Pedro Garcia. Like Dr. Esca-
lante, Dr. Garcia has been an invaluable resource with regard to my career and how to
be an educator. I have not met a more caring professor in my life. I remember like
yesterday our first orientation meeting at USC where we had the opportunity to meet the
professors, and in that meeting Dr. Garcia informed us anxious students that we would
be the same people when we finished our degree; however, we would ultimately be
changed by the people we met and the things we read. That statement rings true to this
day, as meeting him has truly changed my life. His other famous quote, that “the object
of the exercise is to do the exercise,” will stick with me forever. I cannot say enough
about his character and the leadership that he has provided.
I also need to acknowledge and thank Dr. Cynthia Livingston. Her feedback has
been helpful, and I sincerely appreciate the time she spent helping us get through this
journey.
I am so fortunate that I made the decision to enroll at USC when I did. That
decision has put me in contact with a group of people whom I will consider lifelong
friends. Sergio, Vivian, Letitia, Becky, Mercedes, Issaic, Lena, KT, and Marco all made
up the team for Dr. Escalante. They are all incredible people and educators. Our
strength was in our diversity and various skill sets. They are all great at what they do
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 6
and, more importantly, great people—the kind of people our children deserve to have
leading their schools. I am honored to have worked with all of them and hope that I get
to work with them in the future. I truly enjoyed the time we spent together, and I am
most certainly going to miss it. Fight on!
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 7
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 4
List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
Abstract 12
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 13
Roles and Responsibilities of School Board Members 18
Governance 19
Leadership 20
Professional Development 21
Statement of the Problem 21
Purpose of the Study 22
Research Questions 22
Significance of the Study 22
Limitations 25
Delimitations 25
Assumptions 25
Definitions of Related Terms 26
Academic Performance Index 26
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 26
California High School Exit Exam(CAHSEE) 26
Effective Board Leadership 27
MIG Training 27
National School Boards Association (NSBA) 27
School Board 27
Superintendent 27
Organization of the Study 28
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 29
History 33
Responsibilities of a Board Member 38
Governance 40
Leadership 45
Professional Development 54
Theoretical Frameworks and Models 58
Four-Frame Model 59
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 8
CSBA Framework 63
The Lighthouse Inquiry 64
Conclusion 66
Chapter 3: Methodology 67
Research Design 67
Research Team 69
Sample and Population 71
Participants 72
Instrumentation 73
Superintendent Survey 74
Board Member Survey 75
Interview Questionnaires for Superintendents and Board Members 75
Interviews 66
MIG Observation 77
Data Collection 78
Data Analysis 78
Ethical Considerations 79
Summary 79
Chapter 4: Research Results 81
Participants 81
Interviewed Participants 82
Findings for Research Question 1 83
Results Summary for Research Question 1 87
Findings for Research Question 2 88
Results Summary for Research Question 2 99
Findings for Research Question 3 100
Results Summary for Research Question 3 103
Summary 104
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 106
Summary of Findings 107
Research Question 1 108
Research Question 2 110
Research Question 3 111
Implications for Practice 112
Recommendations 113
References 117
Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey Questions 123
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 9
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey Questions 126
Appendix C: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 129
Appendix D: School Board Member Recruitment Letter 130
Appendix E: Information Letter for School Board Recruitment 131
Appendix F: Interview Questions 134
Appendix G: MIG Observation Protocol 135
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Invited Participants and Those Who Actually
Participated 82
Table 2: Participants’ Responses Regarding Strengthening the Case for
School Board Training 85
Table 3: Key Observations by School Board Members Regarding the
Masters in Governance Modules 88
Table 4: Participants’ Responses Regarding Positive Results of MIG Training 91
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 11
List of Figures
Figure 1: Four-frame model of organizations 60
Figure 2: Phases of Lighthouse Inquiry and research questions 65
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 12
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine how the California School Board Associa-
tion’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program leads to more effective
school board leadership and governance. This study employed the framework of
authors Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal, the CSBA, and the Iowa Lighthouse Inquiry.
The participants in the study were superintendents and school board members from the
following southern California counties: Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego. The research design involved a review of litera-
ture, surveys, interviews, and observations. The data collection entailed survey collec-
tion and follow-up interviews with board members and superintendents. This study
sought to understand the factors that impacted the decision of school board members to
complete a school board training program. The study also focused on how the MIG
training program equipped board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective gover-
nance and, finally, how a mandate for school board training could impact school board
governance. The findings indicated that a school board training mandate would lead to
more effective school board leadership and governance. The implications are that
school board practice can be improved through training and that board members should
seek training. The benefits of training are substantial with regard to school board
governance and leadership.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 13
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
School boards are the governing bodies that oversee school districts and, in that
role, face a multitude of challenges as they work to provide effective governance (Land,
2002). Traditionally they have faced problems such as allocating financial resources,
and the ability to attract and retain talented staff members (Land, 2002). Today they
face new challenges that entail issues like state and federal interference, lack of confi-
dence in the eyes of the public, and a more diverse student population than in the past
(Land, 2002). In addition to the previously mentioned issues, research indicates that
school boards garner widespread criticism due to their inability to work as a cohesive
unit or maintain a collaborative relationship with their superintendents (Land, 2002).
Further research also shows that the relationships between board members and superin-
tendents are described as challenging and filled with controversy; however, it is difficult
for researchers to provide a cause (Mountford, 2004). Some research points to commu-
nication as one of the main reasons that boards and superintendents work effectively or
work disjointedly. When the board and superintendent are not able to communicate
effectively, major problems can pervade a school district (Thomas, 2001). As emphasis
has been placed on the need for effective board leadership, interest has been focused on
the need for the board to have a strong working relationship with the superintendent
(Thomas, 2001).
School boards members work in a highly visible world of accountability and are
often blamed when things go wrong in a district, but not acknowledged when things go
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 14
well (Mountford, 2004). Many board members enter the position with little to no back-
ground on education (Dahlkemper, 2005). Many do not have adequate training to
provide expertise in all of the areas in which they find themselves navigating (Dahl-
kemper, 2005). Students are entering American schools with more challenges and
problems than in the past, and board members may not have the necessary skills or tools
to handle all of the issues (Dahlkemper, 2005). A standards- and assessment-based
movement in the 1990s known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has placed a major
emphasis on school improvement (Dahlkemper, 2005). A demand for better achieve-
ment has changed the landscape for education and for board members. National atten-
tion lies with school improvement (Dahlkemper, 2005).
Board members are challenged with a tremendous learning curve (Dahlkemper,
2005). The challenges for new board members are often greater than they are for expe-
rienced ones, but regardless, both experience extremely complex issues with policy and
also with fellow board members (Dahlkemper, 2005). One way that board members can
prepare themselves for all of the challenges is through board training. Many states have
acknowledged the rigors of the position and are mandating school board training.
While California board members do have access to training through the California
School Boards Association (CSBA; 2007b) and its Masters in Governance (MIG)
program, it is not a state mandate.
As discussed, the relationship between the superintendent and the school board
is significant with regard to overall district success (Thomas, 2001). When boards and
the superintendent are able to work in a united fashion, they are more effective
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 15
(Devarics & O’Brien, 2011). The relationship between the superintendent and the
school board may be the most powerful component of an effective school district
(Allison, Allison, & McHenry, 1995; Carpenter, 1987; Deem, Brehone, & Heath, 1995;
Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998; Goldhammer, 1964). There are many factors that lead to that
connectedness between the board and the superintendent, and research indicates trust as
the single most important characteristic of a sound and effective relationship (Allison et
al., 1995; Carpenter, 1987; Deem et al., 1995; Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998; Goldhammer,
1964). “Empirical findings suggest that a relational dynamic of the superintendent and
board president based on respect and trust is essential for effective school governance”
(Petersen & Short, 2001, p. 538). The CSBA offers training modules for boards and
their superintendents; and while it is not a mandate, all of the aforementioned research
indicates that this relationship, along with an understanding of all their duties, is essen-
tial for school board members.
One way to establish a defined working environment filled with a collaborative,
rich culture is to have clearly defined roles for the board and the superintendent (Danz-
berger et al., 1987). Research shows that boards in high-achieving districts demonstrate
a number of additional characteristics and qualities. They are able to lead the school
district with regard to setting the vision and committing to high expectations for student
achievement (Devarics & O’Brien, 2011). They demonstrate strongly shared beliefs
and values about what is possible for students and their ability to learn. They believe in
accountability and focus on specific issues to improve achievement. They are able to
collaborate and communicate effectively. Data are instrumental in the decision-making
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 16
process. These boards also align resources in a way that allows they them to maintain
high standards, even when facing budget cuts. There is also a commitment to team
development and training to build shared knowledge, values, and commitments for
improvement efforts (Devarics & O’Brien, 2011).
The federal mandate of NCLB has increased accountability for those involved in
public education (McAdams, 2003). School board members work in a world of ac-
countability where an understanding of their roles and responsibilities is one great step
towards becoming an effective board member. Research indicates that boards must
improve their knowledge of best practices and also governance (McAdams, 2003). Re-
search also shows that unless boards learn these concepts, school districts will not
improve (McAdams, 2003). This new level of accountability has made training for
board members essential (Roberts & Sampson, 2010). California board members can
learn these very concepts through the MIG program. California school board members
can receive excellent professional development that is aligned with the rigors of school
board membership and leadership (CSBA, 2007b). In addition, boards and their super-
intendents can participate in MIG together so that they can maintain a positive working
environment (CSBA, 2012).
Making the decision to run for a school board entails a commitment to a children
and communities alike. Regardless of the individual intent on running for a board,
board members face multiple challenges related to school district leadership. The daily
rigors include understanding curriculum and curriculum providers, food service, facili-
ties, and also instruction. Moreover, they have to understand new accountability
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 17
measures, multimillion-dollar operations, and large-scale operations. While many
commit to training, others will not. Research shows that training for teachers and ad-
ministrators is extremely important and so, too, should training be for board members
(Bianchi, 2003).
In summary, school boards have deep roots in this country and have transformed
from management teams to units facing accountability in extremely diminished budget-
ary times. School boards can be found in small, rural areas and big cities alike. Inter-
estingly, research indicates that they are understudied when it comes to providing
leadership. In the beginning, their role was that of management, but over time that role
has changed. Today boards are responsible for achievement; and as the achievement
gap grows, more scrutiny is placed on school board members. The federal NCLB Act
has increased the level of accountability for board members (Hopkins, O’Neil, & Wil-
liams, 2007).
Public interest has grown with regard to school boards and how they govern
school districts while providing leadership (Hess, 2002). Relevant literature will ex-
pand on the duties of board members and the roles that they play in providing effective
district leadership while demonstrating and instilling effective governance. Due to all
of the areas in which board members operate, training and professional development is
one way to increase their ability to become or remain effective (Bianchi, 2003). Due to
the nature of being a school board member, research shows that less and less people are
willing to run for local school boards (Bianchi, 2003). This study will further explore
the problems with school boards and eventually provide suggestions for board members
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 18
as they strive to lead districts effectively. The rest of this chapter will be divided into
specific areas that apply to board members and the problem areas of their work.
Roles and Responsibilities of School Board Members
One area that has been shown to hamper the relationship between the school
board and the superintendent is that of role definition (Petersen & Short, 2001). There
are a number of factors regarding this issue which indicate that this is a critical point to
effective school districts because research has also shown that a poor relationship
between the superintendent and the board will be detrimental to school programs (Peter-
sen & Short, 2001). A lack of role definition will also contribute to a lack of school
improvement (Danzberger, Kirst, & Usdan, 1992). It can also weaken the stability of
the school district in conjunction with decreasing morale (Renchler, 1992). Ambiguous
roles also reduce the collaborative nature of a district; unclear roles also reduce the
vision and long-term planning of a district (Kowalski, 1999). Finally, undefined roles
erode the effectiveness of a district (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2000). All of these
factors ultimately contribute to a “revolving door syndrome” in which effective leaders
continually lead the district (Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Renchler, 1992).
When analyzing the responsibilities of being a board member, even those famil-
iar with public education can become faint of heart. Board members simply have many
areas in which they are supposed to be prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue and
expertise and ultimately provide leadership (Ziebarth, 2002). This is why the relation-
ship with the superintendent is so important. They need to understand what they are
supposed to do in comparison to what the superintendent will do (Ziebarth, 2002). The
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 19
relationship between the superintendent and the board members is central for school
districts. Both are singularly leaders but jointly have to work together to ensure overall
district effectiveness. This is especially important to understand because in most cases,
superintendents cannot choose their board members and therefore have to find a way to
work with them. When the partnership between the superintendent and board suffers,
students suffer. Also, long-term goals are more difficult to establish, and the achieve-
ment of student outcomes is more challenging (Norton, Webb, Dlugosh, & Sybouts,
1996).
Governance
With regard to governance, school boards are charged with the task of aligning
efforts to ensure that their districts are leading the way to student learning and achieve-
ment for every student (CSBA, 2007b). The focus should be on learning. A commit-
ment to learning should be at the apex of decision making for school boards. Research
has shown that the most difficult and greatest challenge for a board is ensuring that
every student has an opportunity to learn (Hess, 2002). Research indicates that gover-
nance is a major factor in district effectiveness, but there is a deficiency with respect to
the depth of research on the topic (Hess, 2002). The fact that there is limited research
on governance makes this topic even more important for the study presented here. Gov-
ernance is important for school districts as they strive to improve their professional
practice. In a study presented by Togneri and Anderson (2003), the researchers found
that some effective school districts participated collaboratively in training to improve
their process. Further research highlighted the point that those districts that practiced
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 20
effective governance were able to focus on district practices and avoided microman-
agement (Snipes, Doolittle, & Herlihy, 2002). In the following chapters, relevant
research will be presented to demonstrate how ineffective governance has lead to
problems for school boards and how it can be treated.
Leadership
Research shows that effective leaders are able to establish strong communication
with stakeholders (Waters & Marzano, 2006). The authors also indicated there is a
correlation between effective school leadership and student achievement. While board
members are not typically at school sites other than visits, they are decision makers for
school districts. The research further suggests that leaders can present as effective;
however, if they fail in making the right choices to enhance school improvement, they
will diminish achievement. The decisions they make affect staff and students and
therefore provide and set direction for districts (Waters & Marzano, 2006). What they
do matters whole-heartedly for school districts, and the decisions they make affect
people. A lack of leadership from a school board can present a tremendous obstacle for
a school district. Due to the importance of board leadership, a review of current and
relevant research will be presented to demonstrate how a lack of leadership can cause a
monumental problem for school districts that could ultimately lead to a call for board
member training. Leadership falls in line with effective goal setting as well as setting
the vision for a school district, which are components of the MIG program.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 21
Professional Development
The CSBA is a significant resource for both new and existing school board
members. Through the CSBA, board members have an opportunity to participate in the
MIG program. MIG provides board members and others with a program that pertains to
student learning and achievement. Attendees are also given relevant information re-
garding current trends and issues in the public education system. Ultimately it provides
board members with the foundation for an effective governance system. The MIG will
be discussed in more detail in following chapters. Research will also be presented that
contributes to the calling for mandated board training, as board members square off
with so many challenging aspects to their position (Bianchi, 2003).
Statement of the Problem
In the highly complex and rapidly changing world of public education, never
before has quality school board leadership been more necessary. With increased public
scrutiny, rising demands of accountability and advancements in technology, school
board members need to understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an
effective district environment. School board members must demonstrate professional-
ism and be knowledgeable enough to make informed policy decisions regarding student
achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Because the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing
school board professional growth are vital characteristics for success.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 22
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training impacted
the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective governance. This is ex-
tremely important, as new and existing board members strive to operate their school
districts with best practices. School board members face multiple layers of accountabil-
ity, and the MIG training offers modules that enhance their ability with regard to the
areas of governance.
Research Questions
The following research questions were investigated 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?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Three frameworks were chosen to assist in analyzing the research questions.
The questions were studied using the frameworks of Reframing Organizations (Bolman
& Deal, 2008), The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008; Iowa Association of
School Boards, 2001), and literature from the CSBA (2005, 2007b, 2011).
Significance of the Study
The work in this research study should be important to all of those associated
with education, as they strive to create better learning for all students. There is recent
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 23
research that shows that when school boards and superintendents are able to work in
unison, student achievement rises. There is also a correlation to the point that when
boards turn over, there is a negative impact on student achievement as well (Viadero,
2007). These last two statements are of the utmost importance as educators struggle
with an achievement gap. Research has demonstrated that students are coming to
school with more problems than in the past; therefore, if clear indicators have been
found to improve learning, it would be advisable to commit to them (Dahlkemper,
2005). Education professionals are looking for ways to improve education so all stu-
dents can benefit from a better experience. Improving governance and best practices is
one way to lead to better working relations for boards and superintendents, and in
California this is accessible through MIG training (CSBA, 2011).
Making the decision to run for the school board should be carefully considered
(Dahlkemper, 2005). While it is admirable to pursue a position with multiple layers of
accountability, constraints, and such great challenges, students need individuals ful-
filling these roles who are committed to the rigors with fidelity (Dahlkemper, 2005).
School board members have an obligation to students to ensure that each and every
student has access to learning opportunities that provide them with the best chance
possible to acquire skills necessary to be a successful student in the 21st century.
Board members work in a highly visible and political position with a goal of
providing learning for all students. Never before has the nation faced such daunting
challenges as students enter the classroom with more learning gaps than ever before in
American history. Today’s students have tremendous needs and challenges, and
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 24
providing leadership and direction as educators make the charge to close this gap is a
great obstacle (Dahlkemper, 2005). Board members are assigned the task of setting
course and direction for a school district and working with their superintendent. The
nuances of board membership will also be examined as the relationship with the super-
intendent may be the most critical aspect to a school district that is operating with
fidelity, governance, and overall best practices.
Providing leadership for a school district serving the needs of students is a
massive task. The commitment to serve is this role is welcomed. School districts
deserve informed people making key decisions that will impact the lives of staff and
students. With all of this stated, board members need to be prepared to fulfill this role
in order to be effective. To be prepared for the multiple duties that comprise school
board leadership, board members should consider training. It is not unreasonable to
expect school board members to participate in training and ongoing education, espe-
cially when considering that they are leading educational institutions (Dahlkemper,
2005). California does not mandate board training, and one of the themes of this study
is to determine whether, in fact, California should join other states that have already
created laws that mandate board training. The CSBA is committed to improving the
education that students are being offered and to providing a tool for the educational
leaders of the various districts to make them more informed and prepared for the chal-
lenges they face as board members.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 25
Limitations
There are limitations that applied to the study. The dissertation team selected
six southern California counties for analysis: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. The time frame was also a limitation in that the
study was brief. The study was also limited to the participants who responded to the
initial survey. The validity of the survey was limited to the responding participants and
the reliability of the survey questions and interviews.
Delimitations
There were delimitations to the study as well. The selected school districts were
limited from 2,000 to 50,000 average daily attendance (ADA). The dissertation team
elected to elicit response from those school districts that had one of their board mem-
bers CSBA trained. The research team created a specific criterion that the districts had
to adhere to in order to be considered for participation in the study. The criterion was
an API growth of 21 points over 3 years, or an Academic Performance Index (API) of
800 or higher. The district requirements included the following: elementary, secondary,
and unified school districts. The focus was also on board members who had partici-
pated in MIG training.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made about the study:
1. The MIG training modules will be beneficial for board members.
2. The training modules will improve board and superintendent relations.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 26
3. CSBA training will have a positive impact on California school board
members.
4. MIG training improves professional practice. Board members should com-
mit to MIG training. MIG will improve effectiveness of board members. The duties of
board members are extremely diverse and require preparedness.
5. The responses from superintendents and board members were valid.
6. The instruments were valid and reliable.
7. A qualitative approach was appropriate for the study.
Definitions of Related Terms
The following terms are utilized throughout the dissertation:
Academic Performance Index
“The cornerstone of California’s Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999;
measures the academic performance and growth of schools on a variety of academic
measures” (California Department of Education [CDE], 2012a, para. 1).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
A statewide accountability system mandated by the NCLB Act of 2001, which
requires each state to ensure that all schools and districts make AYP (California Depart-
ment of Education [CDE], 2012b).
California High School Exit Exam(CAHSEE)
A test required of all California high school students to pass in order to earn a
high school diploma. “Some students with disabilities do not have to pass this test”
(CDE, 2012c, para. 1).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 27
Effective Board Leadership
Defined as 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; Grissom, 2007; WestEd,
2001; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
MIG Training
Defined as nine separate modules of training provided by the CSBA (2007b)
aimed at school board members to provide the necessary knowledge and skills to sup-
port an effective governance structure.
National School Boards Association (NSBA)
Founded in 1940, NSBA represents its State Association members and their
more than 90,000 local school board members, virtually all of whom are elected.
These local officials govern 13,809 local school districts serving the nation’s 50
million public school students. (NSBA 2012a, What We Do section, para. 2)
School Board
Defined as a group of nonpartisan citizens who live within the corresponding
school district’s boundaries and who were elected to a school governing board by only
residents of that area to represent their interests (CSBA, 2007b).
Superintendent
Defined as the appointed chief executive officer (CEO) who has executive
oversight and charge over a school district with oversight by the school board (CSBA,
2007b).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 28
Organization of the Study
The study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 has provides an introduction
to and overview of the study. Also included in Chapter 1 were a statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the significance of the study,
and the definitions of key terms.
Chapter 2 provides an in-depth review of the literature as it relates to the roles
and responsibilities for a school board member. Also included in the review are the
multiples layers that entail the role of school board members and a review of the theo-
retical frameworks that serve as conceptual frameworks to the overall study.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology that will be used in the study and the re-
search design. Chapter 3 also details a rationale for the sample to be used, data collec-
tion techniques, a description of the instruments, and finally a description of the process
of data collection.
Chapter 4 presents the research findings from the data collection. Also included
in Chapter 4 is an analysis of the data with regard to each specific research question.
Chapter 5 presents and summarizes the findings of the overall study. Also
included are implications for future research.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 29
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
This chapter presents an in-depth review of the literature as it pertains to the
duties and qualities of being an effective school board member. The review also ex-
plores the effectiveness of school board training in the areas of board responsibility,
how school boards provide leadership for school districts, the roles and responsibilities
of individual board members and how they maintain cohesion in a highly scrutinized
forum, the governance process, and what kinds of training opportunities are readily
available for school board members to access. Finally, there is a review on how com-
munication, information, and technology have changed the way that board members
operate and remain current with trends that impact their jobs and decision making.
The purpose of this chapter is to study the ever-changing system in which board
members find themselves encompassed and how successful boards are able to lead
school districts from a position of oversight. The role of being a school board member
is multifaceted and rapidly changing, and board members have a tremendous amount of
responsibility to ensure that the needs of students are being met (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Educators are often encouraged to continue learning and expanding their knowl-
edge base in the form of professional development to combat the achievement gap that
so many face in the United States, and being a board member is no different (Campbell
& Green, 1994). Key questions arise as teachers work with struggling students on a
daily basis; therefore, it is critical to understand how board leadership is helping those
schools to create better learning for students. If those districts that are most effective
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 30
are being lead by strong school board direction, then that is a model that could be imple-
mented across the country to help school districts. The aim of this review of relevant
literature is to analyze key areas for school board leadership and overall district effec-
tiveness.
It is necessary to review the current literature regarding school board roles and
responsibilities and how they maintain professionalism in the eyes of the community.
Not all boards vote in a 5–0 or 7–0 fashion; thus, it is important to understand how split
boards can put aside differences and focus on achievement while they face the complex-
ities of school board leadership (Danzberger et al., 1987). According to research, board
members enter the position with the perspective of being the voice for their constituents,
in which case they need to represent that group in how they vote. This situation can
create issues for boards as they work to share responsibility (Allen & Mintrom, 2009).
An analysis of how they govern themselves to maintain a consummate professional
atmosphere for a school district will be described and reviewed.
Educators work in a world of accountability where their students are coming to
school with tremendous obstacles that inhibit their ability to learn (Hess, 2002). School
board members are tasked with providing learning opportunities for those very same
children (Hess, 2002). While individual school districts, schools, and even teachers
face these challenges, the school boards are the grassroots governing bodies that oversee
school districts (Danzberger et al., 1987). Superintendents and principals are asked to
provide the necessary tools and leadership to assist teachers, and the school board is the
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 31
agent of leadership and, when necessary, the change agent to ensure learning for all
children (McAdams, 2003).
In this chapter, the aspects and areas where school board expertise is most
needed will be reviewed as well as the responsibility that comes with the position, along
with the multiple roles that school board members play. School board membership is a
highly dynamic and political position that demands that board members be able to work
together to make informed decisions (Hopkins et al., 2007). Boards must also govern
themselves to ensure that they are working with fidelity with respect to the purpose of
the position and the stakeholders in the community. According to research provided by
Danzberger et al. (1987), it is also important for board members to understand the com-
plexities of the position prior to taking the seat of a board member. The authors also
highlighted the point that board members need to develop the necessary interpersonal
skills that assist them in becoming team players. While each member has a vote, it is
critical to understand that each member is just one vote and measures will not be en-
acted without a majority of the board voting in its favor. This again is where struggle
can occur, because individual board members either vote with a singular mission or as a
collective unit (Allen & Mintrom, 2009). When making these key decisions, board
members need to be current about key points and informed on multiple levels; they also
need to understand the big picture for school districts and help frame the direction for
education (Ziebarth, 2002). The responsibilities for being a board member are immense
and there is a steep trajectory for all that it entails (Dahlkemper, 2005).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 32
A review of the literature will also be presented on district effectiveness and
leadership. One of the most obvious ways to measure an effective school district is
through achievement and standardized test scores. School boards can be evaluated as
effective or ineffective based on the types of policies and programs that are created to
directly impact student achievement (Devarics & O’Brien, 2011). Simply stated,
effective boards must govern well and are reform leaders (McAdams, 2003).
As mentioned previously, in this nation there is an achievement gap, and Cali-
fornia is no different. California school board members need to be informed and under-
stand the multiple causes that may be contributing to the achievement gap and the most
current ideas on how to close it. They face accountability in the areas of finance and
should have a sound understanding of the budget that they are overseeing (CSBA,
2012). Board members are making votes and decisions regarding, in some cases,
budgets that entail hundreds of millions of dollars. Board members are not required to
have a background in finance—thus, the need for an understanding on where to seek out
or formulate central questions on their district’s budget so as to make informed deci-
sions.
Also included in the review of the literature will be how boards work in unison
to provide direction and expertise in the areas of professional development. Leadership
is a grand term to describe how effective boards operate and also the way in which a
school board acts and what it is supposed to provide. All of the aforementioned areas
affect how the leadership is identified and viewed in the eyes of the public.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 33
Board members are thrust into a highly visible and political climate making
critical decisions that affect children. School board members enter the job with various
skill sets that have some much more prepared than others for all of the challenges that
the position entails. An analysis of the current professional development opportunities
will be reviewed, focusing on concepts of training and if it is necessary for board mem-
bers. There will also be a look at current training opportunities and an analysis on
whether it should be mandatory for new and existing board members.
Finally, a review of three theoretical frameworks will be discussed and how
analyzing the presented issues can be understood and solved as a result of examining
them in framework models. The frameworks utilized are Reframing Organizations
(Bolman & Deal, 2008), MIG training (CSBA, 2011), and The Lighthouse Inquiry
(Delagardelle, 2008). The framework analysis will provide an understanding as to why
the issues are pervading education at a much deeper level of understanding.
In summary, sections that center on the duties of board members will comprise
and organize the review. While the sections are independent of one another, they essen-
tially comprise the duties of a school board member. These sections are as follows:
History, Responsibilities, Governance, Leadership, Professional Development, and a
discussion of theoretical frameworks.
History
In this section a brief background on the history of school boards will be pre-
sented. It is important to understand the history, as it will assist in demonstrating how
the responsibilities have changed. Making the decision to run for the school board is
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 34
not one to be taken lightly. School board members work in a highly visible forum with
a plethora of challenges. The history of school boards goes all the way back to Boston
in 1727, when local government authorities gave partial control of education back to the
citizens (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Even at that time, the town political figures were bogged
down with the dynamics and details of education that were created in 1642 (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). Nearly 100 years later, the state of Massachusetts ordered each town in the
state to create its own organization of governance that supervised the public education
of their children (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The townsfolk on the committee oversaw educa-
tion and were essentially the creation of school boards (NSBA, 2012b). As the years
have gone by, the central purpose for a board member has most likely not deviated
much from its inception. In its origination, one of the tasks for a board member was to
ensure that public values and policy was implemented in schools. As evidenced in
1727, the public had a voice for the vision and direction of education (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). The board is the acting agent of the community, and each community has its
own vision for the board. According to a project called The Lighthouse Inquiry, school
districts must be responsive to the community, and there is involvement from the com-
munity with the schools. That connection is important for improvement (Delagardelle,
2008). Each community or district has a board, and therefore autonomy on a local level.
According to Wirt and Kirst (2005), before the 1960s school boards mostly
mediated policy conflict rather than taking an active role in policy issues. At that time
boards left those issues to the professional staff. If the community did not show concern
on a given issue, research suggests that boards may have done nothing. The research of
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 35
Wirt and Kirst also suggests a “zone of tolerance” (p. 179) that boards demonstrated,
and in that zone the professionals were allowed to operate. Reformers looked at boards
as lacking leadership, and authority to instill the necessary changes to improve educa-
tion. In the 1990s a shift began, and boards were thrust into the spotlight and were
being looked at as part of the problem with education. By 2005, there were significant
changes to the concepts of board membership (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Many feel that the
role of school boards is being redefined due to changes at local, state, and national
levels (Viadero, 2007).
School boards were created to give communities and towns a sort of oversight
and power for the educational direction of a community. When they were created, the
position was considered low conflict and low profile (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). According
to research provided in the book, The Political Dynamics of American Education by
Wirt and Kirst (2005), that aspect has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. The
evolution continues to its current state of turmoil and change, which will also be re-
viewed later. In converse, going all the way back to 1927, there are statistical data that
indicate that the characteristics of boards have not has not really deviated with regard to
the type of person who serves on a school board. The general characteristics are upper-
middle class, with 45% coming from a professional or business background. Generally
speaking, 25% are homemakers or are retired (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Further data from
the U.S. Census indicated that Whites make up 61% of the adult population in Cali-
fornia but hold 77% of the current school board positions (Grissom, 2007).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 36
Through the inception of school boards until around the 1960s, the literature
presented by Wirt and Kirst (2005) explains that one of the early responsibilities for
being a board member was to mediate policy conflicts and make decisions, while the
educational professionals did the policy making. The boards left the key educational
decisions to the superintendent and professional staff. When issues were presented that
were not highly debated in the community, the board members lacked engagement and
left discussion to the educational professionals. This is in contrast to the origination of
school boards and to the original intention of boards. Research suggests that by 2005,
this sort of practice was all but gone (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Since the 1960s, the role of board members has changed. This is an interesting
concept, because in the early days of school boards, the members had specific tasks and
were directly linked to teachers (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Then a shift occurred that led to
board members acting in a sort of gatekeeper fashion, with full attentiveness to district
happenings. They were and are now a full legislative organization that has oversight of
districts. Within that political frame, they also had to, in some cases, combat the teach-
ers’ union (Bolman & Deal, 2008). These changes did not take place overnight but have
certainly over the years gained momentum. In the past, community members did not
show much of an interest in what was going on in public education, and some argue that
this situation led to a loss of support. With the loss of support came more scrutiny and
negative perceptions about public schools. Research also shows that Gallup polls dem-
onstrated a low rating of schools in the year 2000, and schools were also voted the
number one problem in the national and state polls (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). This issue
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 37
presented quite a conundrum because people were quick to criticize schools but did not
want to show an interest in them. This was a “arm-chair quarterback” sort of phenome-
non.
In the past 20 years or so, there have been major reforms that have led to boards
shifting to centralized policy-making units working with a superintendent. Each school
board has the general characteristics of a unit that works for the local community and
represents the community’s interests and preferences. Compared to the early days of
boards when there was minimal concern from the community, today’s school boards
must consider their community’s interests and concerns. Boards no longer leave all
decisions to the education professionals without taking a vested interest. They are typ-
ically small units of five or, in larger districts, seven, focused on policy making; they
continue to rely on the superintendent, along with his or her cabinet members, to man-
age the district and its personnel (Land, 2002).
In sum, one of the major changes that has occurred is the accountability aspect
that every district member faces as a result of achievement testing and a demand for
higher standards. There are federal and state accountability measures that demand high
academic standards and achievement, and those pressures fall directly on district em-
ployees and board members. In conjunction with the accountability measures comes a
shift in the mind-set of the general roles of school boards. This change aligns to the
state and federal demands to ensure rigorous standards and achievement. Boards
continue to face the traditional challenges much like in the past, but they have a
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 38
tremendous amount of added pressure for learning—and never in a time more contro-
versial because so many students are not able to score proficiently.
When considering the significant challenges facing board members, one can
clearly see that this is a difficult position. In many cases, the public perception of
school boards is negative. This goes back to the research survey indicating that the
number one worst problem in the United States in the year 2000 was public education
(Land, 2002). Boards on the whole garner widespread criticism for many reasons, but
one of the greatest on the national scale is an inability to take on a lead role in educa-
tional reform. The public does not take a vested interest in public education, and that is
again reinforced through research presented in the article, “Local School Boards Under
Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in Relation to Students’ Academic Achieve-
ment” (Land, 2002). Boards have to find a way to generate public interest in schools
and also help communities to gain an understanding of the educational system and the
students being educated.
Responsibilities of a Board Member
Board members are political figures tasked with ensuring equity, access, and
opportunity for children, but the duties do not stop there (Land, 2002). There are many
other factors that guide school board members. They have the responsibility of re-
sponding to local needs and concerns, budgetary issues, district governance, facilities,
and student achievement (Land, 2002). Among their many hats, never in history has
achievement been a bigger challenge as it is today for school board members (Devarics
& O’Brien, 2011). They are thrust into the position of providing district leadership and
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 39
ensuring effective learning. Within those roles, they also face the challenge of making
districts attractive places to work (Land, 2002). They are part of the human resources
framework that ensures that they get the best and brightest teachers to work in their
districts—the kinds of teachers who will surely give their students the best opportunity
to learn. They have to ensure that the district is welcoming and inviting (Land, 2002).
There is research that suggests that clearly defined roles for board members are a
critical aspect to success in school districts (Petersen & Short, 2001). When board
members understand their role, they are more likely to work within the scope of their
duties and responsibilities (Ziebarth, 2002). Research suggests that a better working
district is one where the superintendent and board members work together, because that
strong working relationship is critical for success (Thomas, 2001). In the school board
reform movement of the 1990s, policy making was clearly delineated as the central duty
of a board member, while administrative components were considered the duties of the
superintendent (Land, 2002). It also must be noted that research suggests that in those
districts where these lines are blurred, there is strong criticism of the school boards. As
evidenced, it is critical for board members to understand their role in education in their
school districts (Devarics & O’Brien, 2011). Boards and superintendents should work
together to establish roles, communicate effectively on their successes and failures, and
evaluate frequently (Danzberger et al., 1987).
Examining the responsibilities of board members may be the most important
factor for setting the direction of a school district. School board members are charged
with the task of hiring the superintendent, evaluating the superintendent, and choosing
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 40
to retain or fire him or her. This is a critical aspect because in the hiring of the superin-
tendent, board members are truly impacting the direction of the district and learning will
be impacted. There quite possibly is no greater potential impact on learning other than
the hiring of the instructional leader, the superintendent (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
School board members are responsible for many issues in the circles of educa-
tion. Ultimately, those leading high-performing districts are able to navigate the chal-
lenges and commit to certain characteristics that are not as evident in low-achieving
districts (Devarics & O’Brien, 2011). Empirical research shows that effective school
districts commit to a vision of high expectations, share beliefs and values, are account-
ability driven, and—among other things—data savvy. Effective boards also commit to
setting the district’s vision, create structures of accountability, and are advocates for
children (Campbell & Green, 1994).
Understanding the responsibilities of being a board member are critical for new
and existing board members. According to research, school boards are extremely
powerful organizations that face multiple complexities. They need proper preparation
through training to ensure that they can face the challenges with success (Campbell &
Green, 1994).
Governance
In the most basic of definitions, the governance of a school district simply means
governing the education of the nation’s children. According to the CSBA (2005),
governance is “the process of reaching agreements that balance and reflect community
values, beliefs, and priorities in policies that focus and align all district efforts to en-
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 41
hance student learning and achievement” (p. 1). Board members govern their school
districts and do so by fulfilling a number of duties. Among those are setting the direc-
tion and vision for a school district (CSBA, 2011).
While the purpose is clear and concise, the job is not as simple as it sounds.
With regard to education, according to research presented by Hess (2002) in School
Boards at the Dawn of the 21st Century: Conditions and Challenges of District Gover-
nance, there is much written on leadership, conditions, and policies; however, research
is limited on how variance pervades local districts across the country as it relates to
policy and other critical areas. In a sense, the lack of research hurts school districts
because there is a lack of local knowledge regarding such issues as teacher certification,
graduation, and school safety (Hess, 2002). In considering a large state such as Califor-
nia, where there are variances from district to district and from county to county, that is
why it is critical for local California boards to understand the goal of governance. They
should understand how CSBA (2007b) has defined governance and have the skills and
knowledge on how to use that framework and make it relevant to their district. It is
unrealistic to expect new or existing board members to fully grasp all that effective
board leadership entails without the time and training to embody the goal of CSBA and
make it useful to the stakeholders in their respective districts (Campbell & Green,
1994).
The CSBA (2005) has actually broken down the governance mission into the
following categories: (a) the trustee and his or her individual attitude, (b) the gover-
nance team, (c) the board’s responsibilities, and (d) student learning and achievement.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 42
It is important to understand that while the first three categories are clearly separate, the
fourth category of student learning and achievement is the overarching component and
the apex for the CSBA governance model.
There are a number of points highlighted by the CSBA (2005) regarding individ-
ual trustee’s attitude that really demonstrate the big picture for a board member. In this
category each statement starts out with “I”, which is important on a board, but it is also
critical to understand the cliché: “There is no I in team” (CSBA, 2005, p. 1). The school
board is a team; and while some members have individual purposes and desires, they
will not be accomplished without the majority. According to Togneri and Anderson
(2003), those individuals on school boards who appear to represent individual factions
within a school district are viewed as negative forces on a board. An effective board is
one that works well with the superintendent and has the ability to communicate effec-
tively while maintaining integrity and working toward the vision of the district (Togneri
& Anderson, 2003).
The standards for governance (CSBA, 2005) are critical and relevant to the topic
at hand. In the first section the following points are highlighted:
1. I keep learning and achievement for all students as the primary focus.
2. I value, support, and advocate for public education.
3. I respect differences of perspective and style on the board and among staff,
students, parents, and the community.
4. I understand that manner and behavior make a difference.
5. I keep confidential information confidential.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 43
6. I commit the time and energy necessary to be an informed and effective
leader.
7. I understand the role and responsibilities of the board as a whole.
8. I work hard to build and sustain an effective governance team. The compo-
nents are important to the present study as they delineate how an individual
board member should operate with regard to governance. (p. 1)
The framework and standards presented by the CSBA (2005) clearly define how
an individual should be expected to take on the role of being a board member. Even a
board member with no prior knowledge of the work that he or she will be doing could
affirm a sound understanding of the duties and obligations. The picture is clear that all
of the “I” statements will eventually lead to a “we” to ensure an effective board. This
literature also helps to marginalize someone who is in the position for a special interest.
This concept strengthens the point that there are individuals on a board, but effective
boards operate and units. With regard to effective governance, the NSBA in 1999 (as
cited in Hess, 2002) commented that when board members are able to create a common
vision and respect and trust one another the board is improved and cohesiveness is
manifested.
All of the statements in the second stage of the CSBA (2005) literature begin
with a “we” statement and emphasize the work that boards will be doing and how they
will do it. It is clear that in the pursuit of governance, the CSBA has emphasized a team
approach to governance and the focus is again on achievement for every student. The
last category, entitled “The Board’s Responsibilities,” is much like the previous two and
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 44
in that category the responsibilities for the board are defined and job areas in which
board members will operate are highlighted. The program that has been created by the
CSBA is simple to follow and provides superb direction for how school districts should
operate; however, it does not take into account the type of background with which
individual board members walk into the position or their willingness to pursue effective
board membership with fidelity.
Research suggests that effective school board governance is important for
overall improvement and reform (McAdams, 2003). Research also indicates that boards
and superintendents have to work together; essentially this is one of the most critical
points with regard to effective schools (Thomas, 2001). Many Americans are unhappy
with their local school boards because many schools are failing and the agent of change
that can minimize failure is the board (Danzberger et al., 1992). School districts require
strong board leadership, and boards must understand their roles and work as change
agents (McAdams, 2003). The CSBA has created a program to impact governance in a
positive way; and according to research, boards are not changing fast enough (as cited in
McAdams, 2003). If California is going to change its course and begin to meet the
current challenges faced, effective governance is one of the most significant commit-
ments that should be made (Loeb & Miller, 2007). Thus, the important of understand-
ing how governance impacts an individual school board members, and school boards as
a whole.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 45
Leadership
Strong and effective leadership can significantly impact achievement in a posi-
tive way (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2004). Research also suggests that effective
school leaders are able to improve and influence motivation and overall working condi-
tions (Waters et al., 2004). An additional point on the significance of leadership is that
effective school district leadership is the most important factor in how successful
schools operate (Thomas, 2001). Research also indicates leadership as a component of
the board and superintendent being able to work together (Thomas, 2001). The research
also suggests that successful leaders all utilize a similar set of tools that lead to effective
leadership practices ( Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
Being a leader is not an innate trait that all are born with. Because this is the
case, board members who have not been leaders or in leadership roles could benefit by
understanding what it takes to become a leader. Research suggests that in order to be
successful leaders, board members should commit to training so that they give them-
selves and their students the best chance for positive results (Thomas, 2001).
In reviewing the topic of leadership, there are many frames to study and diag-
nose as to how individuals can become great leaders and what great leadership looks
like. Northouse (2007, p. 3) defined leadership in the following four segments: (a)
“leadership is a process,” (b) “leadership involves influence,” (c) leadership occurs in a
group context,” and (d) leadership involves goal attainment.”
Describing leadership as a process leaves the reader with the understanding that
it takes time and learning to become a leader. This is not always the case but, from a
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 46
general standpoint, can be directly linked to school boards. Board members come from
all walks of life; some may have never spent a single day as a leader and are suddenly
leading a school district. This experience could make the strongest of men apprehen-
sive. Related to Northouse’s (2007) second point, board members clearly have influ-
ence. They are leading school districts and have the potential to influence entire
communities, towns, large urban areas, or entire cities. The role is tremendously
influential. The third point clearly relates to the role of a board member. Again, indi-
vidual board members only have one vote, but the leaders can exert power over other
board members through acquired skill and expertise and shape the way others vote.
School boards work in a group context as individuals but, as a whole, have the ability to
influence many lives. Working on a school board also means working with a superin-
tendent. Establishing a vision and direction of a school district is another one of the
duties of a school board and an area where leadership is necessary (Leithwood et al.,
2008).
Establishing the characteristics of sound leadership is critical as it relates to
effective school boards. As discussed earlier, one of the most important jobs of a school
board member is the hiring of the superintendent. Ultimately the superintendent, in
conjunction with the board members, will be the leader of the school district. Bain-
bridge and Thomas (2002) categorized an effective board member in a number of ways,
including the following: is results oriented, demonstrates professional behavior, knows
how to conduct a meeting, shows appreciation for employees, is a strong communicator,
expects high-quality work, understands public trust, and is a servant-leader (i.e., works
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 47
to serve constituents with fidelity). The board “set direction, made tough decisions,
showed courage and held the schools accountable” (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002).
Bainbridge and Thomas (2002) went on to indicate that at the time of print,
many school boards were ineffective and that ineffectiveness was hindering school
districts and ultimately achievement. A strong point illustrated in the article by Bain-
bridge and Thomas highlighted a report from the New England School Development
Council, which had gone as far as making the statement that boards need to do less
micromanaging of superintendents and the school system and instead spend their time
on setting policy. Those districts that achieve at the highest levels have school boards
that are focused on goals for achievement and instruction (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
These are two areas that are in fact non-negotiable and are exemplified in successful
school districts. Waters and Marzano (2006) went on to state that boards will discuss
other district issues and work through them, but they always go back to the major
district objectives. The authors also mentioned one of the topics discussed previously
regarding board members working as a unit. They indicated that some board members
will consider themselves as individuals and pursue their own interests; and hen board
members act in this manner, they do become detractors with respect to district progress.
Another intriguing discussion regarding leadership is in the conclusion of a
paper by Waters and Marzano (2006), who clearly reported that when the board and
district members in leadership positions do the right work in the right way, student
achievement is impacted in a positive way. They also indicated that superintendent
longevity is another contributing factor to student success, and that links the relationship
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 48
between the longevity of the superintendent and ability to work with the school board in
a positive manner. It was noted that board members need to hire a superintendent who
has strong leadership skills and one who will lead the district toward better achievement
and instruction. The term blob in the conclusion referred to a bureaucratic system in
which some educators find themselves and presented the picture of an ineffective
system lacking focus and direction. This blob can be avoided when the board hires a
superintendent who, in conjunction with the school board, sets direction and supports
school staff (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
In an article written by Leithwood et al. (2008), the authors linked seven exam-
ples to exceptional leadership. They delineated a number of ideas and reported that
school leadership is the second most influential factor for students next to classroom
teaching. They also stated that successful leaders all have a foundation of standard
leadership characteristics. Strong leaders have an ability to respond to situations appro-
priately and have a great influence and ability to motivate people to follow their vision,
and promote strong morale. These leaders are also skilled at creating a team approach
to learning and encouraging a school of leaders versus just one.
In studying the similar qualities that educational leaders share, the most basic
and quite possibly essential are ones to help others’ performance and to create an envi-
ronment that motivates as well as creates an atmosphere that recognizes employees’
values and their ability to be effective teachers. Learning can be considered the most
valuable quality of school, and leaders help to guide more effective learning (Leithwood
et al., 2008). A number of additional areas are mentioned, including building vision and
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 49
setting direction, understanding and developing people, and leading the instructional
programs (Leithwood et al., 2008). Through the research provided, it is evident that
effective leaders have an ability to motivate, inspire, create a welcoming environment,
and are able to instill a vision for the school that the staff and students embrace and
strive to achieve (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
There is an extensive amount of information available on the topic of leadership.
Therefore, it is important to streamline the research into comprehensible avenues that
allow the reader to focus on the most important aspects. According to Elmore (2000),
strong leadership pervades when people have the capacity to provide, among other
things, guidance in the area of instructional improvement. There are many examples
from public education today that emphasize test scores as the way to judge schools, with
the most popular being NCLB (2003). Correlating those perceptions to Elmore’s brief
but concise definition of leadership certainly hits the goal of leadership with a laser-like
scope.
One difference in Elmore’s (2000) perception of leadership versus other re-
searchers is his intention to “de-romanticize” leadership. He went on to indicate that the
general population likes to put great leaders on a sort of pedestal so that they can be
admired and adored. He also reported that people generally like to ascertain that great
leaders have traits other average people do not possess, and that is what makes them
great. Through this trait theory lens, the premise is that leaders are successful because
of personal qualities they possess over effort, skill, and knowledge (Elmore, 2000).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 50
According to Elmore (2000), the problem with this perspective on leadership is
the diminutive number of personal characteristics that great leaders could possess. If
there were more of these traits, more people would have them, and those who did would
be less adored. He also explained that the character traits are not likely to be impacted
by “education, training, and practice” (p. 14); therefore, it is necessary to focus more on
knowledge and skill, as those are traits that can be effected by the aforementioned “edu-
cation, training, and practice” (p. 14).
Educational leadership is much broader when compared to leadership in the
terms of instruction. Elmore (2000) pointed to the many qualities that school principals
are expected to acquire. According to Elmore, one of the best examples of effective
leadership is in the form of “distributive” leadership. In the distributive leadership
model, there is an administrative focus on enhancing the knowledge and skill of those
working in the organization. From the educational standpoint, this could be the board
members guiding the superintendent or could in fact be the superintendent guiding the
board.
As discussed earlier, many board members get the position without the proper
preparation, knowledge, and skills and need to be taught how to be effective board
members. Due to the rigors, research suggests that board members commit to training
(Thomas, 2001). Research also suggests that boards must provide leadership in all the
areas in which they operate, including the following: establishing a district vision,
focusing on student achievement, providing oversight—which all provide an opportu-
nity to segue to the concept of board training that will be discussed later. Ultimately,
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 51
the concept directs leaders to create a common culture, and people are encouraged to
use their skills to attain that vision. There is also an accountability piece that pertains to
this model in that people are held accountable when they are not working toward the
integrity of the vision (Elmore, 2000). Finally, there are five guiding concepts for
distributive leadership that are summarized as follows: (a) improvement of the instruc-
tional practice and performance, (b) continuous learning, (c) effective modeling, (d) the
fact that leaders who support staff require knowledge and skill to make informed sug-
gestions, and (e) shared accountability and capacity (Elmore, 2000). Implementation of
these five concepts could ensure that schools work in solidarity, and these concepts
certainly apply to the roles and responsibilities of school board members.
Elmore (2000) categorized leadership roles in a number of ways. For the pur-
pose of this paper, the only one that will be explained is the leadership role of school
boards and the superintendent. The school board as a unit essentially sets a vision and
works toward that vision. Among the points discussed were the following: setting per-
formance targets and standards; monitoring performance, which coincides with account-
ability; setting policy for incentive structures; administering awards and sanctions; and
handling the noninstructional issues that can potentially lead to the “blob” effect
(Elmore, 2000; Marzano & Waters, 2006). When looking at the roles and responsibili-
ties of the board and the leadership component, Elmore’s viewpoint provides the reader
with a succinct roadmap to board leadership success.
Understanding the complexities of superintendent and school board relations
and their connection to the overall success of a school district is a major component of
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 52
education literature. School effectiveness has garnered much attention in the media and
is a major topic of conversation from the water cooler to the Cable News Network
(CNN). Never before has school effectiveness been more contested, and this issue has
placed a major amount of pressure on superintendent–school board relations. The
demand for accountability has altered education and has led to a major turnover of
superintendents (Thomas, 2001). Research in the literature indicates that in the 1980s,
the longevity of a superintendent was 4 years. In the 1990s that trend continued, but in
the late 1990s to early 2000s, that number dropped to a mere 2½ years (Thomas, 2001).
One of the main causes of superintendents being removed from office is due to
conflict with the school board (Thomas, 2001). Among the causes for the conflict,
according to Thomas (2001), are the board undermining the superintendent, budgetary
problems, and issues with the union. In another study that polled superintendents on the
most difficult aspects of their job, the prevailing answer was dissension with the school
board (Glass, 1992). Interestingly, in another study that polled board members, the
results were the similar. Board members also indicated that the most pressing part of
the position was working with the superintendent (Grady & Bryant, 1991; Norton et al.,
1996).
The analysis of board–superintendent relations is fascinating. A common com-
ponent regarding the inability of some superintendents to work collaboratively with
their boards drills down to communication. In a 2000 study that polled 2,262 superin-
tendents, 62% indicated that they spent 3 hours or less per week in direct communica-
tion with board members (Glass, Bojork, & Brunner, 2000). Others indicated that they
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 53
did not spend any time with the board members except for the actual board meetings. It
would appear that this lack of collaboration would make it difficult to create a vision or
to have common opinions on the direction of a school district. Other issues that coin-
cided with the communication problem were superintendents not taking suggestions
from the board, intimidating the board, and withholding information from the board
(Grady & Bryant 1991; Norton et al., 1996). Essentially these are all ways to manipu-
late people or situations.
The communication breakdown can be directly related back to the literature on
leadership. None of the previously mentioned literature on effective leadership pointed
to the concept of superintendents disregarding the board. Collaboration was a fairly
large piece of effective leadership. Research on collaboration has clearly delineated the
importance of clear communication and understanding of roles and expectations
(Thomas, 2001). Much of the research pointed to a division in roles, but there was also
sufficient evidence that there needed to be communication on how those roles were
defined. In that division of roles, people also needed to understand their position but
work collaboratively when necessary (Thomas, 2001).
The issues described in the previous paragraph were prevalent enough to create
action from the NSBA, as cited in Norton et al., 1996). The NSBA felt that there was a
major disconnect in the areas of responsibilities, evaluation, budget management, and
policymaking. With these points in mind, the NSBA and the Association of School
Administrators worked in unison to clarify the roles of the two entities (Norton et al.,
1996). In their collaborative efforts, they indicated that the primary responsibility of the
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 54
board is to establish policy, as opposed to the role of the superintendent, who serves as
the CEO, educational advisor, and leader of the school district.
Research is conclusive in that collaborative board–superintendent relationships
are critical for overall effectiveness. Throughout the country, there are undoubtedly
successful school districts that have strained board–superintendent relations. For what-
ever reason their students are still able to produce, but who is to say that they would not
be more effective if they were led in a manner that promoted professional and collabora-
tive relationships by the leaders at the helm of the school district?
Professional Development
Much of the previously mentioned research supports and details the reasons for
board member training. Board members are entering a highly political field filled with
potential challenges (Thomas, 2001). Education faces a great amount of criticism, and
never before has school board membership been more scrutinized (Hopkins et al.,
2007). Board members need to be prepared for the challenges that lie before them, and
they have major responsibility to the children they serve. They are making critical
decisions and should be prepared and informed to make those decisions.
In California the largest training program is that of the CSBA. The CSBA
provides an opportunity for new board members to attend conferences and workshops to
prepare them or give them better skills in the various areas in which they are expected to
provided leadership and service. The CSBA (2011) outlined that the duty and role of
the board as such are “to ensure the values, beliefs, priorities of the community are
transformed into documents that serve as a driving force to focus and align all district
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 55
efforts” (p. 1). Interestingly, this definition of the board is somewhat wordy, but one
can ascertain the meaning. School board members have to ensure that the beliefs of the
community are heard and that there is a distinct path to more effective instruction.
According to much of the research presented here, board members are not expected to
be the instructional leaders but should have an understanding of the major district ob-
jectives with regard to instruction and, more importantly, learning.
One area of training not yet discussed is the use of data to guide instruction.
Data can be overwhelming, and the comfort level of board members analyzing data
most likely falls across a wide spectrum; therefore, board members may or may not be
using data to impact their decisions. In this case, they are relying on the educational
leaders to streamline the data into comprehensible information that they can absorb.
The problem here is that there will be a wide range for educational leaders who are able
to grasp the meaning of the data as well. According to research, many districts’ board
members will rely on the data expert to break down the numbers and feed them the
information (Bernhardt, 2004). This situation presents a huge problem in that the infor-
mation they are receiving can be manipulated to look however the presenter wants it to
look. One example that coincides with this point would be the master schedule. A vast
amount of educational dollars are spent on instruction; and if board members are not
able to determine whether the programs they are approving are producing results and
better learning, then they are making bad or uniformed decisions. Again, this is a case
where district personnel should be providing the information with fidelity, but who is to
say that occurs 100% of the time? The research indicates that board members do need
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 56
someone not only to provide them with the data but also to explain what areas to focus
on when utilizing the data (Bernhardt, 2004).
One contested point relating to school board membership and participation is
whether or not training and professional development should be required (Ziebarth,
2002). In some arenas, there is a call for a certain amount of professional development
training hours each year that coincide with school board service. For example, Ken-
tucky has a mandatory system that board members must abide by. Board members with
1–3 years of service are required to complete 12 hours of service each year. A member
with 4–7 years has to complete 8 hours, and members with 8 or more years have to
complete 4 hours. Also presented in this research is an analysis about how trainings
should be focused. The author called for opportunities for board members to learn
about specific responsibilities required of them in their service on the board (Ziebarth,
2002).
The complexities of school board membership are vast with a steep learning
curve, and it seems unrealistic for board members to navigate the job without support
and training (Bianchi, 2003). Some of the daily issues that could potentially invade a
board member’s breakfast with the town mayor include multimillion-dollar budget
issues and also the fact that they are receiving less education dollars. Never-before seen
accountability measures, the need for better instruction tools and learning, data, the
union, and other factors such as facilities and litigation could manifest themselves on a
daily basis (Dahlkemper 2005). All of these issues are sophisticated on an individual
basis, but combining them creates a sort of educational leviathan.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 57
Fortunately, as in the case of Kentucky, states are recognizing the need for man-
datory school board member training. According to 2003 data, some 17 states had
mandatory board training (Dahlkemper, 2005). In most of the examples, the types of
training that board members were required to receive were in the areas of school
finance, ethics, legal concepts, policies and procedures, and one that has been discussed
throughout this paper—team building (Dahlkemper, 2005). According to the research
presented by Dahlkemper (2005), many of the school board trainings are increasing in
quality and have a plethora of areas where board members can seek training. In other
examples, research was done on individual school districts that were deemed successful,
and in those examples the school board sought out formal training for their members
(Togneri & Anderson, 2003). These districts recognized the need for an understanding
of school reform and superintendents who would support this approach to a better
school district.
In many cases, schools boards are generating a tremendous amount of scrutiny
(Land, 2002). To combat this scrutiny, whether true or not, school board members can
pursue training (Bianchi, 2003). Specifically in California, board members can partici-
pate in MIG training (CSBA, 2011). The cry for teachers and administrators to be
trained is loud and clear; and in this day and age, so, too, is the call for board members
to be trained. Interestingly, experts agree that training can be worthwhile, but there are
still some board members who will not seek out training. In many cases, new members
will elect to be trained, but others will not (Morehouse, as cited in Bianchi, 2003).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 58
In summary, research suggests there is an ever-present need to mandate training
(Bianchi, 2003). Board members not only face multifaceted challenges but also work in
extreme environments. Research points to the notion that less people are willing to
serve on the board due to the pressures of the job and the increasing accountability that
the position entails (Bianchi, 2003). Data from 2001 suggests that of all board members
across the nation that were polled, only 43% planned to run again (NSBA, as cited in
Bianchi, 2003). This turnover creates another problem because new board members
require time to become comfortable with the position before they can function effec-
tively, and school systems do not have that much time to waste (Funk & Funk, 1992).
The idea here is that training can bring new members up to speed and better prepare
board members for the position that could quite possibly lead to greater comfort and
desire to remain on the board. Critics like to surmise that board members get lost in
their jobs and tend to micromanage the superintendent. Whether or not this is the case,
training could help them understand their role and should ultimately lead to a more
cohesion. One final note comes in the form of a 2009 study cited by Roberts and Samp-
son (2011) that measured states that did require training versus states that did not. In
the findings, the states that did require training rated overall in a B or C category, while
those that do not require training were considered in the C or D category.
Theoretical Frameworks and Models
Theoretical frameworks and models provide a narrow scope to analyze the lit-
erature and provide a defined way to study the literature and the research questions. The
three frameworks that used in this study are as follows: Reframing Organizations
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 59
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). The research questions were also explored through the lens
provided by the CSBA (2007b), and also The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008).
Four-Frame Model
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), organizations can be analyzed and cate-
gorized into four distinct frameworks. The frameworks offer a way to study organiza-
tions and their leadership models, diagnose problems, and also offer solutions leading to
better leadership within organizations. The four frameworks are the structural frame,
the human resources frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. Much of the
previously mentioned literature discussed how school board leadership falls within
these areas of leadership, but there is a need to look deeper. The frameworks offer the
opportunity to attack problems that school board members face and most likely enhance
the concept of encouraging school board training to improve education at the most
central level. The concepts are critical as the nation continues to have failing schools
run by school district board members who are failing as well. Adult problems should be
easier to solve than typical problems that teachers face in the classroom, and training
offers solutions. Educating the nation’s children is a monumental task; therefore, adult
board members should be doing everything in their power to help schools improve and
again focus on children. An overview of the four-frame model is provided in Figure 1.
The structural frame. The structural frame indicates that members always
know what is going within the organization. The structural frame is sort of framed with
six guiding principles. In the structural frame, it is critical that organizations establish
goals and have clear objectives. This concept is readily available to apply to school
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 60
Structure
Human
Resource Symbolic Political
Metaphor
for
Organization
Factory or
machine
Family Jungle Carnival, temple,
theater
Central
Concepts
Rules, roles, goals,
policies, technol-
ogy, environment
Needs, skills, re-
lationships
Power, conflict,
competition, orga-
nizational politics
Culture, meaning,
metaphor, ritual,
ceremony, sto-
ries, heroes
Image of
Leadership
Social architecture Empowerment Advocacy Inspiration
Basic
Leadership
Challenge
Attune structure to
task/technology
environment
Align organiza-
tional and human
needs
Develop agenda
and power base
Create faith,
beauty, meaning
Figure 1. Four-frame model of organizations. Adapted from Reframing Organizations:
Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.), by G. L. Bolman and E. T. Deal, 2008, San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
board membership and leadership. It is also important to understand the aspect in the
structural frame that shows the importance of organizations maintaining clear structures
that match the circumstances within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In terms
of being a board member, this brief statement could not be any more important. Board
members must understand the challenges that boards face as well as the big picture as it
relates to the current state of the district and how the established vision is being pur-
sued. The current state can mean many things from budget to litigation to achievement,
and there are many other examples previously mentioned. This serves as a key point to
establish school board training.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 61
Another important point established in the structural frame is the idea that dis-
tricts create a series of protocols that they will follow for professionalism. The struc-
tural frame creates formal expectations and protocols for the internal players and, in this
case, board members (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This directly relates back to the literature
that explains how important it is for board members to understand their roles and
responsibilities and how they will work as a unit. According to an article by Land
(2002), boards must find a way to work together, and there is a need for an approach as
a unit. If boards are lacking this concept, their discord will be a detractor for the
district’s goal and will hurt children. This is where the CSBA could be utilized to help
boards work together because they offer classes in governance.
The human resources frame. School board members have jobs to serve. The
premise behind their job is to serve children. Children are the precious element to edu-
cation and the reason that boards are necessary. From that standpoint alone, board
members should do everything they possibly can to ensure that they are the best they can
be. When they are ineffective or uninformed, they can potentially hurt children. All
would agree that hurting children is obviously against the very nature of education;
therefore, board members should seek out training to ensure that they are effective—if
not for themselves, at least for the children they serve.
Effective school districts are those that are able to attract and retain the best
teachers. Research has shown that one of the most critical aspects to learning is the
quality of instruction being provided to the student (Darling-Hammond, 1994). Essen-
tially, this means that the quality of the teacher directly links to student success. Board
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 62
members must work to create an inviting atmosphere that attracts the best teachers.
This is one of the most concrete ways to impact children in a positive manner. People
want to work in a place where they feel respected, and board members help to create the
school environment.
The political frame. The political frame has been discussed throughout the
review of the literature. Politics and school board membership go hand in hand. The
role of a board member is highly political. Board members must be savvy if they are
going to survive the political pitfalls that go with the position. The political frame
views organizations as a complex system of people and interests, coupled with limited
resources (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The analysis of organizations operating in a world of
individuals tasked with special interest groups is certainly the environment in which
board members navigate (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This concept also reinforces the need
for training as it, again, will help to teach board members the skills to work together and
make difficult decisions, especially when considering decisions based on limited re-
sources and the like.
Bolman and Deal (2008) described a scenario for forms of power, such as school
boards, in terms of a collision. When there are different factions with alternate opinions
on what is necessary or required, there will be a collision. These collisions will occur
because people and groups cannot possibly be granted everything they desire. As re-
sources dwindle, the pressure of the position heightens. This is the time that a
collaborative board will operate as a unit versus a group of individuals hoping to fulfill
individual projects (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 63
The symbolic frame. The symbolic frame considers an organization’s culture
and core assumptions (Bolman & Deal, 2008) One of the statements expressed is that
culture unites people within the organization and embraces people’s values. Culture
consists of powerful forces that help shape and explain the history and significance of
certain acts or beliefs within that system. Understanding the culture of an environment
provides an ever-so- critical background to the history and direction of a school and
district.
Also discussed in the symbolic frame are the mission and vision of an organiza-
tion (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Board members help establish these concepts in a school
district but, in doing so, must understand how to create these goals. In establishing a
vision, buy-in has to be instilled in the stakeholders or the vision will flounder. This
collaborative skill has to be created and shared. Board members must have skill in the
human resources frame here, as well as a general understanding of those in the commu-
nity they serve.
CSBA Framework
The CSBA (2005) offers a framework that encapsulates a governance system.
The association strives to provide a framework that defines and regulates effectiveness.
The effectiveness is broken down into distinct areas, reinforcing the concept of the
individual, the governance team, and the board’s responsibilities. Within each area is
highlighted the individual trustee: that individual’s attitude, unity of purpose; the role,
culture, structure, and process for the governance team; and the key areas or job area of
the board as a unit. Again, the overarching or global goal of CSBA (2005) is student
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 64
learning and achievement. Within this framework, governance is defined in the follow-
ing way: “The process of reaching agreements that balance and reflect community
values, beliefs, and priorities in policies that focus and align all district efforts to en-
hance student learning and achievement” (CSBA, 2005, p. 1). Understanding and
pursuing best practices is an essential task for a school board, and the CSBA framework
provides a clear and distinct path for existing or new board members as they work to
ensure learning for all students.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The last of the three frameworks for the study is titled The Lighthouse Inquiry.
The scope of this framework is an attempt to define the role of school board leadership
as it pertains to student achievement. In the analysis, the framework indicates that there
is no greater pursuit of a collective board unit than improving student achievement. The
research of The Lighthouse Inquiry suggests that school boards do impact achievement
and that there is a difference in the actions of boards overseeing high-achieving districts
as compared to boards leading low-achieving districts (Delagardelle, 2008).
The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) was completed in phases or stages.
In their research they provide examples and evidence of what kinds of actions boards
need to take and also how boards should function to positively impact student perfor-
mance. The purpose of the stages was to examine specific questions that guided the
research. The entire inquiry drilled down to the questions depicted in Figure 2. With
regard to the research questions, the inquiry framed seven key conditions for productive
change: (a) connections across the system, (b) knowing what it takes to change
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 65
achievement, (c) workplace support, (d) professional development, (e) balance between
districtwide direction and building-level autonomy, (f) strong community connection,
and (g) distributed leadership (Delagardelle, 2008).
In conjunction with the seven key conditions, there are also indicators that these
changes are being made. Ultimately, through the study, Delagardelle (2006) was able to
indicate what most in education hope: that the actions of the local school board do
matter and there are best practices that boards can implement to ensure a better school
district.
Figure 2. Phases of Lighthouse Inquiry and research questions. From “Lighthouse
Phase II—Brief Summary,” by Iowa School Boards Foundation, 2008, Information
Briefing, 2(2), p. 2.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 66
Conclusion
According to testimony by former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige
(2001), “quality school board functioning is central to the effectiveness of schooling. In
fact, the effectiveness of school board governance is the single most important determi-
nant of school district success of failure” (p. 3).
School board members work in a highly stressful environment with multiple
measures of accountability. There are many expectations of board members, but the
most important is to advance learning in their school districts. Board members have the
obligation to their students to make every single decision with them in mind. Students
are not numbers simply welcomed in districts because of the education dollars that
follow them. They are individuals with diverse needs, and board members need to col-
laborate with the superintendent to ensure that opportunities are fulfilled. Board mem-
bers require courage and the willingness to lead districts and also follow when appropri-
ate. No single decision is more important than the one to hire a superintendent, and no
day can be wasted on ineffectiveness. U.S. students deserve more. School board
members should seek out training to help them fulfill the obligations of the position,
and maximize their ability to be effective (Bianchi, 2003).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 67
Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter presents the research design, research team, participants, instru-
mentation, and plan for data collection and data analysis. The purpose of this study was
to determine whether the MIG training impacted the school board’s ability to adhere to
best practices for effective governance. This in-depth review of effective board leader-
ship explored successful school districts and how their boards were more suited for their
roles and responsibilities with regard to governance as a result of a commitment to MIG
training.
The University of Southern California (USC), in conjunction with numerous
California school board members, the CSBA, and many current California superinten-
dents collaborated and participated in the overall study as well. This study was created
with the following guiding research questions that shaped the purpose:
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?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Research Design
A qualitative case study was utilized as the approach for studying the research
questions. This research project was designed to elicit feedback and participation from
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 68
school board members and current superintendents to collect data in a qualitative
fashion so that the research questions can be analyzed and evaluated. Qualitative
research was the chosen method due to its ability to study organizations, whether they
are simple or multifaceted. An additional strength of qualitative research is its approach
to exploring individuals within organizations and their relationships (Baxter & Jack,
2008; Yin, 2003). According to Patton (2002), evaluative research has a broad scope
and can systematically analyze human effectiveness in a way to judge human perfor-
mance. Furthermore, evaluative research, when conducted in a systematic manner and
that works to provide empirical evidence, simply leads to evaluation research (Patton,
2002).
Researchers on this project were seeking an understanding of effective school
districts and the correlation to effective school boards that operated with best practices,
and evaluative measures through qualitative data analysis was one method for strong
understanding in answering the research questions. Patton (2002) suggested that strong
evaluation can tell a story; the elements of the story include understanding the pro-
gram’s participants, an ability to generate an understanding of the findings, and essen-
tially make the information useful. Again, the purpose in the design of the study was to
understand how MIG training helped board members in their various roles and obliga-
tions as board members.
Understanding how effective school boards lead effective school districts was a
critical question to this study. Another component was learning whether key pieces
exist in successful school districts and whether they have the potential to be replicated
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 69
across the state of California. Understanding the perceptions of school board members
in conjunction with their superintendents was one of the needs of the surveys. The
survey questions were created to provide information for the purpose of the study and to
gain an understanding of board members and their viewpoints and what was required of
them as board members. By tailoring the questions to board members and superinten-
dents, the research team could generate alternate viewpoints including various opinions
and perceptions based on the role of the individuals participating in the survey. Ulti-
mately, it was felt that this process would lead to a stronger case study and more in-
formed conclusions to the purpose of the study. According to Patton (2002), qualitative
data by nature are descriptive, and the story from the superintendents’ viewpoints, along
with the school board members, was essential in the strength of the survey (Patton,
2002).
Research Team
The research team was led by Dr. Michael Escalante from the USC Rossier
School of Education. The dissertation group was comprised of 10 doctoral students
from USC. Dr. Escalante was the lead researcher and also the supervisor of the research
study. The group began meeting in the fall of 2011. While the meetings varied by dis-
cussion point, some of them included participation from various California school board
members, past and present. These individuals provided great insight into the role of
being a board member, and they all had variances in their backgrounds and districts.
Their input was invaluable and spurred major talking points for the dissertation group.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 70
The dissertation group approached the purpose of the study through three frame-
works: (a) Reframing Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008), (b) the CSBA (2007b),
and (c) The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008). In Reframing Organizations
(Bolman & Deal, 2008), the frames include the following: the structural frame, the
human resources frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. In the structural
frame, the main focus is on structural elements within the organization as well as strat-
egy, implementation, and adaptation. In the human resources frame, the scope focuses
on the people within the organization who, in the case of present study, are the superin-
tendents and the school board members. The political frame lends itself to a study of
the political realities that exist within and also outside the organization. The symbolic
frame hones in on the vision and inspiration within the system—in this study, California
school districts (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), individuals who desire the ability to
view things in multiple frameworks require a broad lens and also a willingness to be
flexible and fluid, so to speak. Rigidity will limit this approach to rethinking organiza-
tions. The authors also indicated that a deeper understanding is possible for those
wishing to understand and appreciate the inner workings of organizations, but studying
them through all four frames may be difficult for some individuals who are not as com-
fortable as others with some of the frames. Research has shown that the ability to use
multiple frames was a consistent correlate of effectiveness” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p.
318).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 71
A number of educational issues were at the forefront of the discussions when the
visiting board members were conversing with the dissertation group. Board members
were asked their thoughts on training and whether they considered it to be a function of
their duties as board members. While their opinions varied, one cannot help but raise
the question, “Why not board training?” When considering the four frames and train-
ing, as well as the duties of a board member, could it be that training would make the
board member less effective? While this issue does not seem likely, the case was
strengthened for the survey. The group needed to understand the current realities of the
perceptions of board member training. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), it is
critical for people within organizations to understand how “we think and make sense of
the world around us” (p. 6).
Sample and Population
The sample population is school board members in six southern California
counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura.
Once the data gathering was complete, the group focused solely on school districts that
met established criteria for full participation. Upon receipt of the survey and categoriza-
tion of the data, the group elected to follow up with an interview on only 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 gover-
nance. Those districts that fell into the full participation category were extensive.
Therefore, the groups created specific characteristics: 2,000 to 50,000 ADA, elemen-
tary, secondary, unified, no consideration to socioeconomics, API improvement of 21
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 72
points over 3 years or an API of 800 or higher, and at least one board member MIG
trained.
Participants
The selection of participants was achieved through group dialogue with a spe-
cific intent. The group worked diligently to create parameters for those we wanted to
ask to participate in the study. More importantly, the group sought out purposeful
sampling. Group members recognized that they had to utilize research and focused on
that of Patton (2002). According to Patton, purposeful sampling is “an intended focus
in qualitative sampling, and therefore strength” (p. 230). In terms of this project, the
group elicited information from specific groups of people to gain an intended or, in this
case, purposeful understanding. Patton referred to this concept as selecting information-
rich cases. Patton also indicated that there is much value in employing intensity sam-
pling. Intensity sampling also focuses on information-rich cases and chooses to study
“excellent or rich examples of the phenomenon of interest, but not highly unusual
cases” (p. 234). This example was one surely utilized by this cohort.
The selection process for board members and superintendents was done pur-
posefully. The participants and sample population for the study included California
superintendents and school board members. Due to the sheer size of the state of Cali-
fornia, the group narrowed the scope to board members and superintendents from six
counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura.
The sample was also narrowed to those school districts that were operating with at least
one of their board members MIG trained. The dissertation group also made the
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 73
determination upon receipt of the surveys for each member to interview one superinten-
dent and one board member and then share the results with the rest of the dissertation
team.
Instrumentation
The instruments for this study were surveys, interviews, and a MIG observation
protocol. Conversations regarding the survey began in the winter of 2011 but really
began to take shape in the early spring of 2012. A useful piece to the survey was born
out of the discussions with board members. The survey was created so that the data
could be compiled into one category not only to understand overall perceptions but also
to compare and contrast the opinions of superintendents and board members. These
discussions will give the cohort the opportunity to really digest the differing approaches
to school board membership and how individuals view the duties and responsibilities of
board leadership. The cohort created the surveys in collaboration. The group decided
to create one survey, with specific questions depending on the role of the individual
participating in the survey (see Appendices A and B). In other words, specific questions
were created for superintendents and for board members. The group felt that this would
be the most meaningful way to obtain an understanding of the perceptions of district
leadership from these various individuals. This process also created a more powerful
survey with regard to the information that would be obtained. The group was seeking
input with regard to training and how it would impact school board members. The
returned surveys also guided the cohort into the next phase: follow-up interviews.
Following up with interviews allowed the team to triangulate the data (Patton, 2002).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 74
As previously mentioned, the research team created the survey during the cohort
meetings at USC. The team also created recruitment letters that went along in a packet
with the survey. One letter was generated for the superintendents (see Appendix C),
and one was generated for the board members (see Appendix D). The letters and
surveys were mailed to the superintendents who were leading the districts deemed
effective by the group’s parameters and also the school board presidents of those dis-
tricts. Instructions were provided that explained in detail that the cohort was asking for
participation (see Appendix E). Board presidents were asked to share the surveys with
their fellow board members. Trust was essential for the group; therefore, the superin-
tendents were asked to view the questions that the board members would be answering,
and vice versa. Transparency was essential throughout the process.
Superintendent Survey
The superintendent survey nearly replicated the survey that the board members
were completing. While some nuances did exist as they related to the perceptions of the
superintendent, the general framework of the questions was consistent. The cohort
worked to create the questions with consideration to Bolman and Deal (2008), CSBA
(2007b), and The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2006) as theoretical frameworks.
Making sense of an organization through the lens provided by these authors created a
meaningful survey that drilled down with a laser-like focus to the core of superintendent
beliefs and perceptions and how training impacts board members. According to
Bolman and Deal (2008), viewing organizations through multiple frames creates
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 75
multiple perspectives. Essentially, this was a major goal of the dissertation group as
they addressed the concept of MIG training and effective school districts.
The superintendent survey (Appendix A) consisted of 21 questions that inten-
tionally focused on training as it relates to best practices in school districts and gover-
nance. The survey also focused on how the superintendent would rate board members
and the various skills that they brought to the position. Ultimately the dissertation
group was working to discover what role training had in the governance of school
districts if there was, in fact, a need for training.
Board Member Survey
Each member of the cohort also participated in the creation of the board member
survey (Appendix B). Again, the survey questions nearly mirrored the one that the
superintendents was asked to complete. The survey questions were linked to the
research questions and also the frameworks. The cohort was seeking an understanding
of how training related to the role of being a board member and whether training was
effective to board leadership.
Interview Questionnaires for Superintendents and Board Members
An additional piece of the cohort’s research was an oral interview with superin-
tendents and board members. The structure of the interview was created in the collabo-
rative group setting in the spring of 2012. Each member of the cohort participated in
the creation of the interview questionnaire (see Appendix F). This was another critical
piece to determine perceptions on board training as it relates to overall board leadership
and ultimately effectiveness.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 76
The interview was deemed necessary as an additional way to gather targeted
research from participants. As indicated by Patton (2002), interviewing has a specific
purpose. An interview allows the opportunity to enter into the individual’s perspective
and perceptions (Patton, 2002). The interview also serves the interviewee by helping
the individual make sense of the things he or she cannot or did not observe (Patton,
2002).
The dissertation group was focused on understanding how training had impacted
school board members with regard to governance and best practices. They were also
working to understand the decision-making process for board members and MIG train-
ing. An additional component was to determine whether the board members who
sought training through CSBA perceived any changes in themselves as board members
as a result of the training (Patton, 2002).
As the dissertation group strove to create meaningful interviews, they again ref-
erenced Patton (2002) and used his interview guide as a foundation:
1. How the board member or superintendent participated in the program,
2. Activities,
3. Courses,
4. Certificates received via the training program,
5. Skill attained,
6. Outcomes achieved,
7. Knowledge gained,
8. What that individual can do now that has made him or her marketable,
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 77
9. Aspects of the CSBA training program considered most beneficial,
10. Formal courses,
11. Relationship with board members,
12. Leading a school district,
13. Serving the community,
14. Whether the CSBA prepared the individual to be more effective in his or
her position,
15. Strengths of the program,
16. Weaknesses of the program,
17. What else the individual would liked to have experienced, and
18. How the individual would change the program (Patton, 2002).
Interviews
The structure of the interviews was created so that each interview would take
approximately 30–45 minutes. Each member of the cohort selected two superintendents
and two board members for the follow-up interviews. It should also be noted that the
interview questions were aligned to the research questions and the frameworks.
MIG Observation
The MIG observation protocol (Appendix G) was created so that researchers
could gain first-hand knowledge of an actual MIG module. Each of the team members
attended a training and used the observation protocol as a tool to gather essential data
that would explore the experience of MIG training.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 78
Data Collection
The dissertation group was able to access a list of board members who had par-
ticipated in MIG training from the CSBA. The list was given in strict confidence and
enabled the group to select school districts based on the established criteria of 2,000 to
50,000 ADA, elementary, secondary, unified, no consideration to socioeconomics, and
academic growth of 21 points over 3 years or an API of 800, and at least one board
member MIG trained.
The next step in the process was to create surveys. The surveys were mailed out
in October 2012, and the follow-up interviews were scheduled shortly thereafter. The
dissertation group elected to utilize qualitative instruments as they completed surveys
and interviews to pursue the topic of mandating board training. The inference was that
high-performing boards that had been CSBA trained were more effective in terms of
utilizing best practices in the governance of their school districts.
The reason for choosing surveys and interviews was to strengthen the research.
The goal was to triangulate the data, which meant collecting and analyzing data from
many sources. The data were used to broaden the overall depth of the study and to
create the opportunity to develop conclusions at the end of the study (Lal, 2001; Mar-
shall & Rossman, 1994).
Data Analysis
The data analysis was done on a collective, yet individual basis. Survey ques-
tions were precoded and aligned to the aforementioned frameworks and the research
questions. Each member of the team was tasked with collecting his or her own survey
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 79
data and then compiling results with the rest of the dissertation group. Once all of the
members had presented their survey results, the data were compiled, organized, and
recorded into a shared file.
Finally, the data analysis theory that was utilized in the study was derived from
grounded-theory research. Grounded theory entails five central aspects: describing the
research questions, literature review, describing the methodology, data analysis that
explains the theory, and discussing the implications (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001).
Ethical Considerations
All of the members of the dissertation group participated in the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) application process. The process entailed a completion of the
Collaborative IRB training initiative (CITI). The CITI is an online training program that
offers various modules that individuals can take so that they can earn a certificate that
ensures they understand the ethical considerations when doing research. IRB is a neces-
sary function of the dissertation to ensure that the process is completed with fidelity. It
is also required to ensure that all aspects of the research project are done without any
harm (physical, mental, or otherwise) to participants and that all ethical considerations
are employed. All 10 members of the group as well as research leader Dr. Escalante
completed the IRB CITI.
Summary
In summary, this chapter has reviewed the research methodologies that guided
the project. The chapter was designed in a systematic manner to fully detail the compo-
nents of the study, the research design model, the participants in the study, a clear
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 80
definition of those sought for participation, the instrumentation measures, the data col-
lection process, and how the data were made useful.
In this chapter it was also important to explain the creation of the survey and
interview questionnaire and how the dissertation group collaborated to ensure that they
arrived at a comprehensive approach to seeking an understanding regarding the percep-
tions of training and its place in educational leadership positions.
Chapter 3 was aligned to the research questions of how board training ensures
best practices for school boards and overall governance. The research team collabo-
rated on this aspect of the project but also worked singularly as well. The chapter
utilized the review of the relevant literature, the chosen theoretical frameworks, and
research questions that narrowed the course for research design. Group collaboration
has been essential to a strong, focused pursuit to the research questions and unified
approach to studying the problem.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 81
Chapter 4
Research Results
The purpose of this chapter is to present a synopsis of the findings that were
gathered as a result of the literature review, completed surveys from board members and
superintendents, follow-up interviews, and an observation from a MIG module. The
information will also be aligned and described through the frameworks of Reframing
Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008), the CSBA (2007b), and The Lighthouse Inquiry
(Delagardelle, 2006).
The purpose of the study was to determine whether the MIG training impacted
the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective governance utilizing the
following 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?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Participants
The study focused on the sample population of board members and superinten-
dents who completed and returned surveys and agreed to follow-up interviews. The
participants represented southern California counties ranging from Ventura County to
the north to San Diego County to the south and included Los Angeles, Orange, San
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 82
Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Comprehensively, 100 school districts were
mailed surveys. Of the 100 surveyed mailed, 61 superintendents responded. In those
100 school districts, 226 board members were given initial surveys. Of the 226, 86
completed the initial survey (see Table 1).
Table 1
Summary of Invited Participants and Those Who Actually Participated
Factor Total
Number of districts surveyed 100
Number of superintendents surveyed 100
Number of superintendents who responded 61
Number of board members surveyed 226
Number of board members who responded 88
The subsequent interviewees were selected based upon their responses to the
initial survey. The predetermined interview criteria for participation were for the quali-
fying districts to have completed surveys from a superintendent and a board member
from the same district. Each member of the group selected, at a minimum, two superin-
tendent and board members from corresponding school districts in order to gather
further research through individual interviews.
Interviewed Participants
Preserving anonymity was critical to the study. For that reason, the superinten-
dents, board members, and districts were assigned pseudonyms. From District Z, there
were superintendent McCarty and board member Scott. Their district of employment
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 83
was in San Diego County. Participants from District R included superintendent Walker
and board member Beth. Their district was also located in San Diego County.
District Z was an elementary school district; District R was a much larger union
high school district. Both districts met the established criteria of an API of 800 or a 21-
point increase over a 3-year span. They also had board members who had completed
the MIG program.
Findings for Research Question 1
What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school
board MIG training program?
Information in the literature review and from the theoretical framework of the
Lighthouse Inquiry indicated that school boards who are committed to effectiveness
lead as a united team and share a vision of high expectations (Devarics & O’Brien,
2011). They have a collaborative relationship and share beliefs about students and their
ability to learn (Devarics & O’Brien, 2011). According to the Lighthouse Inquiry,
highly effective boards also participate in shared decision making rather than mandating
policies. Those effective boards also demonstrate collective efforts that lead to im-
provement, not because they are required to but instead because they feel it is the right
thing for their students (Delagardelle, 2008). Through this research, one of the most
evident pieces of data was a belief in training. Board members and superintendents
believed in the process and demonstrated that belief by encouraging members to be
trained. This is a concept that was prevalent through the chosen districts that partici-
pated in the study and provided strong data to answer the research question. An
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 84
additional theme centered on the benefits of the superintendents and board members
participating in training together and the synergy it creates. A team concept was formed
for those districts that participated in training together, which provided further depth to
the study. These are themes that would be further strengthened with the interview data
and MIG observations presented later in this chapter.
Analysis of the survey questions led to important findings with regard to the
research question. The first theme was that board members in successful school
districts were motivated for training and would encourage their fellow board members
to obtain it. The belief in training was the most prominent theme that emanated from
the data. An additional theme was the value of superintendents and board members
being trained together and the collaborative relationship that it created. Of the 84 board
members who responded to the question of whether or not they encouraged other board
members to attend training, all responded strongly agree or agree. Superintendents’
responses indicated that 57 out of 1 favored encouraging board training. Those figures
suggested strong evidence of board members encouraging their fellow board members
to seek training. Furthermore, 66 out of 84 responses indicated that their school board
culture highly encouraged board members to participate in training. Of the surveyed
superintendents, 51 out of 61 responses indicated that they had a culture that encouraged
board training.
An additional survey question posed a direct question that asked whether board
members would strongly recommend the CSBA’s MIG program to fellow board
members. Ultimately, the responding board members gave incredibly strong informa-
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 85
tion regarding their feelings on training and the positive results of training. Table 2
illustrates the survey questions just discussed.
Table 2
Participants’ Responses Regarding Strengthening the Case for School Board Training
School board Superin-
Item members tendents
7. I encourage (fellow) school board members to participate
in the MIG training as a means of professional develop-
ment.
Strongly agree 63 38
Agree 20 19
Disagree 1 4
Strongly disagree 0 0
9. Our school board culture highly encourages participation
in the MIG training.
Strongly agree 37 21
Agree 29 30
Disagree 17 9
Strongly disagree 1 1
19. I would strongly recommend the MIG training to (my
fellow) school board members.
Strongly agree 65 41
Agree 18 17
Disagree 0 2
Strongly disagree 0 0
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
In studying the responses, a clear correlation emerged that indicated successful
school districts were being led by board members and superintendents who believed and
were committed to training. In education, professionals are looking for ways to improve
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 86
their school districts and, according to this research data, the MIG program does lead to
more effective school board leadership, which subsequently leads to more effective
school districts.
While the research highlighted the positive features of training, another one of
the emerging themes was the benefits of the board and superintendent participating in
the training together. In an interview with Beth, she indicated, “It is valuable to go
through the process with other board members and superintendents and get to know
each other a little better in a different environment.” Superintendent McCarty also
indicated that “when board members have the feeling of the superintendent is going to
be with me during the training process, that’s really critical—and if other board mem-
bers join also, that helps as well.” In her interview Barbara also indicated:
Probably the role of the board is the fact that it’s policy making other than the
day-to-day running of the district. A lot of people don’t tend to hear that part
and the idea that there are certain ways to run a meeting that makes it effective.
Even if you have disagreements, you can agree to disagree and move on. It’s
kind of a nuts and bolts of five people from five different backgrounds trying to
get together with a flow and act like a team.
The literature review provided an in-depth look at the importance of boards and
superintendents understanding their roles and responsibilities. By participating in the
training together, a more collaborative unit is created that leads to an understanding of
roles and responsibilities. This is an important concept as district leadership
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 87
understands areas in which they need to work and lead. Successful teams are created
when individuals understand their role, and this occurs through training.
An additional piece of data that pointed to the theme was the researcher’s role
and observation in a MIG module. The majority of board members who attended the
observed MIG module were there with their superintendents and going through the
process together. There appeared to be a strong personal connection between the board
members and their superintendents. They celebrated the fact that they were being
trained and spending time together. Much as Beth stated, they were away from their
districts and spending time collaborating. Table 3 summarizes the data from the MIG
observations.
Results Summary for Research Question 1
Current board members who had completed MIG training believed in the pro-
cess. The research was conclusive in that they overwhelmingly recommended MIG
training for board members. The value of spending time in training together can lead to
a more effective board, which will lead to a more effective school district. Compiling
data from the surveys, interviews, and MIG observation provided strong evidence that
suggested that those who had participated in board training felt that it was also benefi-
cial due to the collaborative relationship it could foster with other board members and
the superintendent. The literature supported the notion that effective school districts
operate through a relationship between the board and superintendent as trusting and
collaborative (Land, 2002). The data strongly suggested that this relationship develops
or grows when both of those groups participate in training together.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 88
Table 3
Key Observations by School Board Members Regarding the Masters in Governance
Modules
Item n
3. Teaches strategies to develop and/or keep focus on common vision.
a
Strongly agree 7
Agree 3
4. Teaches strategies for governance teams to operate openly with trust and
integrity.
a
Strongly agree 3
Agree 7
Note. Taken from School Board Leadership: The Role and Function of California’s
School Boards, by California School Boards Association, 2007b, retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/~/ media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx
Findings for Research Question 2
Does MIG Training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
The Lighthouse framework (Delagardelle, 2006) suggested that at their core,
effective school districts operate with best practices and governance. The CSBA
(2007b) provided a framework with governance as the overarching theme to its entire
body of work. The fact that governance is the most basic level of the organization and,
at the same time, the apex, indicates that without effective governance, the organization
could potentially lack effectiveness. While this appears to be a paradox, research
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 89
suggests that effective school boards demonstrate the ability to know key principles of
good governance (Delagardelle, 2008). If they do not know it innately, then training is
surely a way to make them more effective. Further research suggested that in many
cases boards have been more effective than expected when considering the limited
requirements necessary for people to run for school board elections. While some are
effective, they cannot remain status quo because the changes and obstacles that children
face require boards to govern effectively. Boards have to become leaders and see
themselves as change agents (McAdams, 2002). They must seek professional develop-
ment, and this is where the MIG assists California board members.
Understanding how the MIG impacts board members was a critical question to
the entire project. One of the objectives of the project was to replicate effective school
board governance for the betterment of school board leadership. The surveys, inter-
views, and MIG observations were designed to allow themes to emerge. At a glance,
the survey responses provided immediate evidence that MIG training impacted board
members in a positive way with regard to effective governance. Thematically, the MIG
assists board members in the roles and responsibilities of required of a school board
member.
In the framework provided by the CSBA (2005), student learning and achieve-
ment is one of the major areas of responsibility for the school board. The survey ques-
tions aligned with other factors that correlated with effective governance. According to
survey results, 71 out of 81 participants indicated that the MIG had increased their focus
on student achievement. On a similar question, superintendents indicated in 58 of 61
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 90
responses that they strongly agreed or agreed. The survey also suggested that 75 out of
83 participants shared that MIG training had helped them to use data to make informed
decisions regarding student achievement. An additional question indicated that partici-
pants felt that most of the time, the training had increased their boards’ collaborative
relationship.
The next survey question related to the superintendent participating with the
board through the training. The board members responded that 99% of the time, they
felt that the superintendent should take part in MIG training. This finding again was
more evidence to support the notion that MIG training would increase the collaborative
relationship of boards and superintendents. Evidence also suggested that MIG training
had clarified roles for boards and superintendents 100% of the time, which clearly
related to more effective governance and best practices. The next survey question asked
whether participants felt that their fellow board members would benefit from MIG
training. The findings indicated that 100% indicated that training would be beneficial
(see Table 4).
The survey results were conclusively in favor of board members participating in
MIG training. Nearly to a participant, the results were overwhelmingly in support of the
MIG. The next segment to the data was the interview results.
When Superintendent Walker was asked about the indicators of a successful
MIG training and its effectiveness or lack thereof, he expressed these sentiments:
Yes. The level of understanding of the board member with regard to policy and
governance. The way board members conduct themselves. Also that it helps
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 91
Table 4
Participants’ Responses Regarding Positive Results of MIG Training
School board Superin-
Item members tendents
1. As a result of the MIG training, my focus on student
achievement has increased during school board meetings.
Strongly agree 24 14
Agree 47 44
Disagree 9 3
Strongly disagree 0 0
2. As a result of the MIG training, I/board members encour-
age fellow board members to consistently use data to
make informed decisions regarding student achievement.
Strongly agree 36 10
Agree 39 40
Disagree 7 9
Strongly disagree 1 0
Note. MIG = Masters in Governance.
with the gray situations, real-life problems, and really helps to sharpen focus
and understanding.
Analysis of the interview answer from Superintendent Walker supported the
concept that the MIG program did help with understanding policy and governance.
Effective boards operate with best practices, and these practices certainly relate to how
they conduct themselves and the professional environment they create. Walker’s
statement also described the environment in which boards work, because board mem-
bers often work in areas that are not clearly defined. This concept is important because
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 92
it is an area in which clearly defined roles can help boards stay on course when dealing
with situations that test their ability to remain effective. Literature also supported this
very statement in that boards are forced to work with parents, community members,
students, and share responsibility for leading the school district. In doing so, a clear
understanding of their work is critical (Dahlkemper, 2005).
Interestingly, Beth answered the same question like this:
The only way it’s going to be effective is if the board members who is taking
part in it want to learn…If you’re open to wanting to do the best job for public
education, you want to understand funding. You have to want it. It goes back to
the motivation as to why certain people run for school boards.
Beth’s belief shed light on an important factor in the study. Board members who want
to be effective and do the best job possible will seek MIG training. They are committed
to learning, and improving their capacity to be effective board members. Finally, her
point strengthens the concept that strong board members run for the position to enhance
educational opportunities for children.
Scott detailed his response to the effectiveness question as follows:
Effective side, it’s made me more aware of my role and more hypersensitive.
What a board member is supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do
and really given me the right perspective of what I should and shouldn’t do and
should not be. Has me more involved with CSBA, and NSBA. I attend those
every year, and it was a result of me attending the class because I always want to
know what are the latest laws, what are some bills I need to know about, what
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 93
are some of the policy issues or changes that will be coming down the pipe and
will impact our district, and what should our position be on it.
Scott was a board member who was committed to doing the best work he could for his
school district. He was concerned with his position and understood the work that had to
be done. He was leading an effective district governance team because he had been
trained and was committed to lifelong training. He was a forward-thinking board
member who prepared for issues that he saw far out in front of the district. He was
concerned with sharing the right perspective for his district and believed in the work.
Finally, Superintendent McCarty had the following response:
We’ve had some long-standing board members. I would say it has in the sense it
helps them network with other board members. We really are so much more
functional than others, and it gives them some good foundational pieces as well.
I really do believe it helps mold them. If there doesn’t exist a multiprocess,
other elements will mold them instead, such as a union.
Superintendent McCarty also had strong views on the MIG training for his board mem-
bers. His statement strongly supported the idea of governance and the importance of
board members being taught the position from people who could provide sound infor-
mation and training that would help them prepare for the rigors of the position. His
statement also hinted that getting the “good foundational” training early on is important
for the current success and quite possibly future success of the board member. Further-
more, his belief was that ongoing training is necessary so that boards do not get side-
tracked from their duties and responsibilities.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 94
Essentially the participants mentioned a number of ways to determine the effec-
tiveness of the MIG. The spectrum encompassed characteristics such as governance,
policy, and the foundational properties of being a board member; helping board mem-
bers grow into the position; and creating capacity as a board member. Clearly all of
these are effective ways to improve school board members in their roles. An additional
key component is whether board members are able to ask the right questions with regard
to school governance and whether that occurs as a direct result of the training. In
studying the responses of the board members, they appeared to answer that question but
some indicated that a main factor is the motivation and attitude of the individual board
member. The surveyed board members and superintendents certainly felt that motiva-
tion was a factor.
The MIG observation provided yet another chunk of supporting data for the
overall effectiveness of the training. One area of the observation tool focused on the
roles and responsibilities for governance teams. The observation data clearly pointed to
the concept of the training strongly defining the roles and responsibilities of governance
teams. In the second observation criterion, the data again showed that the MIG kept
student learning at the core of the purpose. This factor links directly back to the CSBA
framework, with student learning and achievement being at the core of what they do
(CSBA, 2005). In the next area of examination, the observation tool showed that the
MIG scored an 8 out of 8 in overall effectiveness of teaching strategies to help boards to
keep focus on a common vision (CSBA, 2007b). Possibly the most telling of all the ob-
servation questions was the one that asks whether the MIG teaches strategies for
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 95
governance teams to operate openly, with trust and integrity (CSBA, 2007b). Once
again, the observations suggested that every individual who completed the survey
showed that the MIG module would lead to overall effectiveness and equip board
members to work together with fidelity. These data supported a positive response to
whether or not the MIG leads to more effective governance.
The findings from the MIG observation tool strongly suggested that the MIG
program equips board members to operate with best practices. Governance is the theme
of the module, and the actual trainings are directly linked to the purpose; all four of the
data sets connect on the governance piece. The trainings not only teach board members
how to work within the scope of the position but also grow their capacity as school
district leaders.
The second theme that was generated out of the research and that led to answers
for how the MIG establishes best practices and effective governance was through the
trust that is created when boards participate and commit to training. Trust was a
definite theme that emerged through the research. Incidentally, a critical element iden-
tified by the CSBA (2007a) for effective governance is, in fact, trust. Trust is a charac-
teristic demonstrated by effective school boards. The framework from the CSBA has
mapped clear definitions for trust and the power of trust. The following excerpt outlines
the necessary concepts for building trust, as established by the CSBA (2007a):
Trust is built one respectful question one respectful question at a time.
Trust is built by listening completely to someone's entire idea, before
jumping in with a response.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 96
Trust is built by doing a round, and being sure everyone has had a chance
to speak or pass.
Trust is being built by following through on commitments and being
ready to fully participate with other members of a team.
Trust is developed when debate and deliberations are always kept in the
objective, and never results in personal attack.
Trust grows when you ask someone to keep a confidence, and they do.
Trust is built when you ask someone's permission to bring up a subject
which might cause them embarrassment or discomfort.
Trust is built when you “check in” with people at meetings and make
sure everyone’s ready to go on.
Trust is built when your words, and the looks you give, are congruent.
Trust is built when you make every attempt not to surprise someone and
put them on the spot.
Trust is built when you choose your words carefully and avoid any
derogatory remarks you know are going to be hurtful.
Trust is built when you have a foundation of respect, can be honest, can
give and take, and can receive feedback as a part of developing a relationship.
Trust is something that takes time to establish. You can’t get it on de-
mand, and it gets lost much faster than it is found.
Trust grows when honest mistakes are accepted as part of being human,
and people aren’t punished for taking a risk.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 97
Trust is fragile in new groups and needs some explicit norms to help get
started. Someone has to understand that it’s not easy to be new, and reach out.
Trust is built among people when decisions are based upon principle, not
self-interest.
Trust is a fundamental bond that takes consistency to institutionalize,
takes time to establish and is essential to any group's unity of purpose. (p. 1)
While the CSBA (2007a) has framed a systematic outline for trust, research also
shows that openness and transparency are two factors that also lead to more effective
governance. Some could connect openness and transparency to the system of trust
created by the CSBA (2007a). Recent literature has explained that effective governance
systems are able to operate in a manner in which information flows to various levels.
Effective boards will operate in this way. They will share information and operate in a
way that engages public support due to the openness in which they make decisions and
communicate (Brewer & Smith, 2007).
In analyzing the MIG observation tool, the observers noted that in all cases the
MIG teaches strategies for governance teams to operate openly, with trust and integrity.
With trust at its core, the MIG will lead school boards to a place where they can learn to
trust each other as board and to work to be effective or grow their effectiveness. One of
the survey questions completed by superintendents further supported this theme in that
they showed in 55 out of 61 cases the MIG helps trained board members accept the
majority decision of their board even if they hold the minority view. This is a concept
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 98
that connects back to trust and following along with fellow board members even when
they lack agreement on certain situations.
When Scott discussed the effectiveness of the MIG modules, he noted the
following:
I don’t know the superintendent views. I think before there was a culture. I’m
going to tell two of our board members to go to the training. Not all of the board
members that I work with will see it that way. I think it should be part of board
member training without a doubt, and it should be something the district pays
for or a price that’s doable so the district doesn’t complain about it. Every
school board member should go in the Masters in Governance class because it’s
a great equalizer, because a lot of board members . . . have various political
reasons of why they want to be on a school board. I think it’s a great equalizer.
There is another altruistic role that you need to know about, and it’s not
just about one or two constituents that helped get you on that board. My kids are
in the district, and I was volunteering in the back of my daughter’s kindergarten
class at the time, and there was an opening, and I just asked myself if it would be
better for me to be working in the back of a classroom or sitting behind the
diocese, making decisions for 27,000 students. I studied school boards at my
master’s program, and I was really interested on the whole school board gov-
ernance. That was my interest, but other people, you know, it’s more the union
per se got them to run, elected, and they have another agenda.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 99
The other thing that Masters in Governance helped me to do is look at
what role I can play as a team member and building consensus with other board
members. We don’t have a very contentious board, we don’t all agree, but we
all pretty much vote the same way. If I didn’t have the experience of the Masters
in Governance program and work with board members from other districts, I
think my perspective or even my understanding of what the role of a board is
would be slanted.
While there was much valuable information in his response, the key to this
theme is that while his fellow board members might not always agree, they continued to
trust one another and vote in the same way. Scott had learned his role through the MIG
and had entered the position with an understanding that he was a member of a team and
had to learn to trust those with whom he was working. He understood that the position
was extremely important for the 27,000 students in his district. He was a true profes-
sional with regard to how he operated as a board member.
Results Summary for Research Question 2
According to the four prongs of research that included the literature review,
surveys, interviews, and MIG observations, it was demonstrated that the MIG program
conclusively contributes to school board members being more equipped to lead school
districts in the area of effective governance. It is worth mentioning, based upon the
established criteria, that the fact that the board members surveyed were already working
in effective districts added another layer of credence to the survey results and inter-
views. They were leading effective districts, and one of the areas that could be directly
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 100
attributed to that success was their commitment to training and the value it had added to
them as board members.
Through the research, a second major theme emerged that centered on the
concept of trust and how effective boards operate. Effective boards commit to best
practices for governance, and trust is a key component to that effectiveness. This is
such an important concept that the CSBA has committed a tremendous amount of time
and effort to assist boards in their pursuit of a trusting board. A board that operates with
openness will be respected by the community better than one that operates like a group
of single-minded individuals in pursuit of their own special interests. Again, the ob-
servers of the MIG module reported in 100% of survey responses that the MIG modules
teach strategies to ensure that the focus remains on a common vision.
The data also suggested that those board members surveyed were motivated in
their roles as board members. They were motivated to be strong board members and
were committed to the team. They had made the commitment to be educated board
members; thus, they exhibited motivation to seek training and a collaborative relation-
ship with their superintendents, as well as their fellow board members. They also
worked as servant leaders and kept the focus on the vision of their districts.
Findings for Research Question 3
In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Research shows that the school boards of today are leading school districts
serving student populations that present more obstacles than at any other time in history.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 101
School boards also face a tremendous amount of scrutiny and criticism. In the words of
the great American writer, Mark Twain, “In the first place God made idiots. This was
for practice. Then he made school boards” (as cited in McAdams, 2002, p. 1). Clearly
this quote was not supported in this research but was meant to demonstrate the percep-
tion, in some cases, of school boards. One definite way to eliminate this type of state-
ment and dissolve any further ammunition is through MIG training. MIG training does
prepare school boards for success and provides the tools to operate with best practices
and effective governance.
There are numerous areas in which school board members are expected to have
knowledge, including budgets and curriculum, thus creating a steep learning curve for
new board members (Bianchi, 2003). While some states already have mandated
training for board members, California is not one of them. Some oppose mandates, but
the research presented here focuses on how mandating training could impact gover-
nance. Finally, the literature presented in the theoretical framework of Reframing
Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008) mentioned the concept that some organizations
are difficult to understand. Based upon the literature presented on school boards, one
can classify them and their duties into the difficult-to-understand category. Ultimately,
the authors of Reframing Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008) indicated that there is a
defense against a lack of preparation—and that is to gain an understanding of the very
organizations in which people work by learning multiple frames. Here the connection is
to MIG training and the multiple modules that it offers to board members. It is impor-
tant to focus not only on the modules but also on the key concept that connects to
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 102
Bolman and Deal (2008)—that is, training will lead to better preparation, which also
leads to better understanding. Board members work in a fast-paced environment, and
many of the areas in which they are expected to lead are confusing and require extensive
knowledge. There are not that many opportunities to remain current, and a lack of
preparation could be detrimental to the organization.
Analysis of the literature review, survey questions, interviews, and MIG obser-
vation provided significant data with regard to the theme that mandated training would
clarify the roles and responsibilities of being a school board member. The survey data
indicated that board members in all cases felt the MIG training provided clarification
with regard to their roles and responsibilities as school board members. Further ques-
tioning provided data that indicated 100% of board members felt that their fellow board
members would benefit from training. Finally, surveyed board members indicated in 59
out of 84 surveys that school board training should be a mandate in the state of Califor-
nia.
Participating superintendents who completed the surveys strongly suggested that
board members who had participated in MIG training demonstrated a better understand-
ing of their roles and responsibilities. The superintendents also responded positively in
the area of belief that board members would benefit from MIG training. Finally, the
overwhelming majority of superintendents (50 of 60) responded in favor of mandating
board training in California.
In the corresponding interviews, the case was further strengthened that board
training assists board members in their roles and duties. Superintendent McCarty
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 103
reported that board training was “beneficial in helping board members understand their
role.” A clear understanding of roles and responsibilities will help boards focus on their
duties as a whole and also their individual duties as a member of a board.
The MIG observation tool also further supported the concept that training assists
board members in their roles and responsibilities. In 100% of observations, members
reported that after participating in a MIG module, the program assisted governance
teams in their roles and responsibilities. An additional question was created to analyze
how well the MIG teaches strategies to develop a common focus, and here the responses
were positive in all cases. Again, the information connects back to understanding roles
and how that helps board members to create a common and collective vision. All
members indicated the MIG module taught governance and assisted teams in operating
openly, with trust and integrity. This is a goal of CSBA (2007b) and was documented
as successful in the observations. In the further observations of operating with best
practices, procedures, and structures, the MIG hit positively on all corresponding ob-
servations. The scores on the MIG also showed an 8 out of 8 with regard to teaching
board members about their collective responsibility as a school board and evaluating
their own success.
Results Summary for Research Question 3
The surveys, interviews, and observations overwhelmingly supported the theme
that the MIG undoubtedly assisted board members in their roles and responsibilities.
The research question sought to determine how mandating training would impact school
board governance. The question was answered in that training did help board members
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 104
understand what was expected of them, assisted them in those responsibilities, and
equipped them to be stronger board members. These are essentially all areas that corre-
late to effective governance. All of these aspects contribute to better and more effective
school board leadership. The strongest statement that can be made is that MIG training
will impact board members in a positive way with regard to their role as board mem-
bers.
Summary
Data analysis included a review of literature, surveys, interviews, and an obser-
vation of a MIG module. The data were analyzed and systematically aligned to further
expand and answer the research questions.
Data analysis for research question 1 presented two significant themes. One
theme was that current board members were motivated to be trained and felt that other
board members should be trained. The training added significant value to their ability
to be effective board members. The second theme was the collaborative environment
that training created in their relationship with the superintendent and also fellow board
members who attended the training. Invaluable unity is created when boards and super-
intendents learn together. By attending the MIG training together, boards can grow and
gel and become stronger working units. Board members learn that they are on a team
and learn how to be a part of a governance team.
Analysis of research question 2 yielded major themes as well. The first theme
was that the MIG strongly assists board members in becoming better equipped to lead
their school districts. The second theme was that trust is a critical factor for effective
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 105
schools boards. Effective school boards may not always show 100% agreement, but
those that are able to work together toward a common vision demonstrate effectiveness.
The board members working in those districts are able to trust their colleagues and work
with openness. The last theme in this research question related back to the concept of
motivation. This has been a key theme in research questions 1and 2. Effective board
members are motivated to learn and participate in MIG training. They are leaders in
school districts and are committed to education and training. Finally, the third research
question provided a key theme to the study in that it indicated that MIG training in-
creases board members’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities, thereby
leading to a stronger governance unit. Ultimately, having the ability to focus on their
specific roles and duties will help board members focus on what is important.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 106
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
School board members face significant challenges in leading school districts.
Students are entering California schools with tremendous obstacles, and board members
are faced with many challenges as well (Dahlkemper, 2005). Through this study,
research has been provided to increase the chances that board members will be success-
ful in their leadership. Improving school board governance and best practices can lead
to a more effective school district. One of the ways that California school board mem-
bers can enhance their expertise is through the CSBA’s (2011) MIG program. Califor-
nia’s children deserve to be led by competent, committed board members who will be
making decisions with fidelity, and participating in training can equip them with respect
to their roles and responsibilities.
Chapter 1 provided an overview of the study, a discussion on key areas in which
board members work, a purpose and significance of the study, and an organization of
the study. Chapter 2 provided an in-depth review of current literature related to the
position of a school board member as well as three frameworks that were utilized for the
study to provide a lens for understanding. Chapter 3 presented the qualitative method-
ology of the research, the research design, sample and population, participants, instru-
mentation and surveys, interviews, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 pro-
vided an analysis of the data; further explanation of the research questions; and themes
and findings revealed through the literature reviews, surveys, interviews, and the MIG
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 107
observation. Chapter 5 summarizes the results from Chapters 1–4 and provide recom-
mendations for further research.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MIG training impacted a
school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective governance. This is a
critical aspect, as new and existing board members grow with all of the challenges and
issues on which they make decisions. Board members have to remain current and
informed in a number of ways in seeking an effective leadership role.
The research team examined the problem through three theoretical frameworks:
Reframing Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2008), The Lighthouse Inquiry (Dela-
gardelle, 2008), and the CSBA (2005, 2007b, 2011). The frameworks offered a lens in
which the researcher group could formulate the problem and create research questions,
as follows:
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?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Summary of Findings
Through the data analysis of the research questions, a number of themes
emerged. The major ones were the following:
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 108
1. Board members working in effective school districts are motivated to partici-
pate in training.
2. Board members believed in the collaborative relationship that training creates
between board members and their superintendents.
3. Training undoubtedly equips board members in understanding their roles and
responsibilities,
4. Effective board members are motivated to seek training.
5. Mandating board training could lead to more effective board members with
regard to governance.
Research Question 1
Research question 1 narrowed in on the factors that impact the decision of
school board members to complete a school board training program. A key concept was
understanding why certain board members want to be trained. The emergent themes
and findings were closely tied to the literature. Board members working in effective
districts have a sound understanding of best practices as it relates to their duties as
school board members. They are committed to effective governance and quality rela-
tionships with fellow board members and their superintendents. Superintendent Walker
indicated, “When board members want to learn, they seek training. They are motivated
to be good board members.” He also felt that training “improves their leadership.”
They also understand they are, in fact, political figures charged with ensuring equity,
access, and equal opportunities for children (Land, 2002).
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 109
The research also indicated that one of the major reasons board members want to
be trained is self-motivation. They are motivated to continue learning and to make
themselves valuable and informed. They understand the importance of their position
and take the responsibility with pride. Literature also shows that these individuals are
committed to preparation through training so that they are able to be informed decision
makers and are armed to face the challenges of the position (Campbell & Green, 1994).
An additional theme that emerged from this research question was the value that
surveyed board members saw in participating in training with fellow board members
and their superintendents. They indicated that receiving the training together helped
them to create a common vision for their districts and to become a unit. The training
helped them come together and create a stronger working relationship. This informa-
tion aligns with literature that was presented in Chapter 2. Research suggested that a
strong working relationship between the board and superintendent is a critical piece for
district success (Thomas, 2001). Participating in training helped boards and superinten-
dents “gel,” and there is tremendous value in the time that they share and learn together.
The CSBA (2005) framework provides a blue print and also focuses on the team aspect
in its modules. In her interview, Beth shared that it is “valuable to go through the
process with other board members and the superintendents and get to know each other a
little better in a different environment.”
The findings to this research question suggested that board members who sought
training were motivated to be effective board members. Importantly, that motivation to
learn also correlates to them being more effective board members. The superintendent
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 110
survey data showed that in 58 out of 61 cases, they felt that the MIG training helped
board members in their decision making and collaboration with fellow board members.
Simply stated, it increased their overall effectiveness. The findings also suggested that
superintendents should most definitely participate in MIG training with their school
boards. In the interest of creating a collaborative and effective leadership team, the
training can certainly assist in their level of success.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 provided an analysis of the MIG program and whether, in
fact, it encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effec-
tive governance. Literature suggests that California school districts should change their
course in order to meet today’s challenges in education. One of the most promising
ways to make immediate changes is through effective governance. Research shows that
effective governance is one of the most significant commitments that school districts
should make (Loeb & Miller, 2007). The initial surveys provided a wealth of support-
ing data that suggested that the MIG training was extremely effective for school board
members as it assisted them in effective governance.
School board leadership and governance encompasses a variety of measures.
The survey data covered their focus on achievement, the district’s vision and goals,
roles and responsibilities of school board members as well as informed their decision
making. In all cases, the data were overwhelmingly (above 90)% in favor of MIG
training and the lessons learned via the training. Again, both superintendents and board
members were in agreement. The MIG observation tool also asserted the significance
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 111
of training. The observations strongly supported the connection that training had for
effective governance. In eight out of eight observations, the observers reported that the
governance teams were clearly defined in the MIG modules. They also reported that in
all cases, the MIG program teaches strategies to develop a focus and common vision.
That common vision correlates to the concept of trust and how effective teams operate
with trust and openness; they are able to commit to common goals and trust one another
(CSBA, 2007b). By spending an entire day together and openly discussing the topic of
a particular MIG module, board members can create common understandings that align
with the strategic plans of their districts, which will subsequently be beneficial to their
overall governance.
The real strength in these observations is that the observers gained first-hand
experience in the training. The MIG program certainly lends credence to the recom-
mendations provided later in this chapter, because boards and superintendents were
observed at the modules working together for commonalities. The CSBA (2005) is an
organization in pursuit of effective governance and provides a team approach for gov-
ernance. In the CSBA (2005) framework, a lens is provided for how board members
should operate and also an entire governance system. In summary, the CSBA provides
effective training for governance, and the literature clearly indicates just how necessary
effective governance is for students.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 was designed to provide data to explain the ways in which
MIG training could impact school board governance. One of the themes that emerged
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 112
through the research was that mandating training could make board members better
equipped to lead with effective governance. In 48 out of 61 superintendent responses,
participants indicated that training helped in the areas of role definition and responsibili-
ties. In comparison, all 83 board member participants reported that training helped in
the area of roles. Literature suggests that roles and responsibilities are one of the key
areas that can diminish the effectiveness of a school district; therefore, these numbers
are critical to the study (Petersen & Short, 2001). Ultimately, ambiguity in role defini-
tion will contribute to a lack of school improvement (Danzberger et al., 1992). Again,
survey data suggested that training was effective in supporting board members in their
duties, and this is information that cannot be ignored.
The study showed through a review of literature that school improvement can be
achieved via clearly defined roles, and the surveys supported that conclusion. As well,
interviews also contributed to this emergent theme, which fully connected the literature
to actual opinions and feelings of current board members.
Implications for Practice
This research inquiry validated the concept of MIG training for school board
members. School board members take on positions that are extremely critical in how
schools operate. The job is daunting and full of significant challenges. School board
members enter the position with various backgrounds and history, and this variance
certainly makes some board members more prepared than others. Regardless of their
individual backgrounds, participating in training can improve already effective school
board members and can lead to effectiveness for those struggling or otherwise
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 113
uniformed board members. There is also a tremendous amount of value for boards to
participate in training together and also with their superintendents. A shared commit-
ment to training can create a cohesive school board.
This study also provided evidence that California should consider mandating
school board training for new and existing board members. The idea that an individual
can lead an educational institution but not believe in and participate in lifelong learning
is ludicrous. School board members have to learn how to lead, work with a superinten-
dent, and work with fellow board members while focusing on key issues that affect their
districts. It is a very significant position, bigger than the individual, and that concept
strengthens further the need to commit to training. California’s children need and
deserve effective school board members working for them.
Recommendations
The findings in this study strongly suggest that Californians need effective
school boards leading school districts. School boards have a significant impact on Cali-
fornia school children and their preparation for the 21st century. The research shows
that effective school districts are being lead by effective school boards. Effective school
boards operate with best practices in the areas of governance and school board leader-
ship. Education is ever changing and morphing; consequently, to remain current and
educated school boards, must continue to learn. Making decisions for children is one of
the most important jobs in the country and has to be done through informed and dedi-
cated individuals.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 114
While board members believe in training, one of the themes that emerged was
the delivery of training. The majority of participants indicated that an online version of
training would encourage more board members to commit to training. They also indi-
cated that the cost of training could be a detractor for some board members. Some
participants suggested changing the mode of the MIG modules. They believed that it
had too much of a “seat time” sort of feel—meaning that the training should not be
designed to cover an 8-hour day when information could be delivered in 4 hours. They
felt that earning a MIG certificate should not be tied to a certain amount of hours, but
instead should be constituted by learning the key information from the module. Instead,
they recommended an outcome-based approach versus seat time. This is a strong
suggestion that certainly should be studied further. Because the researchers in this study
participated in one of the MIG modules and in the conversations, they gained first-hand
knowledge of a MIG module. It must be considered that an online aspect to the pro-
gram could be beneficial but may lose the value of the collaborative team approach
gained through the modules. An additional component worth considering is having
trained superintendents and trained board members lead some of the workshops. Partic-
ipants indicated that they would also like to see some follow-up after boards have
completed the MIG program. They felt that more concise versions of the MIG could be
beneficial in a workshop sort of design. This concept supports the concept of lifelong
learning. The fact that the location of the MIG modules could be a detractor for some
board members further supports the idea of having experienced board members and
superintendents lead some workshops. The CSBA could offer regional workshops run
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 115
by superintendents and board members at the county level. The CSBA could even
choose boards and superintendents who are working in effective school districts. This
is a strategy that needs the full attention of the CSBA.
An additional recommendation emanates from the research and strongly sug-
gests that the CSBA should complete a self-evaluation of the current MIG training
module. In that review, it is being recommended that the CSBA analyze the current
MIG program and consider making more frequent training sessions tailored to board
members with varying experience. This method would encourage board members to
continue to seek training regardless of their years of experience. Board members indi-
cated that this would be a positive step and one certainly worthy of exploration. Once
board members complete the initial MIG program, they have completed CSBA training;
however, providing additional professional development for experienced board mem-
bers would assist them to remain current with the sweeping changes or slight nuances
that occur in the educational world. The CSBA could help prepare board members for
21st-century learning.
Mandating board training could eliminate board members who run for idealistic
and self-serving reasons. A mandate could ensure that leading California school
districts are board members who are committed to children. A mandate that calls for
boards to commit to some sort of training every year could be beneficial as well. The
research supported the in-depth value of boards spending time together; and by
mandating it annually, the communication and focus on district needs could be rein-
forced. Essentially this would mean changing the current MIG program to a shorter
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 116
version, thereby changing the scope to less of a focus on individual board members and
shifting the focus to boards as a whole.
The concept of whole boards being trained at the same time is certainly interest-
ing. There is significant value when board members spend time in training together,
working in a sort of professional learning community model. Research showed that
boards that understand roles and responsibilities are more effective in governance and
best practices; thus, a mandate for entire boards to participate in training every year
could be tremendously important to their effectiveness. A mandate that calls for boards
to participate in training collectively could strengthen their overall communication and
also increase the expectations for board members. The idea that they are a single mem-
ber of a working unit whose goal is to effectively collaborate with other board members
and a superintendent could assist in defining roles and aligning to the vision of the
district.
California schools face great challenges in the years to come. Expert leadership
will most definitely be a way to ensure success for students. Children do not own their
educational rights; therefore, they deserve committed board members who are skilled
and trained enough to make the very best decisions. Board members are needed who
believe in lifelong learning and will continue in the educational journey themselves. A
mandate could ensure that board members lead by example, as they are continuing to
learn.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 117
References
Allen, A. & Mintrom M. (2009). Responsibility and school governance. Educational
Policy, 23, 847–874. doi:10.1177/0895904808330172
Allison, D. J., Allison, P. A., & McHenry, H. A. (1995). Chiefs and chairs: Working
relationships between effective CEOs and Board of Education chairpersons. In K.
Leithwood (Ed.), Effective school district leadership: Transforming politics into
education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2002). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. Journal of the Agency for Instructional Technology, 11(4), 1–3.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544–559.
Bernhardt, V. L. (2004). Continuous improvement: It takes more than test scores. ACSA
Leadership, n.v., 16–19. Retrieved from http://eff.csuchico.edu/downloads/
TestScores.pdf
Bianchi, B. A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3),
1–4. Retrieved from http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/
forecast1003.pdf
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.
Brewer, D., & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the “crazy quilt”: Educational governance
in California, getting down to facts. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Institute
for Research on Education Policy and Practice.
California Department of Education. (2012a). Academic Performance Index (API). Re-
trieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Department of Education. (2012b). Adequate yearly progress (AYP). Re-
trieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/
California Department of Education. (2012c). California High School Exit Examination
(CAHSEE). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 118
California School Boards Association. (2005). Effective governance system (Revision
8). West Sacramento, CA: Author.
California School Boards Association. (2007a). Building trust among team members.
West Sacramento, CA: Author.
California School Boards Association. (2007b). School board leadership: The role and
function of California’s school boards. Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/
media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2011). Leadership development 2011. West
Sacramento, CA: Author.
California School Boards Association. (2012). CSBA leadership development 2012
[Brochure]. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Campbell, W. D., & Green, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in
the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391–395.
Carpenter, D. C. (1987, February). Minnesota superintendents’ perceptions of their role
and influence in school board agenda setting. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-
ing of the American Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA.
Carter, G. R., & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American superintendent: Leading in
an age of pressure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2000). Educational administration: A
problem-based approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
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., Carol, N. L., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, W. M., McCloud, A. B., &
Usdan, D. M. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team.
Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 53–59.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools:
New times new requirements. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leader-
ship.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity.
Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 5–30.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 119
Deem, R., Brehone, K., & Heath, S. (1995). Active citizenship and the governing of
schools. Buckingham UK: Open University Press.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The
future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 1–8). Blue
Ridge, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Devarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards:
Full report. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/
Public-education/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteris
tics-of-effective-school-boards.html
Feuerstein, A., & Opfer, V. D. (1998). School board chairmen and school superinten-
dents: An analysis of perceptions concerning special interest groups and educa-
tional governance. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 373–398.
Funk, K. F., & Funk, R. S. (1992). Illuminate your board: How effective training can
brighten board service. American School Board Journal, n.v., 16–18.
Glass, T. E. (1992). The 1992 study of the American school superintendency. Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new mil-
lennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. New York, NY: Center for Applied Re-
search in Education.
Grady, M. L., & Bryant, M. T. (1991). Critical incidences between superintendents and
school boards: Implications for practice. Planning and Changing, 20, 207–221.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? (Working Paper 2007-
04). Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/publications/documents/wp_who
_sits_on_sch_in_ca.pdf
Hess, M. F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and
challenges of district governance. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-
Leadership/Surveys/SchoolBoardsattheDawnofthe21stCentury.pdf
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 120
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. (2001, 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.
Iowa School Boards Foundation. (2008, March). Lighthouse Phase II—brief summary.
Information Briefing, 2(2), 1–8.
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No
Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Re-
searcher, 34(8), 3–13.
Kowalski, T. J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice and cases. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lal, S. (2001). Qualitative data: Making sense of what you have. Dominguez Hills,
California State University, Dominguez Hills, School of Education Teacher Educa-
tion.
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.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Loeb, S., & Miller, L. (2007). A review of state teacher policies: What are they, what
are their effects, and what are their implications for school finance? Retrieved
from http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Loeb_Miller.pdf
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. A. (2004). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curric-
ulum Development.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 121
McAdams, D. R. (2002). The new challenge for school boards. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States.
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10),
7–9.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members. Educational Ad-
ministration Quarterly, 40, 34–70.
National School Boards Association. (2012a). About the National School Boards Asso-
ciation (NSBA). Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/About
National School Boards Association. (2012b). Why school boards: Five reasons for
local control of public education. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-
Leadership/ Governance/WhySchoolBoards/WhySchoolBoards.txt
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Norton, S. M., Webb, D. L., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superin-
tendency: New responsibilities, new leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Paige, R. (2001, April 7). School boards: Holding power and bearing the responsibility
for educational leadership. Paper presented as Jacqueline P. Danzberger Memorial
Lecture, sponsored by National School Boards Association and Institute for Edu-
cational Leadership, New Orleans, LA.
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.
Renchler, R. (1992). Urban superintendent turnover: The need for stability. Urban
Superintendents’ Sounding Board, 1(1), 2–13.
Roberts, L. K., & Sampson, M. P. (2011). School board member professional devel-
opment and effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational
Management, 5, 701–713. doi:10.1108/09513541111172108
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 122
Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of
how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington DC: MDRC
for the Council of the Great City Schools.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century:
The quest to define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
and Howard University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts
can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington DC:
Learning First Alliance.
Viadero, D. (2007, September 24). School boards’ effect on student learning gets new
attention. Education Week, 27(5), 1.
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
WestEd. (2001). Leading in difficult times: Are urban school boards up to the task?
Policy Trends. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/pt-03-01.pdf
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd
ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ziebarth, T. (2002). The roles and responsibilities of school boards and superinten-
dents: A state policy framework (Education Commission of the States Document
4126). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/41/26/4126.pdf
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 123
Appendix A
Superintendent Survey Questions
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 124
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 125
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 126
Appendix B
School Board Member Survey Questions
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 127
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 128
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 129
Appendix C
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,
Rocky Murray 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
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 130
Appendix D
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,
Rocky Murray 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
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 131
Appendix E
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
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 132
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
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 133
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
Rocky Murray at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at
mescalan@usc.edu.
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 134
Appendix F
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.)
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 135
Appendix G
MIG Observation Protocol
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 136
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 137
TRAINING AND SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 138

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to determine how the California School Board Associa- tion’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training program leads to more effective school board leadership and governance. This study employed the framework of authors Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal, the CSBA, and the Iowa Lighthouse Inquiry. The participants in the study were superintendents and school board members from the following southern California counties: Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego. The research design involved a review of litera- ture, surveys, interviews, and observations. The data collection entailed survey collec- tion and follow-up interviews with board members and superintendents. This study sought to understand the factors that impacted the decision of school board members to complete a school board training program. The study also focused on how the MIG training program equipped board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective gover- nance and, finally, how a mandate for school board training could impact school board governance. The findings indicated that a school board training mandate would lead to more effective school board leadership and governance. The implications are that school board practice can be improved through training and that board members should seek training. The benefits of training are substantial with regard to school board governance and leadership.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Murray, Rocky (author)

Core Title Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Defense Date 02/22/2013

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

Tag CSBA,Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,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 rmurray@hbuhsd.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-224361

Unique identifier UC11294555

Identifier usctheses-c3-224361 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MurrayRock-1466.pdf

Dmrecord 224361

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Murray, Rocky

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