University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 1
EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE: THE IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN
GOVERNANCE TRAINING ON SCHOOL BOARDS IN
CALIFORNIA
by
Letitia T. Bradley
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 Letitia T. Bradley
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to those whose support made this project possible:
my son, my mother, and my best friend. First and foremost, I dedicate this dissertation
to my loving son and greatest supporter, Cole Collins. Thanks to his understanding and
unwavering confidence and sacrifice, I was able to live my dream and become “Dr.
Mommy!” I thank him for sharing me with the world so that I can improve the lives of
others.
Next, this dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Dorothy Rhone. I thank her
for teaching me that all things are possible through faith, dedication, and hard work.
Without her support and Thursday night sleepovers, I would not have been able to
complete this journey.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my best friend, confidante, and sister, Keshea
Stevenson. She is the best godmother that I could ask for, and I appreciate the fact that
she insured that my son would have consistent spiritual guidance and attention in my
absence.
Last but certainly not least, I dedicate this to the students of Compton High
School for allowing me to facilitate their brilliance on a daily basis. I hope that they
continue to grow and develop into citizens of the world—they are second to none!
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 3
Acknowledgments
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and encour-
agement of several key people. They served as the bridge between where I was and
where I endeavored to go. My dissertation committee—Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dr.
Pedro Garcia, and Dr. Cynthia Livingston—provided timely feedback, encouragement,
and support. Special thanks go to my chair, Dr. Escalante, who has to be the most
insightful educator I have had the pleasure to know and learn from. I am grateful to him
for being patient with me and guiding me through the journey of a lifetime.
I would like to thank all of my cohort members, especially Kristina Turley,
Issaic Gates, Sergio A. Canal, Vivian Choi, and Rocky Murray. This research could not
have been done without the benefit of their knowledge, expertise, support, and experi-
ence. I thank them for their patience, understanding, and unwavering commitment. Ad-
ditionally, I would like to acknowledge members of the Thursday II family who inspired
me to be better. Tom Studdert, Christie Rainey and Angela were very special to me,
and I am glad that we met. I could not have asked for a better cohort, and I look forward
to how they all will impact meaningful change in the field of education.
I would like to thank my friends and colleagues at the Compton Unified School
District. I thank them for the kind words and food. The periodic “temperature checks”
of Synee, Kelly, Bobby and others kept me motivated and moving forward. I would
also like to acknowledge the office staff (Ms. Zavala, Ms. Coleman, and the “attendance
divas”) and administration (Mr. Banas, Mr. Zendejas, and Ms. Henry) at Compton High
School. I thank them for picking up the slack when I had to go to school. I would be
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 4
remiss if I did not mention the counselors on the “South Side” of the guidance office.
Nia, Heather, and Becky will always have a special place in my heart.
It is also important to acknowledge those trail-blazing educators who set the bar
and helped me to see the possibilities of a brighter tomorrow. My favorite high school
teacher and current mentor, Dr. Alice Campbell, ignited my thirst for knowledge. My
sorority sister, April Clay, led by example; I was inspired by her tenacious pursuit of her
dreams. My cousin, Essence Phillips, set the educational bar in our family, and I am
grateful for her example and continued pursuit of excellence.
I also acknowledge each and every family member, friend, and colleague who
offered relentless support when the road got tough. I appreciate that more than they will
ever know. Finally I would like to thank every naysayer who instilled in me the deter-
mination to see this through. Their doubt became the fuel to my fire.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 8
Abstract 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 15
Theoretical Frameworks 15
Four Frames 16
The Lighthouse Inquiry 16
Effective Governance 17
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations of the Study 18
Delimitations of the Study 18
Definition of Terms 19
Accountability 19
Board of Trustees 19
California School Board Association 19
Common Core State Standards Initiative 19
Effectiveness 20
Four Frames 20
Governance 20
Mandate 20
Masters in Governance 20
No Child Left Behind 20
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter 2: Literature Review 22
History of School Boards 23
Theoretical Framework 26
The Lighthouse Inquiry 27
Reframing Organizations: Four Frames 28
Effective Governance 29
Roles and Responsibilities of School Board Members 29
Key Work of School Boards 33
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 6
Effective School Board Governance 34
Leadership 36
School Board Training 37
School Board Training and Student Achievement 40
CSBA’s MIG Training Program 43
Summary 47
Chapter 3: Methodology 49
Research Design 50
Sample and Population 52
Instrumentation 55
Data Collection 57
Data Analysis 59
Summary 60
Chapter 4: Findings 62
Participants and School Districts 63
Interviewed Participants 63
District A 65
District B 65
District C 66
Results 67
Research Question 1 67
Research Question 2 71
Research Question 3 78
Summary 84
Chapter 5: Discussion , Implications, and Recommendations 86
Purpose of the Study Restated 86
Summary of Findings 87
Research Question 1 87
Research Question 2 89
Research Question 3 90
Limitations 91
Implications 91
Recommendations for Future Study 92
Conclusion 93
References 94
Appendices
Appendix A: Information Letter 101
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 7
Appendix B: School Board Member Recruitment Letter 104
Appendix C: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 105
Appendix D: Surveys 106
Appendix E: Interview Guide 112
Appendix F: MIG Observation Tool 113
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 8
List of Tables
Table 1: District Meeting Study Sample Population Criteria by County 55
Table 2: Number of Masters in Governance Training Program Completions
by County (Sample Population) 58
Table 3: Experience of Interviewed Board Members and Superintendents 64
Table 4: Number and Percentage of Board Members and Superintendents
Who Encouraged Other Board Members to Participate in Masters
in Government Training 69
Table 5: Primary Factors Influencing Decision to Complete Masters in
Governance Training 70
Table 6: Board Member Rankings of Top Three Characteristics of Effective
Governance 74
Table 7: Responses of Superintendents and School Board Members
Regarding Whether School Board Training Should be Mandated in
California 80
Table 8: Training Needs Cited by Board Members 82
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 9
Abstract
This study applied 3 theoretical frameworks—Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four
frames, the Lighthouse Inquiry of the Iowa Association of School Boards, and effective
governance characteristics—to examine the impact of the Masters in Governance (MIG)
training offered by the California School Boards Association on the ability of school
board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. This inaugural
investigation of the MIG training program included interviews of 3 MIG-trained board
members and their corresponding superintendents utilizing qualitative methodology.
The resulting data were then triangulated against MIG training observations and survey
data collected from 86 MIG trained board members and 61 superintendents to answer
the following 3 research questions regarding (a) factors impacting the decision of school
board members to complete a school board training program, (b) whether and how MIG
training encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effec-
tive governance, and (c) in what ways mandating the MIG training could impact school
board governance. The findings suggested that the MIG equips board members to
exhibit the characteristics of effective governance by fostering board collaboration and
hastening the understanding of various roles and responsibilities of school board trust-
ees. This study should add to the scholarly body of work by expanding current school
board research to include a comprehensive analysis of the ability of the MIG to impact
effective governance practices of school board members in California and examining
the case for potential mandates in the future.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 10
Chapter 1
Introduction
As the nation endeavors to reclaim its status as a leader in K-12 education, the
responsibility to increase student achievement has grown beyond the traditional partner-
ship between site- and district-level administrators to include a cadre of stakeholders
united by a common purpose. In recent years, community leaders, elected officials, and
—most significantly—school board members have seen their roles evolve to involve
shared responsibility for insuring that the student achievement for all students is raised
(Allen & Mintrom, 2010; Bianchi, 2003; French, Peevely, & Stanley, 2008). The
passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002) signified the introduc-
tion of an accountability model that put measurable student performance as the primary
emphasis (Timar, 2003). Subsequently, the adoption of the Common Core State Stan-
dards Initiative (2012), an attempt to establish universal learning goals throughout the
nation, combined with NCLB to form a high-stakes accountability system that requires
school board members to quickly adapt to their newfound responsibilities.
The persistent challenge becomes redefining roles and responsibilities in a
manner that will enable the emerging partners to work individually and interdependent-
ly toward the common goal of advancing the achievement of students throughout the
country. As such, the need for effective leadership, especially as it relates to school
board governance, is important more now than ever. In states such as California, an
increasing immigrant population, coupled by a decreasing commitment to fund public
education, complicates this point. Research exploring the impact of school board
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 11
governance on student achievement has emerged in recent years. Investigations regard-
ing the impact of training on governance, however, have been explored primarily by
doctoral candidates (Allen & Mintrom, 2010; Brenner, Sullivan, & Dalton, 2002; Der-
varics & O’Brien, 2011; Land, 2002).
This chapter provides a broad overview of the key issues impacting trustees’
ability to effectively govern the districts that they were elected to lead. A brief synopsis
establishing the relevance of school board training will be presented. The topic is
extended through this qualitative case study as it examines the characteristics of effec-
tive governance demonstrated by school board members within the following southern
California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and
Ventura. A preview of the literature, which is explored more thoroughly in Chapter 2,
sets the stage for this case study. This section discusses, through a synopsis of the lit-
erature, what progress has been made to advance the understanding of the issue.
Background of the Problem
As the nation’s educators prepare to integrate the newly adopted Common Core
Standards (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2012) within the provisions of the
NCLB’s (2002) accountability system, they must also be cognizant of the evolving
aspects of their leadership roles. An era of increased public scrutiny, increasingly
stringent accountability models, and heightened international competitiveness has
resulted in higher expectations of both administrators and school board members (Hess
& Meeks, 2010). While research generally suggests that America is losing its standing
as a leader in education, the decline is magnified in states such as California, which has
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 12
a large immigrant population and a history of low education spending per student. This
combination is exacerbated further by dramatic spending cuts that have impeded the
ability of educators to serve the needs of the state’s diverse population.
According to the U.S. Census Data (2010), 80% of Californians age 25 and over
have earned a high school diploma, as compared to 87% of the national average. As
California struggles to regain its position as a powerhouse in education the investigation
of the impact of training on California school board members can have significant and
far-reaching implications. Over 5,000 Californian board members are charged with the
governance of more than 1,000 school districts, many of which seek training to aid in
their understanding of effective governance practices (California School Boards Associ-
ation [CSBA], 2007).
The passage of the NCLB Act (2002) signified a shift in the nation’s account-
ability model, as it required that educators revisit current practices in order to better
meet the newly established benchmarks for student achievement. The multistate adop-
tion of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012), the goal of which is to
create rigorous common standards, further complicated the existing accountability
model by requiring that districts begin to implement a process that includes the develop-
ment and administration of alternative assessments (EdSource, 2010). School board
members now must undergo the arduous task of enacting policies that will ease the
transition and empower both site- and district-level educators to make sound decisions.
Since the inception of school boards in the colonial era, school board members
have traditionally assumed the role of oversight and responsive community crisis man-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 13
agement (Land, 2002). As expectations of the nation’s teachers and administrators have
increased, so, too, did those of school board members charged with the responsibility of
governing the country’s school systems. Despite the nation’s long-standing acceptance
of school board governance in public education, Hess and Meeks (2010) found that the
link between the actions of school board members and increased achievement was not
critically researched until the end of the 20th century. The concept of school board
effectiveness, in general, has been overlooked in much of the educational literature
(French et al., 2008). The issue that merited further consideration was to what degree
training aids these laymen in their quest to effectively govern the districts that they were
elected to serve.
Although school board members may obtain training from a variety of sources,
the availability of formal training is most often connected to either state associations or
the National School Boards Association (NSBA; Bianchi, 2003). Over 2,000 school
board members to date have received their training from the Masters in Governance
(MIG) program offered by the CSBA (2010). The intended purpose of the nine-module
training is to provide school board members with the necessary tools to navigate the
demanding role of school board governance. Although school board training has
received further attention in recent years (Dillon, 2010; Hess & Meeks, 2010; More-
house, 2001), school board members’ roles and responsibilities have traditionally been
the topic of choice (Allen & Mintrom, 2010; Anderson, 2003; Campbell & Green, 1994;
Danzberger, 1994). A discussion regarding the most effective training and its compo-
nents, however, is noticeably absent from the body of work. The most glaring gap in
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 14
the literature is an evaluative analysis of training provided by school board associations.
For example, research is nonexistent regarding the effectiveness of the MIG training
program, which is designed to aid in knowledge acquisition of the role and responsibili-
ties of school board members. In fact, a ProQuest search revealed zero studies address-
ing the topic via dissertations or peer-reviewed publications. As such, general informa-
tion regarding school board training was reviewed for its ability to guide this study and
identify gaps in the literature suited for further inquiry.
Statement of the Problem
Educators and school board members are united by the commitment to increase
student achievement through effective educational practices and sound governance. 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 mem-
bers need to understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an effective
district environment. School board members must demonstrate professionalism 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. This case study
has been designed to determine to what extent the MIG training aids Californian school
board members in this endeavor.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 15
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study was to elucidate the role of the CSBA’s
(2010) MIG training program on the governance practices of the state’s school board
members. Three theoretical frameworks served as the guide for this study. The leader-
ship model developed by Bolman and Deal (2008) and the revelations from the pivotal
Lighthouse Inquiry (Iowa Association of School Boards ([IASB]; 2000) were combined
with a third governance framework developed by the CSBA (2007) to thoroughly inves-
tigate the topic at hand. The study tested the hypothesis that the MIG program aids in
the ability of school board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective gover-
nance through the application of a qualitative methodology.
Research Questions
The inquiry into the impact of school board training was guided by the following
three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Theoretical Frameworks
Three theoretical frameworks guided this qualitative study: the four-frame
model contributed by Bolman and Deal (2008), the Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle,
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 16
2008; IASB, 2000), and the eight characteristics of effective governance contributed by
the CSBA (2007). This section provides a brief overview of the three frameworks.
Four Frames
Leadership plays an integral role in the development and progress of any school
district. In light of increasing demands on both the state and federal level, successful
board members must adapt leadership approaches that best suit the needs of their
district. In order to understand the factors that influence a board member’s leadership
approach, the four-frames model developed by Bolman and Deal (2008) was selected
for its ability to shed light on the leadership styles of organizational leaders.
The structural frame deals with the roles, rules, and so on that govern or guide
behavior. The political frame represents the lens where competition, power, and
conflict are the primary factors influencing behavior. Conversely, whereas culture is the
focus in the symbolic frame, organizational and human needs are juxtaposed against one
another in the human resources frame.
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The Lighthouse Inquiry, conducted by the IASB (2000), provides the justifica-
tion for investigating the impact of school board training on effective governance and,
by extension, on student achievement through the revelation that school boards in
successful districts behave differently. The findings of this multiphased study con-
firmed that higher performing districts had seven conditions for productive governance
and a standard of behavior that varied from their lower performing counterparts. The
resulting framework provided a guiding lens through which this case study was exam-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 17
ined by conceptualizing the conditions and characteristics of effective school board
governance.
Effective Governance
Emerging research suggests that a common thread exists between school board
members who successfully govern their school districts (IASB, 2000; Dervarics &
O’Brien, 2011). As the primary focus of this study was to investigate the impact of
training on effective governance of California school board members, the characteristics
developed by the state’s school board association were chosen as one of three frame-
works. These eight characteristics of effective governance, as delineated by the CSBA
(2007), are as follows:
1. Keep the district focused on learning and achievement for all students.
2. Communicate a common vision.
3. Operate openly, with trust and integrity.
4. Govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civil-
ity and respect.
5. Govern within board-adopted policies and procedures.
6. Take collective responsibility for the board’s performance.
7. Periodically evaluate its own effectiveness.
8. Ensure that diverse community views inform deliberations on multiple occa-
sions. (Board section, paras. 3–10)
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 18
Significance of the Study
As the nation looks to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012) for
guidance on measuring educational success uniformly, the necessity of impactful leader-
ship, especially in the form of effective governance, is paramount more now than ever.
The insights gleaned from this study should augment the existing body of knowledge by
identifying the most salient areas impacted school board training. Local and federal
legislators can take information included in this study to further examine the case for
mandated training. California school board members as well as their corresponding
superintendents will be able to draw upon the analysis of the MIG training to determine
whether or not the pursuit of training will aid in the endeavor to fulfill the role of over-
sight and set the framework for advances in student achievement.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study are connected to the research design and time frame
associated with the study. The survey responses were collected over an abbreviated
period of 5 months. Additionally, the purposeful sample, which included only those
who had completed the MIG training program, cannot be generalized to all school
boards and superintendents. The geographical constraints, combined with the fact that
the MIG training is offered only in California, constituted additional limitations.
Delimitations of the Study
The ability of this study to be generalized to other populations is limited by
several factors imposed by the researcher. This study was confined to districts and
school boards in which at least one of its members has completed the MIG training
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 19
offered by the CSBA. Districts without either an Academic Performance Index (API) of
over 800 points or a 21-point growth over a period of 3 years were excluded in an
attempt to assess the impact of the training on successful or emerging school districts.
As such, findings were limited to those districts meeting the aforementioned criteria.
Finally, as the MIG program is offered solely in California, the findings of this study
cannot be generalized throughout the country.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following operational definitions apply:
Accountability
Includes, but is not limited to, the acknowledgment and acceptance of responsi-
bility for contributing to the achievement of students under one’s jurisdiction through
the implementation of best practices and effective governance.
Board of Trustees
Refers to the representative body of three, five, or seven elected officials
charged with the responsibility of the governance of the local school district.
California School Boards Association
Is an organization entrusted with the responsibility to provide guidance,
resources, and training for school board members throughout the state of California.
Common Core State Standards Initiative
Refers to the state-led standards initiative intended to provide common language
with respect to what students are expected to learn and methods by which the acquired
knowledge is demonstrated.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 20
Effectiveness
Refers to the ability of board members to execute their functions in alignment
with the eight characteristics delineated by the CSBA (2007).
Four Frames
Refers to the theoretical framework presented by Bolman and Deal (2008) that
focuses on four frames (structural, human resources, symbolic, and political) upon
which leaders may draw as they conduct their duties as leaders of an organization.
Governance
Refers to the systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation.
Mandate
Refers to a term used to describe a direction that is not voluntary and required by
all members of a certain group, with specific emphasis on school board members.
Masters in Governance
Refers to the voluntary, nine module training offered by the CSBA for the
purpose of advancing the process by which a board member gains an understanding of
their role and creates a plan for their governance approach.
No Child Left Behind
Refers to the reauthorization in 2001 of the Elementary and Secondary Educa-
tion Act (ESEA) of 1965 (as cited in Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011). This legislation sets
forth aggressive guidelines for schools and school districts to meet student performance
goals by 2016 (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011).
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 21
Organization of the Study
This study focused on the characteristics of effective governance as impacted by
the MIG training program. The chapters of this paper are designed to add to the body of
knowledge surrounding the topic of school board training. Chapter 1 has provided an
overall view of the study including the purpose, problem statement, conceptual frame-
works used, and any associated limitations. Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive
overview of the relevant research regarding the impact of school board training on
effective governance. Chapter 3 presents the research methodology applied in the study,
including the structure, data collection methods, and instrumentation.
The findings of the study are summarized in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides an
analysis of the study combined with the implications for school board members, policy
makers, and superintendents in California.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 22
Chapter 2
Literature Review
This chapter is organized in seven sections, each examining varying components
of school board governance and the literature related to the efficacy of school board
training. Through a concise review of the literature, this chapter explores to what extent
the ability of school board training to impact effective board governance has been pre-
viously documented. In today’s increasingly complex climate, both individual and
interpersonal leadership skills are necessary to increase the likelihood that the indicators
of effective governance will be present (Hopkins, O’Neil & Williams, 2007). As calls
for accountability have increased at the state and local level, so have the expectations
for school boards to play a role in increasing student achievement. Despite the nation’s
long history of school boards and an acknowledgment of their critical responsibility of
governing the education of the nation’s children, statistical information is particularly
limited (Hess 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007). More significantly, the lack of research
concerning the impact of training on school board governance confirmed the need for
further inquiry. The sparsely populated, yet emerging, literature available reflects a
limited resource of empirical data, with the bulk of all research on the topic being
contributed by doctoral candidates (Land, 2002).
This chapter provides a brief synopsis of the history of school boards and serves
as a backdrop for future discussion and exploration. The next section includes a discus-
sion of the theoretical frameworks that served as the lens through which the concept of
school board training was viewed and analyzed (Bolman & Deal, 2008; CSBA, 2007;
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 23
IASB, 2000). A review of literature reveals that one of the most significant contribu-
tions on the topic is the seminal work of Land (2002), in which a comprehensive review
of the last 2 decades of literature was conducted. The work of Land will be partnered
with more recent contributions to provide a historical perspective of school boards.
Additionally, this chapter synthesizes pertinent contributions that address training
available for school board members, especially in California, and factors related to its
pursuit and completion.
As a result of accountability measures such as the NCLB Act (2002) and the
newly minted Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012), the ability of a govern-
ing body to impact student achievement has emerged as a critical criterion for measur-
ing school board effectiveness. Although most literature reviewed confirmed the
redefined roles of school board members to include a responsibility to impact student
achievement, a consensus did not exist with regard to whether or not school board
training could be directly linked to advances in these areas.
History of School Boards
This section provides a brief historical perspective addressing the factors that
have influenced the evolution of the school board system from its advent in the late
1800s to its present-day form. Both the CSBA (2007) and Resnick and Bryant (2010)
echoed the earlier sentiments of Campbell and Greene (1994), who asserted that citizen
oversight is the cornerstone of democracy. Since their inception during the colonial era,
school boards have grown exponentially in size and scope. As the nation’s largest
category of elected officials, there are approximately 14,000 school boards serving
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 24
nearly 52 million children and overseeing a budget that exceeds $600 billion annually
(Hess & Meeks, 2010). The United States had approximately 90,000 elected or ap-
pointed school board members in 2011 (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011). California’s ap-
proximately 5,000 board members have the auspicious responsibility for school gover-
nance of 12% of the nation’s students (CSBA, 2007). Resnick and Bryant (2010) con-
firmed that despite the increased involvement of state and federal government, public
education remains a local enterprise. Charged with the responsibility of effective school
governance, the role of the modern board member has become increasingly complex.
According to Land (2002), as the role of the superintendent shifted, so did the responsi-
bilities and expectations of school board members. In recent years, increased scrutiny
has shone a light on a desire to establish a correlation between the work of school board
members and the achievement of their students (Hess & Meeks, 2010). Prior to the last
several years, however, the bulk of the literature on school boards has focused on lead-
ership styles and indicators of effectiveness (Land, 2002).
The impetus for the creation of school boards can be traced to the colonial era,
when the 1642 Massachusetts School Ordinance first introduced the concept of lay
responsibility for public education by requiring that schools choose selectmen to assume
the duties of school management. Their initial tasks included setting wages, providing
employment and determining the length of the school year (Danzberger, 1994; Gomes,
2011; Schmitz, 2007). In a dissertation exploring the impact of state-mandated training
on the perceptions of the governance roles of Missourian school board members
Lupardus (2005), noted that the selectmen, who were often charged with the dual re-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 25
sponsibility of multiple town management, often had neither the time nor expertise to
handle competing issues simultaneously. During the initial stages of school board
development, the ability of selectmen to ensure that the concerns of their local constitu-
ents were addressed played a primary role in governance decisions (Lupardus, 2005).
As the number of school boards spread to the New England states, the system of
separate educational governance quickly followed suit (Danzberger, 1994; Hess, 2002;
Land, 2002). Simultaneously, the first office of state superintendent was also estab-
lished (Danzberger, 1994). Exponential population growth, coupled with increases in
local governance responsibilities, led selectmen to appoint a committee of laymen to
govern education matters (Land 2002). School governance, which was initially admin-
istered through town hall meetings, quickly became both overwhelming and ineffective
(Schmitz, 2007). As separate districts funded by local taxes began to sprout, Massachu-
setts enacted legislation in 1891 that placed the financial and administrative authority
within the individual districts (Danzberger, 1992; Land 2002). By the late 1800s,
loosely defined roles led most boards, which were generally elected by their communi-
ties, to become increasingly involved in local politics (Land, 2002).
The lack of role definition resulted in school boards taking on more responsibil-
ity as education progressed. This increase in responsibility, both financially and from a
managerial standpoint, served as the impetus for superintendent appointments (Moody,
2007; Schmitz, 2007). The initial role of the first superintendent, appointed in Buffalo,
New York, in 1837, was clerical in nature. As time progressed, however, the dual ex-
pectations of managing business as well as education became commonplace (Schmitz,
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 26
2007). While the role of superintendent shifted back and forth over the years, a constant
has been accountability to the school board members.
In response to the corruption that plagued school boards in the late 19th century,
major reforms in school governance spread across the nation (Danzberger, 1994).
These reform efforts, as recounted by Land (2002), resulted in the centralization of local
educational governance that occurred during the first 2 decades of the 20th century.
Land also asserted that as governance shifted from that of larger ward boards to smaller
city school boards, the structure mirrored that of corporate boards and marked the shift
from heavy involvement in daily administration to policy making. As this shift oc-
curred, this system of school governance spread throughout the United States (Hopkins
et al., 2007).
While the basic mission of school boards has remained constant, the demo-
graphics and number of members have changed over time. As Hess (2002) observed,
school boards have shrunk from the 13- to 15-member boards of decades past to the
more common occurrence of containing between six and eight members. In contrast,
California boards have traditionally had three, five, or seven members (CSBA, 2006).
Theoretical Framework
Three theoretical frameworks guided the current exploration of the impact of
school board training on effective governance practices: The Lighthouse Inquiry by the
IASB (2000), Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008) and The Role and
Function of California School Boards by the CSBA (2007).
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 27
The Lighthouse Inquiry
The Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000) is the first of three frameworks applied to
this case study. Through the application of rigorous qualitative methods, this multi-
phased study provides one of the most comprehensive investigations into the impact
that board member roles have on student achievement (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011).
The inquiry conducted between 1998 and 2000 was guided by the following three
research questions (Delagardelle, 2008):
1. Are school boards different in high- and low-achieving districts?
2. How do school boards influence the conditions needed for success?
3. What do board members and superintendents currently believe about the role
of the board in improving student learning? (p. 195)
The original Lighthouse Inquiry, also known as Phase I, was an ethnographic
study designed to gather specific information regarding practices in a southern state
with uncharacteristically high levels of student achievement (Delagardelle, 2008). The
last two phases of the Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000) culminated in 2010. Phase II
explored how boards influenced the conditions necessary for success. Finally, a multi-
state national study was conducted in Phase III, with the intent of identifying best
practices for leadership development on a large scale by contrasting the behaviors of
board members in both high- and low-performing districts.
Ultimately, seven conditions for productive governance change were identified
by the researchers (IASB, 2000) after interviewing 159 school board members, superin-
tendents, and staff members: (a) “emphasis on building a human organizational
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 28
system,” (b) “ability to create and sustain initiatives,” (c) “supportive workplace for
staff,” (d) “staff development,” (e) “support for school sites through data and informa-
tion,” (f) “community involvement,” and (g) “integrated leadership” (p. 7). The inclu-
sion of this framework supports the notion that successful boards behave differently and
exhibit specific characteristics and ability to navigate leadership within the context of
these conditions. The challenge at hand is to determine whether or not training better
enables board members to exhibit the aforementioned characteristics and enhance their
ability to create conditions within their organizations that are associated with high-
performing school districts.
Reframing Organizations: Four Frames
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model suggests that leaders conceptualize
organizations through the following frames: political, human resources, structural, and
symbolic. At the genesis of this framework is the assertion that those who utilize
various cognitive lenses to guide their leadership decisions most effectively address
organizational issues. As such, a leader’s ability to reframe his or her perspective by
incorporating one or more frames is better equipped to provide effective leadership that
is responsive to the needs of the organization.
Each frame represents a distinct focus embodied by an organizational leader that
results in a different approach to addressing issues or individuals within an organiza-
tion. For example, Bolman and Deal (2008) stated that those who approach organiza-
tional leadership through the structural frame are likely to focus on strategy, implemen-
tation, and adoption, whereas those who employ the human resource frame tend to
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 29
possess a leadership style reminiscent of a servant leader who supports, advocates, and
empowers employees to solve problems from within. In contrast, the symbolic leader
gains attention and communicates vision through the application of symbols, while
leaders viewing challenges through the political frame are likely to utilize coalitions to
negotiate expected outcomes. Consequently, the necessity of school board members to
be cognizant of the structural, political, human resource, and symbolic issues impacting
their respective districts may play an integral role in their ability to incorporate lessons
learned from school board training.
Effective Governance
The CSBA (2007) provided a lens through which the characteristics of effective
governance could be viewed. The CSBA (2007), which is the sole proprietor of the
MIG training program, has delineated eight characteristics of effective governance that
were listed in Chapter 1. These characteristics combine to provide the primary source
for measuring the presence of indicators indicative of effective governance.
In summation, the characteristics and conceptual frameworks contributed by
Bolman and Deal (2008), the CSBA (2007), and the IASB (2000) served as the frame-
works or lenses through which to determine the extent that school board training—
MIG, in particular—has impacted the ability of school board members to exhibit the
characteristics of school board governance.
Roles and Responsibilities of School Board Members
The CSBA (2007), in its primer on the topic, succinctly stated that the role of the
board must be responsive to the beliefs, values, and priorities of its community. In-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 30
creased levels of community involvement, coupled with board member functions, which
were at one time low-conflict positions, have shifted from the pre-1960s approach of
mediating policy conflicts primarily in response to community concern to that of co-
leadership and increased involvement in critical decisions within the districts they serve
(Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The roles of school board members are closely interconnected with the role of
the superintendent. As the superintendent’s duties have shifted from being curriculum
centered to now include multiple managerial responsibilities, so, too, did the role of the
school board (Land, 2002). In Hess and Meeks’s (2010) exploration of school boards in
the 21st century, it was noted that while school board members continue to see their role
as helping students to continue to meet their full potential, an overwhelming majority
have acknowledged their need to impact student achievement and, to a slightly lesser
degree, close the achievement gap. Beyond a commonly accepted agreement that board
members have a responsibility to act on behalf and in the best interest of the communi-
ty’s children, little attention is paid to the fact that a board’s approach to governance is
just as important (if not more so) as possessing an elusive, yet coherent definition of
school board roles. The propensity of board members to take a holistic approach to
child advocacy secures their unique position as the critical connection between school
administrators and the community at large (Hess & Meeks, 2010).
Pertinent literature regarding the role of school board members addresses the
changes in the national debate on accountability while simultaneously affirming the
commitment and interconnectedness of the community they serve. In 2000,
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 31
Gemberling, Smith, and Villani authored what would become the most widely utilized
resource within the school board community. In The Key Work of School Boards, the
authors asserted that the primary agenda or key work of school boards is raising student
achievement through community engagement, strategic collaboration, and coleadership.
In an attempt to present a comprehensive synopsis of The Key Work of School Boards,
this literature review includes information deemed to be of particular significance
through the synthesis of both contemporary and historical resources. The purpose of
this section is to explore the prevailing definitions of school board members’ roles and
responsibilities and illuminate which factors influence any national consensus or change
over time.
In recent years, debate regarding the relevance of school board members has
increased. The consensus resulting from the rigorous discussion supports the continued
value and relevance of school board members (Campbell & Greene, 1994; Hess, 2002;
Land, 2002; Usdan, 2010). However, the ability of research-based best practices from
which boards can glean insight regarding their role in increasing student achievement
through effective governance is limited at best (Hess & Meeks, 2002).
As the governing body of the nation’s school boards, the NSBA not only serves
as the primary purveyor of knowledge on school governance but also has become the
entity responsible for providing coherent definitions regarding the governance of school
boards (Gemberling et al., 2000). Campbell and Greene (1994) noted that the NSBA
commissioned a task force in the early 1990s in response to confusion surrounding
school board members’ roles and responsibilities. The authors submitted that the
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 32
definitions arose from the belief that within school governance, fundamental core
decision-making functions, which are inextricably linked to a school system’s account-
ability, must be communicated. Campbell and Greene summarized the task force’s
definition of school board members’ roles and responsibilities as follows:
• The development of a long-term vision.
• The establishment and maintenance of organizational structure, including
adopting of an annual budget, governance policies, and employment of a
superintendent.
• The establishment of systems and processes to ensure community account-
ability through the development of sound fiscal, staff, and collective bargain-
ing policies.
• Advocacy at the community, state, and national levels on behalf of children
and public education. (p. 392)
Campbell and Greene (1994), along with most of the authors reviewed, consis-
tently emphasized the importance of establishing a long-term, student-centered vision.
As the foundation for all board and superintendent–leadership work, a strong vision
may have the ability to rally the educational and social community around the arduous
task of increasing student achievement. Conversely, Campbell and Greene (1994),
along with Land (2002) and Usdan (2010), noted that one of the most poorly defined
and most widely abused roles is that of fiscal monitoring and oversight.
The Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA; 2011) summa-
rized the current consensus by stating that it is imperative that school board members
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 33
understand the role they have in ensuring that student achievement meets the academic
standards of the state. According to the WSSDA, student achievement is the primary
agenda of school boards, and the most prolific contributors on the topic have echoed the
same sentiment (Black, 2008; Hess, 2002; Hess & Meeks, 2010; Roberts & Sampson,
2011). An understanding of the role of school boards in improving student achievement
is emerging as a result of recent research.
Key Work of School Boards
A review of the role of school board members would be incomplete without a
discussion of the framework for leadership and governance developed by Gemberling et
al. (2000), which focuses on the ability of school boards to impact student achievement
(Hopkins et al., 2007). The Key Work of School Boards by Gemberling et al. guides
school board members in their multifaceted work through a systemic process. The
systems thinking framework is utilized to promote organizational thinking and learning
in eight key action areas: vision, standards, assessment, accountability, alignment,
climate, collaboration, and continuous improvement (Gemberling et al., 2000).
Systems thinking, which acknowledges that every action has a reaction, includes
principles, methods, and tools for creating more effective systems. Key to effectively
engaging in systems thinking is the understanding that the process of system improve-
ment is cyclical in nature. The behavior of systems follows common principles, and the
elements of a system interact continuously and predictably (Gemberling et al., 2000).
Systems theory is intended to encourage actions that have the greatest impact on the
system as a whole. Though not without its critics, The Key Work of School Boards
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 34
(Gemberling et al., 2000) provides the most comprehensive framework to date regard-
ing the roles of school board members and a possible course of action intended to aid
them in carrying out their key work.
Similarly, the CSBA (2007) has stated that school board members are commu-
nity leaders, held accountable to the public through effectively setting the direction for
the community’s schools and establishing an effective and efficient structure through
coleadership and collaboration with the superintendent and other stakeholders.
Effective School Board Governance
Although researchers (e.g., Campbell & Green, 1994; Devarics & O’Brien,
2011; Land, 2002) have identified vision setting, responsive community service, and
positive impact on student achievement as being among the pertinent roles of school
board leaders, the specific characteristics of effective school board governance vary,
depending on the source. As indicated by the varying characteristics identified through-
out the literature, there is a lack of consensus regarding the characteristics of effective
school board governance. As early as the 1980s, however, researchers began to draw
from several sources to pinpoint the characteristics of effective leadership (Carol et al.,
1986). Carol et al. (1986) surmised that there were 15 characteristics of effective gov-
ernance.
The literature has traditionally addressed the impact of effective governance on
achievement, and connection between a board’s efficacy and increases in student
achievement is consistently supported throughout the literature (Black, 2008; Dervarics
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 35
& O’Brien, 2011; Hess, 2002; WSSDA, 2011). As such, increase student achievement
was an outcome measured in this qualitative study.
As public involvement in school politics increases, so, too, does the level of
scrutiny with respect to effective school board governance. Challenges regarding the
relevance and efficacy of the school board leadership model have resulted in entities
such as local mayors and advocacy groups further questioning the validity of lay control
over public education (Land, 2002).
In 2007, the CSBA listed eight characteristics of effective governance. Dervar-
ics and O’Brien (2011) drew upon that contribution to extend the literature regarding
the connection of board member practices to effective governance and, by extension,
student achievement by identifying additional yet interrelated characteristics. In concert
with previous literature on the topic, the Center for Public Education listed the follow-
ing:
1. A commitment to a vision of high expectations for student achievement and
quality instruction;
2. The possession of strong shared beliefs and values of what students are
capable of and an ability to learn;
3. Accountability-driven behavior;
4. Collaborative relationships with staff and community;
5. The presence of data savvy members who embrace data even when the data
are not considered positive;
6. The alignment of resources;
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 36
7. United coleadership with the superintendent marked by mutual trust; and
8. Participation in team development and training to build shared knowledge,
values, and commitments for improvement (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011).
Dervarics and O’Brien (2011) found that high- and low-achieving school boards
vary in their approaches, attitudes, and knowledge. The authors utilized the analysis of
their meta analysis of educational research, which focused on the evolving role of
school boards and the board practices in districts with similar demographics but dramat-
ically different outcomes, to compile their contribution to the lists delineating the
characteristics of effective governance.
Leadership
The need for effective leadership increases as the expectations of school board
members evolve. While research has long acknowledged the role of effective leader-
ship in systemic district change (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003; Carol et al., 1986; IASB,
2000; Land, 2002), a consensus regarding the most effective leadership characteristics
or approaches is not present. Commonly accepted characteristics of effective boards
include the facilitation of excellence through vision setting, evaluation of superinten-
dents, and the consistent integration of data and usage of a collaborative working style
with both colleagues and superintendents (Allen & Mintrom, 2010; Anderson, 2003;
Campbell & Greene, 1994).
As Anderson (2003) noted in his review of literature, much of the early docu-
mentation focused on the leadership provided by teachers, principals, and superinten-
dents. He further posited, however, that until recently the link between leadership
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 37
efforts and improved achievement was merely hypothetical. Not surprisingly, literature
connecting the leadership of school board members and participation in school board
training is less plentiful. In fact, a ProQuest search revealed only one study exploring
governance, leadership, and the ongoing impact of training to date (Adamson, 2011). A
review of the literature does, however, reveal an overlap between contributions explor-
ing effective governance (Black, 2008; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011; Hess, 2002;
WSSDA, 2011) and those who explicitly mentioned leadership as their primary focus
(Campbell & Greene, 1994; Carol et al., 1986). Ultimately, studies on school board
effectiveness, though traditionally targeted at the board in its entirety, are similar to
those on effective leadership in that individual board members must act in concert and
in collaboration with their colleagues in order to effectively impact the school districts
they have been elected to serve.
School Board Training
According to Newton and Sackney (2005), the corporate sector is the primary
source of literature on board effectiveness. In sharp contrast to the practice of electing
laymen to local school board positions, Newton and Sackney submitted that the private
sector aims to recruit only qualified candidates for corporate board positions. The rele-
vance of school board training, also known in the literature as professional develop-
ment, is consistently supported throughout the literature reviewed (Campbell & Greene,
1994; Petronis, Hall, & Pierson, 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). While this section is
intended to provide a concise account of the breadth and scope of training or profes-
sional development, it more specifically addresses the training available to California’s
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 38
approximately 90,000 school board members. For the purpose of this review, the terms
school board training and professional development are synonymous.
Roberts and Sampson (2011) conducted a recent inquiry intended as an attempt
to demonstrate a link between (a) school board training and (b) effective governance
and increased student achievement. An inductive analysis was conducted using state
school board directors’ responses to questions regarding their perception of the ability
of training to impact student achievement. Most school board member training is either
orientation centered in design or developed with the intent of providing public school
trustees with the basic knowledge to understand their role and the key issues that impact
their decision-making process. While a consensus does not exist regarding neither the
crucial components of effective training nor the means by which the efficacy of training
can be identified, it is clear that training for school board members will continue to play
an integral role in the development of the ability of trustees to impact student achieve-
ment (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). It is apparent, however, that the most concrete
advances in mandated training coincided with increased calls for schools to be held
accountable for school improvement (Danzberger et al., 1987; Roberts & Sampson,
2011).
Most school boards have access to training through the state associations; how-
ever, less than 25 states currently mandate training for school board members. Over the
years, states have begun to recognize its importance, as evidenced by the allocation of
resources. According to Campbell and Greene (1994), West Virginia was among the
first states to increase access to training statewide by emphasizing the ability of school
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 39
board training to enhance the process of school governance through significant financial
support. The most significant investment in school board training occurred when the
West Virginia School Board Association’s initiatives were infused with an appropria-
tion of $100,000 in the early 1990s that enabled all 55 of West Virginia’s school board
members to attend training conducted by the Institute for Educational Leadership. This
was followed by legislation, signed by the governor, requiring mandatory training for all
board members (Campbell & Green, 1994). Subsequent surveys and research, primarily
conducted by Gemberling et al. (2000), later confirmed the steady increase of training
throughout the country.
Contrary to the view of Land (2002), a more recent review of the literature
suggests that while there is a consensus regarding the importance and potentially wide-
ranging impact of school board training, the debate regarding the merits of mandated
training continues (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). There has been a significant increase in
the number of states to mandate training over the last decade. Prior to 1996, only six
states included mandatory training for school board members (Petronis et al., 1996).
According to a survey conducted by the NSBA (Gemberling et al., 2000), of the 45
states that responded, 44% had training requirements that were state mandated. Of that
number, 95% of the state school board associations were authorized to conduct the
training and 70% of the states were able to obtain services from other entities. The
majority of funding, approximately 70%, came from the local districts, while only
Tennessee and Missouri reported providing funding at the state level. When asked
about the content of training and whether or not topics were mandated, the data sug-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 40
gested that the scope and quality of training varies considerably from state to state. Ad-
ditionally, the data gathered by the NSBA demonstrate that while some superintendents
were required to certify board training with the state on an annual basis, very little
systemic oversight existed to ensure accountability on both the part of the board mem-
bers and the superintendent.
Perception data, however, reveal that most school board members, superinten-
dents, and other key stakeholders feel that ongoing professional development is impor-
tant despite the lack of research directly connecting it to effective governance or in-
creases in student achievement (Hess & Meeks, 2010; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In
some cases, insight is provided through school board member-authored contributions to
local journals. For example, Morehouse (2001), a school board member with over 21
years of service, shared the belief held by many board members and many of his col-
leagues that training can play an integral role in acclimating board members to the
complexities and nuances of school governance.
School Board Training and Student Achievement
Until the recent study by Roberts & Sampson (2011), most insight with respect
to professional development came from a handful of studies conducted in conjunction
with the NSBA or its state-level subsidiaries. As noted previously, Roberts and
Sampson attempted to answer the research question of whether school board member
training has a significant impact on effective board governance and, by extension, on
student achievement. In order to gain more insight, Roberts and Sampson conducted a
review of literature on school board training or professional development as well as
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 41
literature relating to principles of adult learning. The researchers found several benefits
to professional development that, in the current era of accountability, is essential. In
addition to keeping school board members abreast of developing education issues,
ongoing professional development aids members as they undertake the arduous tasks of
establishing district goals, providing financial oversight, designing and implementing
policy adoption, and serving as student advocates through the systematic review and
evaluation of programs and superintendent efforts (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Roberts and Sampson (2011) also submitted that principles of adult learning
warrant further inquiry due to their ability to impact the creation of effective learning
opportunities in the form of training and other professional development. Brundage and
Mackeracher’s (1980) study (as cited in Roberts & Sampson, 2011) concluded that adult
learners are autonomous, self-directed, and deserve respect. Roberts and Sampson
noted that Lieb (1991) found that typical motivators for the adult learner to engage in
professional development include the need to maintain current skills while learning new
ones, adapting to changes in the job, and the need to comply with policies. The authors
utilized the aforementioned concepts to make recommendations on the most effective
types of professional development. A discussion of effective board members included
in the study by Roberts and Sampson was explored earlier in the section on “Effective
School Board Governance.”
The study by Roberts and Sampson (2011) utilized an eight-item questionnaire
to examine to what extent professional development for board members impacted
student achievement. The data, which revealed general information regarding minimum
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 42
requirements by state for service, were then compared to the respective state rankings by
Education Week (“Quality Counts,” 2009). Roberts and Sampson found that states that
required professional development for school boards received a state ranking grade of B
or C while those without mandated training received a grade of C or D. Only Massa-
chusetts was found to demonstrate evidence of both mandated professional develop-
ment increased student achievement. This finding suggests that while it is accepted that
board members are responsible for ensuring that student achievement is improved, the
ability to make a direct correlation between it and increased or mandated professional
development warrants further investigation.
Roberts and Sampson (2011) offered three conclusions as a result of their study:
(a) that additional extensive research is necessary, (b) that school boards should man-
date professional development in cases where the state mandate is not present, and (c)
that a minimum education level combined with nonbinding self-evaluation is necessary
to increase the likelihood of a school board’s ability to positively impact student
achievement. It should be noted that, as is the case with other studies attempting to
demonstrate a correlation between training and student achievement, flaws with the
study’s design reduced the validity and ability to guide the discussion.
When combined with the sudden influx of dissertations on the correlation
between board member training and student achievement, it is clear that the field is
short on neutral contributions. Hess and Meeks (2010) conducted a collaborative study
as a follow-up to the original work conducted by Hess (2002) on behalf of the NSBA 8
years earlier. This survey provides one of the most comprehensive looks at changes or
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 43
the lack thereof over time. A primary focus of the study explored board member per-
ceptions of their ability and responsibility to impact student achievement. The findings
were that more than two thirds of board members concurred that the current state of
student achievement was unacceptably low. Board members ranked student achieve-
ment among the top two ways to evaluate a superintendent and were increasingly ex-
pressing confidence in the effect of their actions on student achievement. Hess and
Meeks further noted that while board members continue conventional ways of collabo-
ration that are not traditionally associated with advances in student achievement,
superintendents are beginning to revolutionize the methods by which they interact
interdependently in an effort to defy conventional wisdom.
CSBA’s MIG Training Program
School board training is not mandated in the state of California. As is the case
in most states, the local school board association has filled the primary role of providing
ongoing professional development for California’s school board members. The CSBA
(2010) has developed the highly acclaimed MIG training series for school trustees and
superintendents. The modules, which are offered via statewide or regional delivery
systems, are flexible in nature and designed to provide up-to-date information, accord-
ing to the CSBA (2010). The program, which is divided into nine 1-day learning mod-
ules, provides 60 hours of instruction and participation and must be completed within 2
years of the date of enrollment. At the time of this review, information regarding how
long the program has been in existence was unavailable. According to the CSBA
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 44
(2010), participants receive a MIG certificate after completing the following nine modules:
1. Foundations of Effective Governance. This module explores the roles and
responsibilities of the governance team and focuses on trusteeship and governance, two
core concepts in the MIG program.
2. Setting Direction. This module is designed to facilitate the governance
team’s understanding of the intertwined relationship between a district’s vision, beliefs,
and goals and the educational programs of the district.
3. Human Resources. This module addresses the relationship between the
superintendent and the school board through a discussion of methods of evaluation,
framework establishment, and establishing sound practices.
4. Policy and Judicial Review. This module guides governance teams in the
development of skills in policy setting and learning to identify policy issues, set an
appropriate process for developing sound policies, communicate and support policies,
and review and revise policies to ensure their effectiveness.
5. Student Learning an Achievement. The stated purpose of this module is to
help boards discover how to set expectations for student learning and ensure that the
appropriate processes are in place for curriculum development, review, and adoption.
Additionally, it aids in providing methods to support curriculum and assess student
achievement.
6. School Finance. The purpose of this module is to achieve balance between
district goals and student achievement through the establishment of budgeting priorities.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 45
7. Collective Bargaining. This module provides a historical overview of col-
lective bargaining and the legal framework for collective negotiations.
8. Community Relations and Advocacy. This module explores proven methods
to build community support, keep media informed, and encourage community engage-
ment and involvement.
9. Governance Integration. The final module integrates trusteeship and the
governance team with the jobs of the board.
The CSBA (2010) has traditionally offered the MIG modules at various loca-
tions throughout California via either statewide or regional delivery systems (i.e., con-
ferences and local meetings). In response to the increased usage of the Internet, the
CSBA (2010) developed two modules that can be completed online: Human Resources
and School Finance. The Human Resources module covers 12 lessons: (a) The Effec-
tive Governance Team, (b) Before Hiring a New Superintendent, (c) Superintendent
Hiring Process, (d) The Superintendent’s Contract, (e) Preparing for a Successful Lead-
ership Transition, (f) Superintendent Evaluation, (g) Employment Classifications, (h)
Roles and Responsibilities, (I) Legal Requirements and Accountability, (j) Personnel
Policies and Procedures, (k) Board Self-Evaluation, and (l) Legal and Ethics Issues.
The School Finance module contains 15 video segments ranging in length from 3 to 40
minutes. As the title indicates, the School Finance module, which centers on the school
budget, includes the following lessons: The Board’s Role in School Finance, Budget
Cycles, Budget Process, Factors That Impact the Budget, Budget Reserves, Budget
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 46
Revenue, Ending Balance, the Chief Business Officer, Capital Budgets, Quality of the
Budget, Public Communication, the Audit Report, and additional related topics.
Traditionally, one would have to complete the MIG program in order to discover
its contents. With the exception of the Human Resources and School Finance modules
whose lesson topics appear online, the ability to evaluate either the effectiveness or the
possible areas of improvement is weakened. As such, further investigation, including
collaboration with members of the CSBA, was needed in order to fully evaluate the
ability of the MIG program to positively impact the governance of California’s school
boards. A recent meeting with the outgoing president of the CSBA, Martha Fluor (per-
sonal communication, November 20, 2011), revealed that the current assessments of the
MIG program are primarily anecdotal due to a lack of formal evaluation tools in current
use. At the time of this review, no studies examining the ability of this training program
to positively impact student achievement or board governance had been conducted.
This represents a serious gap in the literature in light of the fact that this is the primary
source for school board training in the state of California and a justification for the
present study.
While most training focuses primarily on school board members, this training is
designed to encourage coleadership through a process of mutual exploration and dual
participation of both superintendents and board members. The stated intent of the
training is to provide board members and superintendents with the necessary knowledge
and skills to support an effective governance structure. This dual training, which recog-
nizes the necessity for the board and superintendent to work together to achieve a
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 47
common goal, represents an emerging model in school board training. By recognizing
the integral role between school board and superintendent relations, the training pro-
vides elements that its counterparts across the country lack—collaboration. With over
2,000 school board members and superintendents participating in the training, the
opportunity to further explore the relationship between the training and effective gover-
nance is clear.
Summary
This chapter provided a historical overview of school boards, which were
described by Danzberger et al. (1987) as a grass roots institution that is uniquely Ameri-
can. Through a review of the literature, the existing research and contributions related
to school board members’ ability to impact student achievement were examined.
Pivotal research was synthesized and presented with the intention of providing a bal-
anced synopsis. Although the concept of the American school board is not new, the
responsibility and expectation to improve student achievement has emerged recently.
Moreover, the attempt to make a connection between effective school governance and
the presence of school board training is emerging in relevance, as indicated by the
increased presence of the subject in the literature. Through an analysis of governing
boards’ responses to comprehensive studies, one can conclude that while board mem-
bers have always been concerned about student achievement, until recently they did not
accept or embrace the idea of playing an integral role in that endeavor. As indicated
previously, the increased accountability associated with the NCLB Act (2002), com-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 48
bined with increasingly savvy community members, provides the most plausible expla-
nation for the increased involvement of school board members.
This review identified several areas for further exploration and research. Most
of the research in this area has been conducted either by doctoral candidates, who have
limited resources, or by school board associations that have a vested interest in solidify-
ing the role of school board members. As a result, the amount of unquantifiable percep-
tion data leaves a gaping hole in the emerging body of work on the topic. Additionally,
the lack of empirical data connecting school board training to student achievement
warrants further investigation.
School board training is likely a necessary component for effective board man-
agement. The lack of a national mandate or commonly acceptable standards, however,
reduces the impact of the training and decreases the likelihood of researchers now or in
the future to draw inferences about its ability to positively impact student achievement.
Even states with mandated training exhibit an inability to provide professional develop-
ment sufficient to prepare board members for the rigor of public service.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 49
Chapter 3
Methodology
Much of the research exploring the impact of leadership on student achievement
has focused on the efforts of both site- and district-level administration (May & Supo-
vitz, 2011). An emerging theme within the literature is the discussion regarding a need
for school board training in multiple areas. In addition to training in the areas of leader-
ship roles and responsibilities, there is a common trend in the literature that addresses
specific training in the area of school board governance. Although literature specifically
linking the impact of board training to effective school board governance is relatively
thin, consistent investigation on the topic has coincided with the introduction of the
NCLB Act in 2002 (Brenner et al., 2002; Land, 2002). In light of the increased account-
ability measures imposed by reform efforts such as the Common Core State Standards
Initiative (2012) and burgeoning public scrutiny, the topic of effective governance
warrants further discussion and exploration (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2003). The litera-
ture suggests that an essential component of effective governance is the presence of
training (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010; French et al., 2008; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the role of the CSBA’s (2010) MIG
training program on the governance practices of the state’s school board members. This
qualitative study, through the investigation of the governance practices of school
boards, explored data regarding the impact of the program in the areas of governance
and student achievement and provides information that may prove useful when deciding
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 50
to what extent school board training should be mandated. For the purpose of the study,
the following research questions were investigated:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
The research design, sample, instrumentation, and data collection and analysis
utilized in this study will be discussed in this chapter. Ultimately, the preliminary
findings and literature gaps delineated in Chapter 2 were juxtaposed against the study’s
findings in order to make an informed contribution to the topic.
Research Design
In order to illuminate the discussion regarding the ability of school board
training to influence effective school governance and, by extension, advance the goal of
increasing student achievement, this study was conducted as part of a thematic disserta-
tion group at the University of Southern California (USC). The 10-member thematic
group worked interdependently to design the study, formulate research questions, and
select the appropriate qualitative methodology. Each district, after being divided among
the cohort participants, received an information letter (Appendix A) and invitation (Ap-
pendices B and C) to participate in the study on the impact of MIG training on effective
governance.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 51
The application of qualitative methodology provides deeper insight in cases
where a strictly statistical analysis of data is insufficient (Patton, 2002). More often
than not, a theory emerges during the research in a qualitative study (Creswell, 2003).
While the research paradigm may impact the intended purpose of qualitative research,
the overarching goal—to describe and explain social phenomena in a concise and mean-
ingful manner—remains (Creswell, 2003). As such, the researchers endeavored to
obtain greater insight regarding the factors contributing to the ability of training to equip
board members with the necessary tools to govern effectively through a careful triangu-
lation of data obtained from the analytical process of surveys, conducting structured
interviews, and document review.
Surveys (Appendix D) were distributed via U.S. mail to superintendents and
school board members who resided in districts meeting the following criteria: (a) at
least one board member had completed the MIG training; (b) a member representing a
high-performing district, as indicated by having either an API over 800 points or 21-
point growth over a 3-year period; and (c) average daily attendance (ADA) between
2,000 and 50,000. Two fixed-choice surveys, which were developed in collaboration
with other doctoral students and under the guidance of the department chair, were
disseminated to qualifying participants in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. Upon receipt of the surveys, the next
phase utilized a structured interview protocol (Appendix E), which is discussed in more
detail in the instrumentation section. The districts meeting the criteria represented a
cross section of high-achieving or emerging school districts. They were chosen for their
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 52
ability to shed light on the research questions addressing the potential impact of mandat-
ing school board training and in what ways the MIG training equips school board
members to exemplify the characteristics of effective governance.
Sample and Population
Several factors impacted the decision to explore the effective governance prac-
tices of California school board members. The MIG training program, which is only
offered by the CSBA (2010), has never been the focus of a qualitative case study. The
characteristics of effective governance as exhibited by Californian school board mem-
bers who were MIG trained served as the unit of analysis for this study. The criteria for
determining the sample population was developed under the guidance of the dissertation
chair, Dr. Michael Escalante. The first criterion involved an investigation of boards
with at least one MIG-trained board member. A spreadsheet, which was provided by
the CSBA and contained the names of school board members and superintendents who
had completed the MIG training, was cross-referenced against the remaining two crite-
ria to establish which boards would be solicited to participate in the study. According to
Patton (2002), qualitative methodology includes 16 types of purposeful sampling that
researchers apply, based upon the ability of each to enlighten a given topic. Criterion
sampling, which calls for a review of all cases that meet predetermined criteria, is
appropriate for the present case study due to the specificity required by the research
questions that are guiding the study. Qualitative methodology was applied to the data
collected on the school board members and superintendents who consent to participate
in the study from the various southern California counties chosen.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 53
MIG training is offered only to school board members and superintendents in
California. As such, the sample population, which represents a cross section of districts
in southern California, was chosen to shed light on the extent to which school board
training impacts effective school board governance in the complex educational climate
of California. A focus on student achievement is among the eight characteristics high-
lighted by both the CSBA’s (2006) Effective Governance System and the Center for
Public Education (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011). The school boards in the districts
surveyed were divided into categories of participation, based upon the number of school
board members who had completed the MIG training. Charter schools, which are tra-
ditionally governed by a model in which publicly elected school boards are absent, were
excluded. That said, the following districts were included: unified, union, and elemen-
tary school districts with at least one MIG-trained board member, an ADA between
2,000 and 5,000 and an API of at least 800 a minimum 21-point growth in API over a
period of 3 years.
California school districts range in size, demographics, and levels of achieve-
ment. Due to limitations resulting from the abbreviated data collection period, the
sample population was further reduced to exclude non-southern California school
districts. As stated previously, this study targeted a specific segment of the population
by excluding districts that had failed to either demonstrate significant API growth and a
commitment to completing training designed to aid their county. Table 1 shows the
number of districts within Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Ventura, Riverside, Orange,
and San Diego Counties that were chosen to receive the initial surveys. Members of the
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 54
thematic qualitative dissertation group then each chose 10 qualifying school districts
within the six counties to target. The dissertation group then self-divided into three
groups, two groups of three and one group of four, for the purpose of splitting the task
of sending out surveys to districts within the six counties. Once divided, this researcher
randomly chose 10 school districts within Los Angeles and Ventura Counties to serve as
the focus of the study.
Upon receipt of the survey responses, the preliminary data were cross-referenced
against the actual survey responses to ensure that participants were properly categorized
as follows:
1. Full participation, which includes districts with at least 50% of all board
members having completed the MIG training;
2. Partial participation, which includes districts with at least one board member
having completed the MIG training; or
3. Nonparticipation, which includes districts in which no school board member
had completed MIG training. Districts in this latter category were excluded, as the
focus of this case study is on districts that had school board members who were MIG
trained.
Upon completing the data analysis stage, three school board members from five
separate districts were contacted via email to participate in confidential interviews.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 55
Table 1
District Meeting Study Sample Population Criteria by County
Type of Qualified
district County districts
Elementary Los Angeles 15
Orange 8
Riverside 2
San Bernardino 3
San Diego 10
Ventura 5
Unified Los Angeles 21
Orange 4
Riverside 6
San Bernardino 4
San Diego 5
Ventura 4
Union/other Los Angeles 3
Orange 2
Riverside 1
San Bernardino 2
San Diego 5
Ventura 0
Instrumentation
An interview guide and two Likert scale surveys were developed by the cadre of
doctoral candidates under the expert guidance of the dissertation chair and principal
investigator, Dr. Escalante. As Patton (2002) suggested, information-rich cases require
the analysis of data from various members of a particular case study, as each member
brings a unique perspective. The 10-member thematic group, along with the principal
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 56
investigator, aimed to gain insight on board governance, as exhibited through percep-
tions of school board members.
One of the initial steps was conducting informal focus groups with school board
members. To that end, several members of the thematic group invited board members
to participate in discussions that elucidated issues that were further examined through
the fixed-choice surveys and targeted interviews. Additionally, the survey instruments
were previewed by a collection of school board members, superintendents, and repre-
sentatives from the CSBA. Their insight was incorporated within the survey design in
order to increase the likelihood of the survey’s ability to aid in the gathering of
information-rich data from the study participants. Two separate surveys, which were
aligned to the CSBA’s (2007) framework on effective governance, were collaboratively
developed for superintendents and board members (Appendix D). Each survey featured
a combination of 21 questions as follows: fixed-choice (n = 18), rank order (n = 2), and
open-ended (n =1). Questions were aligned not only to the research questions but also
to a conceptual framework.
According to Patton (2002), content validity must be ensured in order to general-
ize findings of any research study. In order to ensure content validity, the surveys were
submitted to a USC clinical education professor and a CSBA executive board member
prior to being sent to the dissertation committee for final review and approval. The
members of the thematic group took great care to incorporate suggestions provided by
each reviewer of both the survey and interview protocols.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 57
The thematic dissertation group agreed that utilizing the general interview guide
approach, which dictates that the specific set of topics to be explored with each respon-
dent are outlined prior to the interview, was best suited for this qualitative case study
(Patton, 2002). The questions included in the structured interview protocol were care-
fully constructed to illuminate the impact, if any, of the MIG training on effective gov-
ernance practices of school board members in California. Structured interviews will
provide several advantages over other qualitative interview methodology. In addition to
facilitating the interviewer’s management of the limited time allotted, this approach also
aids in the systematic and comprehensive interviews of several people by delimiting
explored issues in advance (Patton, 2002). The interview guide (Appendix E) was de-
veloped through a collaborative process that included the members of the thematic
dissertation group, former and present school board members, and input from the USC
clinical professor. Each of the 15 questions was carefully designed to complement the
fixed-choice survey and was intended to address the subtle nuances of each research
question. In order to inform the research question regarding factors impacting a board
member’s decision to complete a training program, for example, participants were asked
whether or not they felt any pressure to pursue and complete the MIG training.
Data Collection
The purpose of this section is to describe the procedures utilized to collect data
for this qualitative study. The collection of responses to surveys and interviews re-
sponses followed by the subsequent data analysis occurred in several stages over a
period of 12 months.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 58
Data were collected through a variety of methods. In addition to analyzing
information readily available in the public domain, as mentioned previously, a request
was submitted to the leadership of the CSBA to identify school board members who had
completed the MIG training program. A review of the database revealed that since the
year 2000, 379 school board members had successfully completed the MIG training.
Table 2 identifies the number of school board members trained within the six focus
counties of this case study.
Table 2
Number of Masters in Governance Training Program Completions by
County (Sample Population)
County Number
Los Angeles 124
San Diego 86
Orange 50
San Bernardino 42
Ventura 27
Riverside 18
As the CSBA is the sole proprietor and administrator of the MIG training
program, its cooperation and consultation was instrumental in overcoming potential
barriers associated with accurate identification of the sample population. The target
population included superintendents and school boards whose completion of the MIG
training placed them within either the partial or full participation categories, as indicated
by the aforementioned criteria. The participation data received, which included the
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 59
names of school board members and superintendents who had completed the MIG
training, were analyzed to identify and confirm the sample population.
In order to increase the pool of information-rich responses, superintendents of
the 10 school boards in this case study were asked to assist in the data collection process
by providing the surveys to their MIG-trained board members in addition to completing
the superintendent survey enclosed in the packet. Each packet included an informed
consent sheet, survey, and an invitation to participate in the interview stage should the
responses warrant further inquiry. Interviews utilizing the general interview guide were
transcribed and analyzed to determine trends and patterns related to the research ques-
tions. The transcribed data, recordings, and related survey responses will be kept in a
locked file located in this researcher’s office for a period of 5 years, in accordance with
the guidelines prescribed by the USC research policies.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this section is to address the procedures utilized during the data
analysis phase of this qualitative case study. Upon completion of the data collection
phase, structured interviews, surveys, and MIG observations (see Appendix F), data
were analyzed with respect to answering the research questions. A qualitative design
dictates that information is gathered, coded, and synthesized in a manner that allows for
conclusions based upon available data (Patton, 2002). The survey data, MIG observa-
tion notes, interview responses were coded on a spreadsheet and aligned to each of the
frameworks and the research questions. This portion of the qualitative case study
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 60
played an integral role due to its ability to provide communicable insight into the ability
of school board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance.
The data collected from this survey were analyzed in a purposeful and organized
manner. Both Creswell (2003) and Patton (2002) provided insight that was incorpo-
rated within the study methodology. Patton asserted that the ideal qualitative methodol-
ogy occurs in three separate, yet interconnected parts: (a) qualitative data, (b) holistic
design of naturalistic inquiry, and (c) case analysis. The six-step process outlined by
Creswell is as follows:
1. Organize the data by transcribing interviews, typing field notes, and sorting
data by type;
2. Read through data to determine tone and theme;
3. Code data into chunks linked by an image or a term;
4. Utilize the coding process to generate a detailed description of the setting or
people;
5. Convey findings of the analysis through the usage of narrative passage; and
6. Interpret the data through the lens of the applicable theoretical frameworks.
Data obtained from both the surveys and interviews were disaggregated.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to describe the process utilized to answer the
research questions posed in this qualitative case study. In addition to an overview of the
study methodology, the in-depth process for identifying the sample population, instru-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 61
mentation, data collection, and data analysis were discussed. The USC Institutional
Review Board approved the methodology and instrumentation applied in this research.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 62
Chapter 4
Findings
The overarching purpose of this case study was to investigate the impact of
school board training on the ability of school board members to exhibit the characteris-
tics of effective governance. More specifically, this case study sought to examine the
impact of the MIG training on the governance practices of school board members who
had completed the training.
This chapter includes a presentation and analysis of data collected both individ-
ually and collectively by the research team. Each researcher subsequently identified two
or three matching pairs of a board member and his or her corresponding superintendent
to interview from the total participant pool (86 board members and 61 superintendents).
The 10-member research team then triangulated data gathered from surveys, observa-
tions, and interviews for their individual case studies. The research team collabor-
atively developed the following three research questions to serve as the lens by which
the data would be individually discussed and analyzed:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
MIG school board training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 63
Participants and School Districts
Participants were chosen from successful districts in southern California that
initially met the following criteria: an API of either 800 or more points or API growth of
21 or more points the past 3 years, and at least half of the current board members having
completed the MIG training offered by the CSBA. Due to natural attrition of MIG-
trained board members, the criteria were then expanded to include districts with at least
one trained school board member. This expansion yielded the identification of 100
districts in the southern California counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura.
Utilizing the aforementioned selection criteria, 226 board members and 100 cor-
responding superintendents qualified to participate in the case study. Of the surveys
distributed, 86 of the 226 board member surveys and 61 of the 100 superintendent
surveys were returned. While the overall 38% response rate for board members was ad-
mittedly less than ideal, each research team member endeavored to obtain at least five
matching survey pairs and interviewed board members only in cases where their corre-
sponding superintendent agreed to participate so as to increase the validity of the data
collected. Several factors, including attrition, changes in leadership and the fact that the
research team relied on the superintendents to give the survey packets to their board
members in lieu of direct contact, may have diminished the overall response rate.
Interviewed Participants
The interviewees, who were drawn from the larger participant pool, included
three matched pairs of board members and their corresponding superintendents, who
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 64
were identified and chosen by each researcher upon completion of the data collection
phase.
Data collected from the interviews revealed that both the board members and
superintendents had extensive experience in their respective positions and, in most
cases, in education (see Table 3). The three board members, two of whom were female,
collectively had over 28 years of board experience. Similarly, the superintendents
included in this case study, all of whom were male, collectively had 40 years of experi-
ence working in collaboration with school boards. Interestingly, two of the three board
members were either former or current teachers; the third board member had extensive
volunteer experience in both the classroom and local school districts in general.
Table 3
Experience of Interviewed Board Members and Superintendents
Interviewee Years in position Years in Education
Board Member A 11 25
Board Member B 7 30
Board Member C 10 0
Superintendent A 3 24
Superintendent B 20 40
Superintendent C 11 30
For the purpose of this case study, all board members, superintendents and
districts were assigned pseudonyms to protect the identity of the participants. As such,
the board member and superintendent for District A will hereafter be referred to as
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 65
Board Member A and Superintendent A. Likewise, the board member and superinten-
dent for Districts B and C will be referred to as Board Member B, Superintendent B,
Board Member C, and Superintendent C, respectively.
District A
District A was an urban district located in southern California. According to
their Website, the student ethnic distribution was as follows: 78% Hispanic, 17% Afri-
can American, 5% other. This K–12 district, which serves over 24,000 students, in-
cludes 30 elementary schools, eight middle schools, three comprehensive high schools,
and one alternative school. The district governance team was comprised of seven
elected board members and the superintendent. The API for the district had increased
over the last 3 years from 679 to 687.
Board member A began her career in District A as a paraprofessional. She
retired from District A in 1999 after serving 25 years as a kindergarten teacher. She
began the MIG training in 2003, 1 year after being elected to the board of trustees.
Superintendent A was recently hired in September of 2012 after having served 24 years
in education. Prior to his initial appointment as superintendent in a neighboring district,
he had served as an elementary and middle school teacher, director of human resources,
and associate superintendent.
District B
District B was a suburban district in Southern California that served over 24,000
students. The district had 17 elementary schools, eight middle schools, five high
schools, and three adult schools. The district governance team was comprised of five
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 66
elected board members and the superintendent. The district’s API in 2012 was 869
points.
Board Member B was an elementary school teacher in a local district, with over
30 years experience in education. He had served on the board of trustees for approxi-
mately 7 years. Superintendent B had worked in education since 1973. In addition to
having served as a high school teacher, Superintendent B had worked as a middle and
high school principal, Assistant Superintendent of Employee Relations, and as superin-
tendent in two districts prior to taking the position in District B in 2005.
District C
District C was an urban high school district in southern California, serving over
23,000 ninth- through 12th-grade students. The district consisted of eight compre-
hensive high schools, four continuation schools, and one adult education program.
District C qualified as a successful district under the criteria requiring a growth of 20 or
more API points during the 3 years prior to the study. Since 2010, the district’s API had
increased by 26 points. The district’s governance team was comprised of five elected
board members and the superintendent.
Board Member C had extensive community activism and volunteer experience
as an elementary classroom aide prior to joining the school board. Most recently, she
had served as board president and was a delegate for the state school board association.
Board Member C had served on the board for 11 years.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 67
Results
This section presents the research results presented by research question. Three
sources of data (structured interviews, school board and superintendent surveys, and
observations of MIG training) were triangulated to articulate the major themes.
Research Question 1
What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school
board MIG training program?
The role of school board member is unlike any other position in education.
While the factors that impact the decision to seek and complete a school board training
program are as varied as the experience possessed by each board member, two central
themes emerged in respect to research question 1. Primary themes centered on the in-
fluence of district culture and individuals’ desire to improve their ability to govern.
While many board members who sought training were self-motivated learners, encour-
agement from their superintendents and MIG-trained board members positively im-
pacted the decision to complete a school board training program.
District culture. Isolating determinant factors for the decision to pursue board
training is complex, as the decision is usually influenced by a myriad of factors. The
data indicated that school board culture impacted the decision to pursue school board
training. Although the survey revealed that 20% of the board members disagreed when
asked if their school board culture highly encouraged participation in the MIG training,
other data suggested that influence was present despite the lack of systemic support
across the entire board. Two questions on the survey asked whether participants would
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 68
strongly recommend the MIG training to other board members or whether they had
encouraged other board members to participate in the MIG as a form of professional
development. These questions were asked to evaluate the extent to which those who
said they would recommend the training transferred their opinion into actual recommen-
dations or potential influencing factors. The self-reported answers from the first of the
two questions revealed that both MIG-trained board members and superintendents were
very likely to recommend the pursuit of training to their nontrained colleagues.
When combined, the strongly agree (78%) and agree (22%) responses revealed
that 100% of the surveyed board members would strongly recommend the training to
their colleagues. The responses from the superintendents yielded similar results; 62%
of superintendents (n = 38) responded strongly agree, while 31% (n = 19) chose agree.
This finding represented a difference of 6% between the percentage of board members
and superintendents who asserted that they would encourage board members to pursue
the MIG training offered by the CSBA. When this result was then compared to the
survey question that asked whether they had directly encouraged their fellow board
members to participate in the training, it was revealed that both board members and
superintendents translated their stated intention to encourage board members into actual
action, as evidenced in the survey.
Table 4 shows that 73% of board members (n = 63) and 62% of superintendents
(n = 38) indicated strongly agree to the question regarding whether they encouraged
board members to participate in the MIG program as a form of professional develop-
ment. These data suggested that both superintendents and fellow board members
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 69
created a positive culture that encouraged nontrained board members to pursue and
complete a school board training program by communication of their experiences and
the ways in which they felt it benefitted board members.
Table 4
Number and Percentage of Board Members and Superintendents Who Encouraged
Other Board Members to Participate in Masters in Government Training
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 63 73.3 38 62.2
Agree 20 23.3 19 31.2
Disagree 1 1.1 4 6.6
Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0
No answer 2 2.3 0 0.0
Self-motivation. Although the aforementioned results suggested that MIG-
trained board members and their superintendents encouraged other board members to
seek the training, further inquiry revealed that MIG-trained board members were more
likely to cite self-motivation when asked to identify the primary influence impacting
their decision to pursue MIG training. Participants were asked to choose one of four
options follows: (a) school board expectation, (b) Self-motivation, (c) encouraged by
board members, or (d) other. The “other” option afforded participants an opportunity to
write in an alternative response. Likewise, superintendents were asked to offer their
perspective to determine whether their perception corroborated with the factors reported
by board members. Table 5 shows that while school board members primarily cited
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 70
Table 5
Primary Factors Influencing Decision to Complete Masters in Governance Training
Factor Board members Superintendents
Self-motivation 52 21
School board expectation 20 12
Board member encouragement 8 20
Other 3 7
self- motivation (n = 52) as the motivating factor to pursue training, their corresponding
superintendents were likely to cite board member encouragement (n = 20) and self-
motivation (n =21) at near equal frequencies.
Board Member A highlighted a combination of self-motivation and recommen-
dations of fellow board members in her response:
No. I sought it out myself because I felt that it was necessary. Well, I had one
board member that finished it before I did, and I asked her how it was, and she
said, “You need to take it because it really helped me make better decisions for
the students.” And then, our former board member, she encouraged . . . us to
take the training as well.
Board Member B attributed his decision to a myriad of external influences:
To speak from my personal experience, it was told to me that this would be a
very good thing for a board member to do. It would be very educational, be
something that everyone should have. It was offered to me through the district
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 71
and they paid for it, so I did it. I took the advice of the superintendent and things
like that.
Summary of results for research question 1. The purpose of research ques-
tion 1 was to gain insight into the factors that encouraged school board members to seek
training in a state without the mandated requirement. The school board members in this
study saw training as an opportunity to improve their ability to govern effectively. Self-
motivation was cited by 60% of the school board members when they were asked to
name the primary factor influencing their decision to pursue the MIG training. Further
inquiry, however, revealed that this internal drive to learn more about their roles was at
times coupled with recommendations and endorsements from either fellow board
members or their superintendents. Once trained, board members enhanced the
likelihood of creating a culture of continuous improvement by, in turn, recommending
the training and/or sharing concepts learned as a result of their experience.
Research Question 2
Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
Research question 2 was designed to investigate the extent to which the MIG
program enabled board members to exhibit the characteristics associated with effective
governance as indicated by the CSBA (2007):
1. Keep the district focused on learning and achievement for all students.
2. Communicate a common vision.
3. Operate openly, with trust and integrity.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 72
4. Govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civil-
ity and respect.
5. Govern within board-adopted policies and procedures.
6. Take collective responsibility for the board’s performance.
7. Periodically evaluate its own effectiveness.
8. Ensure that diverse community views inform deliberations on multiple occa-
sions. (Board section, paras. 3-10)
An analysis of the data revealed two emergent threads or themes in relation to
research question 2:
1. The ability of the MIG training to enable board members to distinguish
between roles and responsibilities of school board members and those of the
superintendent equipped them with the requisite skills and knowledge to focus on activ-
ities associated with effective governance; and
2. The MIG training encouraged board members to exhibit several of the char-
acteristics of effective governance by fostering collaboration and collegiality among
board members and superintendents during training sessions.
Ranked characteristics of effective governance. In order to better understand
to what extent the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to
exhibit the characteristics of effective governance, the characteristics deemed most
important by the board members were first analyzed. School board members were
asked to rank the following six categories in order: (a) focusing on student achievement,
(b) communicating a common vision, (c) operating with trust and integrity, (d) treating
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 73
everyone with respect, (e) governing within board policies, (e) assuming collective
responsibility for school board performance, (f) self-evaluation of board effectiveness,
and (g) school board deliberations including diverse community views. The results
indicated that school board members saw communicating a common vision that was
focused on student achievement while operating with trust and integrity to be among the
top three characteristics of effective governance. Seventy-seven board members (89%)
ranked focus on student achievement as one of the three most important characteristics,
followed by operating with trust and integrity, which was chosen by 64 (74%), and com-
municating a common vision, which was chosen by 51 (59%; see Table 6). Noticeably,
the characteristic concerning including diverse community views in deliberations was
not chosen by any participant as the most important. In fact, when asked whether or not
they engaged the community utilizing a variety of methods as a result of the MIG
training, this question received the highest number of responses in the disagree category
(n = 16). This information supported the two themes that emerged, as the MIG training
is designed to assist trustees in effectively participating as members of the governance
team.
Clearly delineated roles and responsibilities. Obtaining a clear understanding
of the roles and responsibilities of school board members is a key obstacle to exhibiting
the behaviors of effective governance, as delineated by the CSBA (2007). An analysis
of the data collected from interviews and surveys suggested that mandated training is
highly likely to clarify the roles and responsibilities of school board members through-
out California. In response to the statement, “School board members who are MIG
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 74
Table 6
Board Member Rankings of Top Three Characteristics of Effective Governance
Characteristic #1 #2 #3 Total
Focus on student achievement 31 36 10 77
Operate with trust and integrity 25 23 16 64
Communicate a common vision 12 13 16 51
Treat everyone with respect 9 12 9 30
Govern within board policies 5 7 12 24
Board deliberations include diverse community views 0 3 6 9
Note. N = 86. Characteristics based on School Board Leadership: The Role and Func-
tion of California’s School Boards, by California School Boards Association, (2007),
retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/ media/Files/ AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk
.ashx
trained exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference between their roles and respon-
sibilities and those of the superintendent,” 27 superintendents (38%) strongly agreed
and 25 (41%) agreed. These data were contrasted with the board members’ responses to
a version of the question that was designed to determine whether or not the MIG train-
ing assisted them in personally clarifying and understanding the difference between
their roles and responsibilities and those of their superintendents. Their responses were
noticeably more definitive in that 58 board members (67%) indicated that they strongly
agreed with the statement. When combined with the remaining 31% who responded
agree, the results showed that 100% of the board members surveyed agreed with the
aforementioned statement. The ability of the MIG training to clarify roles and
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 75
responsibilities was specifically noted by each the three board members and three
superintendents interviewed.
For example, Superintendent A noted:
I think the great thing about Masters in Governance training is it really shows
individuals their role. What’s your role as a board member? What’s the role of
the superintendent, and how do you function collectively as a governance team?
Superintendent B commented that “the board members who are trained understand the
difference between their role and that of what I am responsible for.” Board Member A
substantiated that statement by stating:
I think that they—the impact is that you should take the training. Because it
helps you to become a better leader and to understand your role as a board
member. So, before I took the training, I think I had been a board member for 1
year, and I really didn’t understand my role as to what I should or should not do.
But once I took the training, then it helped me out a lot.
Fostering collaboration. A key task for school boards is to raise student
achievement through, among other things, strategic collaboration and coleadership
(Gemberling et al., 2000). When board members were asked whether they developed a
more collaborative relationship with their fellow board members as a result of the MIG
training, the results were as follows: 34 (39.5%) strongly agreed, 43 (50%) agreed, five
(5.8%) disagreed, and one (1.2%) disagreed; three (3.5%) did not answer the question.
Similarly, 94 % of superintendents either agreed (n = 31) or strongly agreed (n = 21)
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 76
that MIG-trained board members develop a more collaborative relationship with their
fellow board members.
The aforementioned survey findings were substantiated in five out of six inter-
views in that each interviewee highlighted the ability of the MIG training to facilitate
collaboration among board members. Board Member B summarized the opportunity for
collaboration as follows:
Yes, it brought a common—two people who had never met each other, it
brought—in fact, I think I took it with [name of board member]. It definitely
brought people with whom I had no experience and so on and so forth—it gave
us a common goal. It gave us a venue to work in and is very collaborative.
Similarly, Board Member A added that “those of us that had the training—it was three
of us at the time—we collaborated more.”
Superintendent A indicated that the calendar, a tool provided through the MIG
training, also equipped board members to collaborate effectively:
I think the—probably one of the bigger pieces had to deal with the calendar.
That made all that come alive for board members instead of these things just
happening, because this year we’re downsizing and we have to do layoffs. The
template that they provided in that process really made board members under-
stand, “Okay, so there is an ongoing calendar and within these months—these
are the things that we should be worried about.
Next, the survey question that addressed a board member’s ability to accept the
majority decision even when he or she held the minority viewpoint was examined
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 77
because it was seen as further insight into the ability of the MIG training to foster a
culture of collaboration and collegiality among board members. The results indicated
that the board members attributed their ability to accept viewpoints in contradiction to
their own to the MIG training. Specifically, 74 out of 86 (86%) either strongly agreed
or agreed with the aforementioned statement. Similarly, 55 out of 91 superintendents
(90%) either strongly agreed (n = 24) or agreed (n = 31) that MIG-trained board mem-
bers were better equipped to accept the majority view point, even if their view was in
the minority.
Another finding suggests that those who obtained MIG training transferred
learned skills to nontrained board members by sharing lessons from the training. For
example, 86% of MIG-trained board members noted that they encouraged fellow board
members to use data to make informed decisions regarding student achievement. This
assertion was further substantiated by 82% of superintendents who agreed that MIG-
trained board members encouraged others to exhibit the most relevant characteristic of
effective governance (see Table 6). Superintendent B summarized the collaborative
benefits as follows:
I think the biggest positive factor was just that—coming together as a gover-
nance team, that being a superintendent and the governing board members, but
also with themselves as being board members on a team coming together, and
then learning at the same time the various modules, the various structures, how
to work together, what it means to be one vote of five, what a consensus is.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 78
Upon concluding the extensive data analysis process, it became clear to the
author that the clarification regarding roles and responsibilities provided by the MIG
training is tantamount to the success of the program. In short, school board training
programs serve as effective professional development tools that accelerate the knowl-
edge and understanding of the skill sets necessary to govern effectively by providing a
foundation upon which board members can grow and expand.
Research Question 3
In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
While the merits of and necessity of school board training are increasingly noted
in research on the topic of school board effectiveness (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon, 2010;
French et al., 2008; Roberts & Sampson, 2011), a consensus as to whether school board
training should be mandated has been less apparent (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Although school board training is mandated in 23 states (NSBA, 2012), it is not cur-
rently a requirement in the state of California. The purpose of research question 3 was
to ascertain attitudes and perceptions of school board members toward a training
mandate and to determine whether such a mandate would impact school board gover-
nance in California.
While attitudes and perceptions toward mandated training were readily dis-
cerned through the analysis of data, predicting the potential impact of mandates on
future governance practices proved to be a greater challenge. As such, inferences were
made by the researcher based upon themes that emerged from triangulating the inter-
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 79
view data, survey results, and observations of the MIG training. As a result, two themes
emerged. First, the majority of surveyed board members and, to a slightly higher
degree, superintendents supported a mandate for school board training; they also saw a
need for continuing training throughout a board member’s tenure. Second, the data
suggested that a major benefit of mandating training is the ability to improve gover-
nance by creating an environment conducive for bonding within one’s board and net-
working with and learning from other board members.
Support for mandated training. The majority of surveyed school board
members (n = 59) and superintendents (n = 49) either agreed or strongly agreed that
school board training should be mandated in California. Of the 86 school board mem-
bers surveyed, 34 responded strongly agree and 25 responded agree when asked if
school board training should be mandated in California. This sentiment was echoed by
both Board Members A and B, who responded, respectively, “I think it should be a
mandate because, as I said, it gives you insight as to what your roles are,” and “I
wouldn’t mind it being a mandate in California, but our particular board hasn’t gone to
a conference training in anything in 4 or 5 years, because of the budget cuts.” Compara-
tively, 26 superintendents responded strongly agree and 23 responded agree when
asked the same question. Table 7 shows the overall responses from both board mem-
bers and superintendents to the question on mandating training in California.
In alignment with their respective board members, each of the interviewed
superintendents indicated that they felt that, similarly to other positions in education,
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 80
Table 7
Responses of Superintendents and School Board Members Regarding Whether School
Board Training Should be Mandated in California
B o a r d m embers
a
S u p e r i n t endents
b
Response f % f %
Strongly agree 34 39 26 43
Agree 25 29 23 38
Disagree 18 21 10 16
Strongly disagree 5 6 1 2
No answer 4 5 1 2
school board training should be mandated in light of the many demands placed on
school board members.
Right now, we have a system where pretty much all you have to do is, you have
to be a citizen and you have to be 18 years of age or older, and you have to live
within the district. You meet all three of those criteria, you can be a board
member. You don’t have to do anything else, but you have to meet those crite-
ria. Now, think about that from a business perspective, and oftentimes people
don’t, or one of the largest employers, within communities, right? So, if you
think of it from a business perspective, where else do we allow individuals to
run businesses without minimal training? But we do allow individuals to run
school districts without that requirement. So, yeah, there should be minimal
training. (Superintendent A)
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 81
Yes, I believe training should be mandated. Now I’m not so sure it should come
from one source, though. (Superintendent B)
In some manner, I do, yes. I do. Well, a couple of things. Number one, it
would need to be mandated in a manner that didn’t come out as being a real
strong mandate. It would be, “This is a requirement, this is a certification that
you need to have within a certain time period,” would be something that I think
would be beneficial for governing board members in districts. Say that, by the
completion of your first term, you need to have your certification and master’s in
governance. That’s one piece. (Superintendent C)
In alignment with the findings of Hess (2002), board members indicated a desire
for ongoing training. Responses from the surveys, combined with the interview results,
revealed that school board members asserted that additional training would benefit the
entire school board. Participants were provided three lines to address the statement,
“Our school board would benefit from training in the following three areas,” to which
139 responses were received. Table 8 indicates the most frequently cited additional
training needs by board members and superintendents. Participants who indicated
either Roles and Responsibilities (n = 8) or Setting Direction (n = 19) were combined
with those who indicated a desire to receive additional training in Governance (n = 13).
The resulting combination yielded 40 (29%) requests for further training in the area of
Governance. Similarly 39% of the superintendents (n = 36), when asked the same
question, indicated that their board would benefit from additional training in the area of
Governance.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 82
Table 8
Training Needs Cited by Board Members
% of total
Category f responses
Governance 40 29
Finance and budget 28 20
Academics 17 12
Board/superintendent evaluation 14 10
Collaboration/relationships 7 5
Respect 7 5
Collective bargaining 5 4
Communication 4 3
Community relations 4 3
Legislation 3 2
Other 10 7
Totals 139 100
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
Extended learning opportunities and networking. As noted previously, the
MIG-trained superintendents indicated that collaboration increased as a result of com-
pleting the training. An additional benefit that was noted during the interviews and then
confirmed during MIG observations, however, was the opportunity for bonding and
networking created by attending the in-person training series. Board member and
superintendent interviews provided the most data in support of this theme.
Board Member C highlighted the networking aspects:
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 83
If we had another board member that wanted to take the training, I would love to
take it with them for the networking as well as so many good things that come
along with that.
Board Member B elaborated on the unifying properties of the training:
Yes, it brought a common—two people who had never met each other, it
brought—in fact, I think I took it with [name of board member]. I can’t remem-
ber if I took it with the three of us, but no, it definitely brought people with
whom I had no experience and so on and so forth—it gave us a common goal.
Board member A expanded upon the extended learning concept by adding:
And then talking to other board members, you know. It’s good to go to those
conferences and network. And if you network with good board members and
people that want things for kids, then that helps you learn more from their per-
spective and questions.
Board Member C also indicated that she learned the most from “the questions asked by
other board members,” adding that at times “the questions would go on for over 30
minutes and I learned so much.”
The purpose of research question 3 was to explore the impact that mandated
training could have on school board governance. The survey results from 86 board
members and 61 superintendents indicated that support for mandated training was solid,
as 68% of board members and 81% of superintendents either agreed or strongly agreed
that training should be mandated in the state of California. Additionally, the 139 re-
sponses to a question regarding additional training needs clarified that training needs
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 84
continue throughout the tenure of a school board member’s career. Finally, the opportu-
nity to collaborate with fellow board members created an environment in which the
board members were able to bond, network, and extend their learning by hearing the
insight provided by other board members.
Summary
This chapter explored the impact of the MIG training on effective governance
practice through an analysis of data gathered from a variety of methods. The responses
from 86 surveyed board members and 61 superintendents were triangulated against
relevant research on effective governance and the six interviews conducted with three
board members and their corresponding superintendents. The resulting analysis re-
vealed some of the ways in which the MIG training encouraged and equipped school
board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance, as delineated by
the CSBA (2007).
School board members’ success is contingent upon their her ability to quickly
adapt to the overwhelming demands and responsibilities inherent with school board
governance (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). A key tool in this endeavor is the decision to
pursue formal training. A major finding was that school board members were encour-
aged by a combination of self-motivation and district culture to pursue school board
training. In fact, once trained, they then served as change agents within their district by
modeling the characteristics of effective governance for their nontrained colleagues.
Additionally, school board members are likely to develop more collaborative relation-
ships as a result of the clarification of roles and responsibilities provided by the MIG
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 85
training. MIG-trained board members decidedly credited the training for equipping
them with the requisite knowledge and skills to decrease the likelihood that they would
spend an exorbitant amount of time on activities not directly connected to effective gov-
ernance. Finally, support for mandated training was found to be present among the
majority of trained board members and their corresponding superintendents. While the
MIG training provides the most comprehensive training available to California school
board members, future inquiries are warranted regarding methods to expand the MIG to
include ongoing professional development.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 86
Chapter 5
Discussion , Implications, and Recommendations
The NCLB Act of 2001 (2002) and, most recently, the Common Core Standards
Initiative (2012) signified a shift in education that placed measurable gains in student
achievement as the primary focus for educators. Likewise, as this move impacted the
expectations placed on district and site level administrators, so, too, has the work of
school board members has been affected (Land, 2002). The import of this qualitative
case study, which explored the impact of the MIG training on effective governance, is
accentuated by the fact that often school board members enter the position with limited
experience in education and without the benefit of formal preparation.
Chapters 1–3 provided an expanded view of the contextual framework, qualita-
tive methodology, and literature review to illuminate the emergent themes presented in
Chapter 4. This chapter, which summarizes the study, reviews the purpose of the study,
and the findings, culminates with a discussion of implications, limitations, and recom-
mendations for further study.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the role of the CSBA’s (2010) MIG
training program on the governance practices of the state’s school board members.
Three theoretical frameworks served as the guide for this study. The leadership model
developed by Bolman and Deal (2008) and the revelations from the pivotal Lighthouse
Inquiry (IASB, 2000) were combined with a third governance framework developed by
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 87
the CSBA (2007) to thoroughly investigate the impact of the MIG program on effective
governance.
The 10-member thematic group worked interdependently to design the study,
formulate research questions, and select the appropriate qualitative methodology. Upon
the development of the statement of the problem, the team collaboratively developed the
purpose of the study. Qualitative surveys were mailed to 226 board members and their
corresponding superintendents. From the 86 school board members and 61 superinten-
dent participants, three matched pairs of a board member and their corresponding super-
intendent were chosen by the researcher to participate in qualitative interviews. The
interview protocol was aligned to the research questions to enhance the validity of the
instrument. Ultimately, the data gathered from the surveys and interviews were ana-
lyzed to identify six findings related to the following three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance; and if so, how?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
The analysis of survey data and interviews suggested that the factors impacting
the decision to pursue school board training were interconnected as opposed to
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 88
independent in nature. Two salient themes emerged as the primary influences on the
decision to pursue school board training. First, school board members were motivated
by an internal drive to acquire the skills to govern in a manner that would positively
impact the achievement of the students they served. Second, the district culture, includ-
ing the attitudes and recommendations of the superintendent and other board members,
impacted the decision as well. Moreover, successful school board members quickly
realized the necessity to equip themselves with the tools that would aid in their efforts
on behalf of students.
Interestingly, school board members were twice as likely to attribute self-
motivation (n =52) as they were to attribute school board expectation (n = 20) as the
primary influence impacting their decision to pursue school board training, despite the
fact that 78% indicated that their school board culture supported the MIG training. This
insight can be valuable for superintendents who are looking for data to support the value
of the pursuit of school board training. To further investigate the theme identified by
the author, school board culture was examined from the perspective of individual influ-
ence to determine to what extent it combined with self-motivation to impact the deci-
sion to pursue school board training.
These findings were in alignment with the CSBA’s (2007) assertion that effec-
tive board members assume collective responsibility for school board governance.
Through modeling and creating a culture that encourages continuous learning, MIG-
trained board members exhibited the characteristics associated with effective
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 89
governance while simultaneously influencing the growth and development of their
fellow colleagues.
Research Question 2
School boards in successful districts behave differently through communicating
a standard for behavior, as evidenced by the presence of characteristics associated with
effective governance (IASB, 2000). As a result of the data analysis, two emergent
themes indicated that MIG training encouraged and/or equipped school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance by (a) teaching board members to focus
on appropriate activities by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of school board
members and (b) fostering collaboration and collegiality among board members and
superintendents during training sessions. In alignment with the four frames model of
Bolman and Deal (2008), the findings suggested that possessing a variety of skills that
enable leaders to work within and through each frame is a critical element to the success
of school board.
School board members face many challenges that require an ability to discern
not only their role but also to what extent or on which level they should get involved.
Absent a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities, such as that provided by
the MIG training, conditions are likely where board members increasingly cross into
territory best left to superintendents or site-level administrators. As a result, their ability
to exhibit integrated leadership, as delineated in the Lighthouse Inquiry (IASB, 2000),
becomes impacted.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 90
The analysis of data obtained from the MIG-trained board members and their
corresponding superintendents revealed that MIG-trained board members were more
likely to work in a collaborative and collegial manner. An emphasis on building a
human organizational system capable of creating and sustaining initiatives (IASB,
2000) is less likely without a collaborative board united by the common desire to in-
crease student achievement.
Research Question 3
The merits (or lack thereof) of school board training have been highly debated in
recent years (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). The two emergent themes centered on a need
for continued training in addition to that provided by the MIG offered by the CSBA and
the opportunity for learning and networking provided through the in-person training
sessions. Research question 3 aimed to gain insight into the potential effect that man-
dating school board training could have on school board governance. The analysis
indicated that a mandate would be perceived favorably by not only MIG-trained board
members but also—more significantly—by superintendents who, not surprisingly, have
the most insight regarding the differences between those who have received school
board training and those who have not. Eighty percent of superintendents either agreed
or strongly agreed that training should be mandated, as compared to 69% of MIG-
trained school board members. While some data alluded to a potential pushback in light
of the challenging economic situation in education, this issue did not appear frequently
enough to be classified by this researcher as an emerging theme.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 91
Limitations
The design of this research study called for the participation of MIG-trained
board members and their corresponding superintendents. The exclusion of the non-
trained board members resulted in a gap in available data regarding the impact of
training on the overall ability of the board to govern effectively.
Implications
This inaugural case study of the MIG training program contributes to the body of
scholarly literature by initiating the examination of the impact of school board training
on effective governance. As was the original intent, the insights and themes emerged
herein should be useful not only to school board members and superintendents but also
to those charged with the responsibility of developing school board training programs
and subsequent professional development opportunities.
School board members may be encouraged by the notion that their MIG-trained
colleagues report an increased ability to navigate the challenges associated with student
achievement-centered school board governance. Likewise, as superintendents search
for research-based strategies to improve collaboration and collegiality among the mem-
bers of their board, this research should provide practical information regarding the
ability of the MIG training to equip and encourage members of the board to exhibit the
characteristics associated with effective governance by facilitating the acquisition of
knowledge and skills in an expeditious and efficient manner.
Finally, those charged with the responsibility of providing school board training
will find the insights regarding benefits of in-person training sessions and needs for
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 92
further training useful when determining the future of school board training. Because
the research revealed that the opportunity for networking, bonding, and extended learn-
ing opportunities is a highlight of the program, purveyors of the training should ap-
proach attempts to offer the training online with caution. Additionally, findings from
this study confirming support for mandated training warrant further inquiry among
boards and superintendents throughout California to determine whether or not enacting
such a mandate is a viable and productive option.
Recommendations for Future Study
Although this collaborative research study represents the first of its kind exam-
ining the impact of the MIG training on effective governance, the absence of literature
on the topic leaves space for additional inquiry and exploration. In light of the research
findings and in an effort to further illuminate the body of work dedicated to examining
and improving school board training programs, the researcher recommends the follow-
ing ideas for future study:
1. Expand the research to include non-MIG-trained board members. Their
ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance could be contrasted against
their MIG-trained counterparts in an effort to more accurately isolate the impact of the
training.
2. Future research could include the additional observation of school board
meetings and governing board artifacts. Minutes and budgets could be reviewed to
determine to what extent the characteristics of effective governance are documented.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 93
4. Additional research could be completed on the specific elements of the
training program to determine which aspects are most effective at assisting school board
members in their quest to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. Identify-
ing successful elements of the training program could yield valuable insights that could
be utilized to expand on extended learning opportunities.
5. The study was limited to Californian participants in the MIG program.
Research could be extended throughout the nation to compare and contrast the impact of
school board training programs throughout the country.
Conclusion
In an era of increased accountability and heightened focus on increasing student
achievement, school board members are faced with the challenge of governing multi-
million-dollar institutions often without the benefit of formal training. As the study
revealed, effective board members acknowledged the impact of training on their ability
to navigate the complexities of school board governance and were more likely to pursue
formal training to aid in this regard. The MIG training offered by the CSBA equips and
encourages school board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance
through clarification of roles and responsibilities and by facilitating the development of
more collaborative relationships. Support for high- quality, ongoing professional
development is paramount to the continued success of school board members, and the
value of such pursuits should not be underestimated.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 94
References
Adamson, M. (2011). Effective school board leadership and governance: The impact of
training and continuous education on self-perceptions of board competency. (Doc-
toral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3472802)
Allen, A., & Mintrom, M. (2010). Responsibility and school governance. Educational
Policy, 24, 439–464.
Anderson, S. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature (Working Paper). Toronto. ON, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, International Centre for Educational Change.
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, D. (2003). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. Journal of the Agency for Instructional Technology, 11(4), 1-3.
Bianchi, A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3),
1–4. Retrieved from http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/
forecast1003.pdf
Black, S. (2008). Keys to board excellence. American School Board Journal, 295,
34–35. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Governance/
KeyWork/Research/keys-to-board-excellence.pdf
Bolman, L, & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 95
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success. Washington, DC:
Institute for Policy and Economic Development.
California School Board Association. (2006). CSBA effective governance system [Bro-
chure]. Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/Governance
Services/GovernanceConsulting/~/media/Files/Services/GovernanceServices/Singl
eDistrict/PGS/200805_PGS_SB_Brochure.ashx
California School Board Association. (2007). 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. (2010). Program information. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/~/link.aspx?_id=5DE
D5209D0524D97ACF9531457C352DA&_z=z
Campbell, D., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the
21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391–395.
Carol, L., Danzberger, J., McCloud, B., Cunningham, L., Kirst, M., & Usdan, M.
(1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Washington, DC:
Institute for Educational Leadership.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 96
Danzberger, J. (1992). Facing the challenge: The report of the Twentieth Century Fund
task force on school governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Danzberger, J., (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring the
local school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 53–59.
Danzberger, J., Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M.
(1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69, 53–59.
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The
future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191-224). Blue
Ridge, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards.
Retrieved from http://www .centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-
education/eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/eight-characteristics-of-
effective-school-boards.html
Dillon, N. (2010). The value of training for board members, ongoing professional de-
velopment is not a luxury but a must. American School Board Journal, 197(7),15–
19.
EdSource. (2010). California and the common core: Will there be a new debate about
K-12 standards? Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_common-core.html
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 97
French, E., Peevely, G., & Stanley, R. (2008). Measuring perceived school board effec-
tiveness in Tennessee: The latest survey results. International Journal of Public
Administration, 31, 211–243.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school
boards. Alexandria, VA.: National School Boards Association.
Gomes, S. (2011). The relationship between student academic and the school board and
superintendent responsibilities (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (Publication No. AAT 3456952)
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21
st
century: Conditions and
challenges of district governance. Washington, DC: National School Boards Asso-
ciation.
Hess, F. M., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the ac-
countability era. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
School-Boards-Circa-2010/School-Boards-Circa-2010-Governance-in-the-Account
ability-Era.pdf
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board
governance: Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22, 683–700.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000, April). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School
boards/superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences
in student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educa-
tional Research Association, Seattle, WA.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 98
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.
Lupardus, S. C. (2005). The impact of mandated school board training on school board
members’ perceptions of their governance role in the state of Missouri (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No.
3185074)
May, H., & Supovitz, J. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 332–352. doi:10.1177/
0013161X10383411
Moody, M. J. (2007). Superintendent-board relations: Competencies for success (Dis-
sertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
AA13269551)
Morehouse, W. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administra-
tor, 58(2), 68–70.
Newton, P., & Stackney, L. (2005). Group knowledge and Group knowledge processes
in school board decision making. Journal of Education, 28, 434–457.
National School Boards Association. (2012). Mandated training for school board
members. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425
(2002).
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 99
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petronis, J., Hall, R., & Pierson, M. (1996). Mandatory school board training: An idea
whose time has come? Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED400625)
Quality counts: 2009 state report cards. (2009, January 8). Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2009/17src.h28.html?r=1014374166
Resnick, M. & Bryant, A. (2010). School boards: Why American education needs them.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 11–14.
Roberts, K., & Sampson, P. (2011). School board member professional development
and effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Manage-
ment, 25, 701–713.
Schmitz, S. (2007). Qualifications and readiness of school board trustees and implica-
tions for training (Doctoral dissertation, Montana State University). Retrieved from
http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2007/schmitz/SchmitzS0507.pdf
Timar, T. B. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California.
Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 177–200.
Usdan, M. (2010). School boards: A neglected institution in an era of school reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 8–10.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts sheet—California. Retrieved
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 100
Washington State School Directors Association. (2011). The role of school boards in
improving student achievement: Guiding principles from WSSDA. Retrieved from
http://www.wssda.org/Portals/0/Resources/publications/satfpospaper.pdf
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd
ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 101
Appendix A
Information Letter
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NONMEDICAL 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 con-
senting 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
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 102
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
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 103
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
Letitia Bradley at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at
mescalan@usc.edu.
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 104
Appendix B
School Board Member Recruitment Letter
Date ____________________Dear_______________________________,
I would like to congratulate your school district for being identified as a successful district in which at
least one board member has completed the Masters in Governance training program offered by the
California School Boards Association. My name is __________________, 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,
Letitia T. Bradley 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
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 105
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,
Letitia T. Bradley 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
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 106
Appendix D
Surveys
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 107
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 108
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 109
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 110
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 111
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 112
Appendix E
Interview Guide
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.)
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 113
Appendix F
MIG Observation Tool
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 114
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 115
IMPACT OF MIG SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING 116

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied 3 theoretical frameworks—Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four frames, the Lighthouse Inquiry of the Iowa Association of School Boards, and effective governance characteristics—to examine the impact of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by the California School Boards Association on the ability of school board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance. This inaugural investigation of the MIG training program included interviews of 3 MIG-trained board members and their corresponding superintendents utilizing qualitative methodology. The resulting data were then triangulated against MIG training observations and survey data collected from 86 MIG trained board members and 61 superintendents to answer the following 3 research questions regarding (a) factors impacting the decision of school board members to complete a school board training program, (b) whether and how MIG training encourages and equips school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and (c) in what ways mandating the MIG training could impact school board governance. The findings suggested that the MIG equips board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance by fostering board collaboration and hastening the understanding of various roles and responsibilities of school board trustees. This study should add to the scholarly body of work by expanding current school board research to include a comprehensive analysis of the ability of the MIG to impact effective governance practices of school board members in California and examining the case for potential mandates in the future.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards

PDF

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

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

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

PDF

Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Bradley, Letitia T. (author)

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

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 effective,governance,leadership,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,roles and responsibilities,School boards,Training,trustees

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 letitiab@usc.edu,letitiabradley6@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-223444

Unique identifier UC11295081

Identifier usctheses-c3-223444 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BradleyLet-1460-0.pdf

Dmrecord 223444

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bradley, Letitia T.

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