Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 1
THE IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE TRAINING
FOR EFFECTIVE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS
by
Vivian J. Choi
____________________________________________________________________
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 Vivian J. Choi
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 2
Dedication
To my parents, John and Lim Suk Choi, and my brother, Sebastian Choi
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 3
Acknowledgments
In 1997, my parents’ courage brought our family to the United States from South
America. I was 15 years old, did not speak English, and never imagined that I could be
where I am today. High school and early college careers were not easy, but I met many
people who inspired me to strive and follow my dreams. During the process, I discov-
ered a passion for teaching and learning, and I learned that the value of education and the
opportunity to learn must be transmitted and offered to every child. The past 3 years
(2010-2013) in this Ed.D. program at USC have been an amazing journey, and I must
acknowledge key people and organizations in my life who have been alongside me
throughout this process.
I thank my parents, John and Lim Suk, and my brother, Sebastian, for being my
greatest supporters and fans. I am especially grateful for my parents’ endless efforts to
make sure that my brother and I never lacked anything. Their hard work, tenacity, and
persistence have given my brother and me the opportunity to pursue and achieve the
American Dream. This is the just the beginning!
I must thank my chair, Dr. Michael Escalante, for his guidance and expertise
throughout this process. He was one of my first professors at USC (Leadership class). I
remember the first day of class when he wanted us to introduce ourselves and I felt an
immediate connection to USC, which helped me to value networking even more. I also
thank Dr. Pedro Garcia, member of my dissertation committee. He shared his story in
our Diversity class and it certainly inspired me to continue to work hard and taught me
about the importance of understanding people’s backgrounds. I thank him for giving us a
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 4
vision of the finish line by showing us a slide with our graduation date from Day 1 and
every class meeting thereafter and for telling us that a “good dissertation is a done
dissertation.” Another key person in my dissertation committee is Dr. Michele Doll. I
thank her for her knowledge and expertise in leadership. She is someone whom I would
like to resemble.
Another important person in my career is Dr. Gregory Franklin. I met him when I
was just a second-year teacher, and I was impressed by his leadership skills. I respect
and admire him for endless reasons, but especially for setting an example and high stand-
ards of exceptional leadership. I thank him for supporting me from prior to the beginning
of this journey. I am truly lucky to have a role model like him.
I thank all of my professors at UCI and USC. I am fortunate to have had great
instructors who helped me be the person that I am today. A special thank you goes to Dr.
Tom Jacobson, whom I met at UCI while taking classes for the administrative credential.
I had always thought of pursuing a doctorate, but his classes motivated me to take the
final leap of faith to apply to this Ed.D. program.
Thanks to all of my former students and former colleagues at EDHS in PYLUSD
and LAHS in LAUSD, and current colleagues at TUSD, for inspiring me to be a better
educator every day.
Sincere appreciation goes to all school board members and superintendents who
participated in this study. They are brave men and women who work diligently to ensure
that all children receive a quality education and are successful. Thank you for all you do.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 5
I thank my editor, Phyllis Parmet, for her patience and diligence in editing our
dissertations on time.
I have many friends who have been supportive during this process. Thank you to
Jennifer Stewart Sraow, Kendra Fisher, Jodi Lister, Melany Aiken Brundage, Brenda
Chavez, and Kelly Fresch. Whether daily, weekly, or monthly, I appreciated everyone’s
words of encouragement and support. Special thanks to Carolina Aravena for being a
cheerleader all the way from Chile. I also thank Jeannine Ball for taking me to various
football games where I sat in her enviable seats in row 1. She is one of the reasons I
ended up loving USC as much as I do now.
To my fellow USC friends and fellow Doctors of Education, Dr. Carlos Avila, Dr.
Merle Bugarin, Dr. Juan Carlos Herrera, Dr. Evelyn Jimenez, Dr. Tamar Kataroyan, Dr.
Eric Medrano (Ed.D. ´11), Dr. Juanita Naranjo, Dr. Christie Rainey, Dr. Camille Ramos-
Beal, and Dr. Sonia Rodarte: thanks for all of the memories these past years. From foot-
ball games to birthday parties to passing-of-the-defense and other celebrations, I know
that this is just the beginning and I look forward to many more years of friendship! A
special thank you to Sonia and Evelyn for the many writing sessions we had at USC OC,
Chapman, and coffee shops.
Congratulations to the Thursday II Cohort and the members of my dissertation
group. I am thankful for everyone, especially Dr. Rocky Murray, Dr. Becky Gogel, Dr.
Letitia Bradley, Dr. Tom Studdert, and Dr. Sergio Canal. The past 3 years would not
have been the same without their support. I especially would like to thank Rocky and
Becky for all their texts and phone calls! We did it!
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 6
Above all, I thank the Lord for blessing me incessantly. Getting a doctorate “by
the time I’m 30” was only a dream, but I was able to accomplish the unthinkable through
Him, who gives me strength.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 7
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
Abstract 12
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 13
Background of the Problem 14
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 16
Significance of the Study 16
Assumptions 17
Limitations of the Study 18
Delimitations 19
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Dissertation 22
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature 23
Historical Context of School Boards 24
Leadership 26
Effective Governance 28
Accountability 31
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards 32
Establishing the District’s Vision 33
Providing Structure 33
Hiring the superintendent 33
Policies: From state to district 34
Adopting and monitoring curriculum 35
Budgets 35
Collective bargaining 36
Providing Support 36
Leaders of the Community 37
Professional Development for Board Members 39
Goal of Professional Development and Types of Training Needed 40
Masters in Governance Training 41
Mandatory Versus Voluntary Training 42
Conceptual Frameworks 45
CSBA Professional Governance Standards 46
The Lighthouse Inquiry 46
Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames 47
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 8
Chapter Summary 50
Chapter 3: Methodology 51
Research Design 53
Sample and Population 54
Instrumentation 55
Validity and Reliability 56
Data Collection Procedures 57
Data Analysis 59
Chapter Summary 60
Chapter 4: Results 61
Participants 61
Results for Research Question 1 63
Motivation 64
Cultural Expectation Versus Encouragement 65
Accessibility Issues 67
Face-to-face interaction versus MIG online 67
Cost of training 68
Time and location of training 69
Discussion of Results for Research Question 1 70
Results for Research Question 2 71
Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities 72
Students first 72
Board versus superintendent roles 73
Two deficiencies 76
The Board as One 77
Effectiveness 78
The board member as a public official 79
Discussion of Results for Research Question 2 80
Results for Research Question 3 80
Training Is Highly Recommended 81
Training for new board members 83
Refresher courses for veteran board members 84
Areas of Need 84
Finance 85
Setting protocols 86
Team building 86
Discussion of Results for Research Question 3 87
Chapter Summary 88
Chapter 5: Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations 90
Summary of Findings 91
Findings for Research Question 1 91
Findings for Research Question 2 93
Findings for Research Question 3 96
Implications for Practice 99
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 9
School Board Members 99
Superintendents 100
CSBA 101
Citizens 102
Recommendations for Future Research 103
Conclusion 104
References 106
Appendices
Appendix A: MIG Alignment to Theoretical Frameworks 114
Appendix B: MIG Observation Protocol 115
Appendix C: Board Member and Superintendent Surveys 119
Appendix D: Alignment of Research Questions to Survey, Interview, and MIGOP 125
Appendix E: Recruitment Letters: Superintendent and School Board 129
Appendix F: Informed Consent Form 131
Appendix G: Board Member and Superintendent Interview Guide 133
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 10
List of Tables
Table 1: States That Mandate School Board Training 43
Table 2: Number of Surveys Sent and Number of Surveys Received 62
Table 3: Number of Board Members and Superintendents Who Strongly
Agreed or Agreed to Survey Statements Pertaining to Student
Achievement, Use of Data, and District Vision and Goals 74
Table 4: Number of Board Members and Superintendents Who Strongly
Agreed or Agreed to Survey Questions Pertaining to Roles of Board
Versus Superintendent 74
Table 5: Number of Board Members and Superintendents Who Strongly
Agreed and/or Agreed to Survey Questions Pertaining to Teamwork 78
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 11
List of Figures
Figure 1: Professional governance standards of the California School Boards
Association 30
Figure 2: Five major roles and seven key areas of school board performance 48
Figure 3: Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames 49
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 12
Abstract
School board members have a complex list of roles and responsibilities to fulfill individ-
ually and as a governance team. The purpose of this study was to determine what factors
impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the Masters in Gov-
ernance (MIG) training offered by the California School Boards Association (CSBA),
whether the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance, and how the MIG could impact school board gov-
ernance if mandated. Eighty-six of 226 trustees and 61 of 100 superintendents from six
southern California counties responded to surveys. The next phase was conducting inter-
views with two board members and their respective superintendents. Findings suggested
that even though training was a cultural expectation and board members encouraged one
another to participate, ultimately self-motivation led board members to take the MIG
training. Second, those who participated in training were more likely to exhibit the char-
acteristics of an effective leader because the training clarified their roles and responsibili-
ties. Third, whereas those who participated valued the MIG training, they did not believe
that training for board members should be mandated; rather, it should be highly recom-
mended, especially for newly elected board members. The implications of the study were
categorized into four groups of constituents (i.e., school board members, superintendents,
CSBA, and citizens) to promote discussion regarding training for board members that is
concise and valuable to their practice, which, in turn, will encourage effective governance
practices in every school district in California.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 13
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
Since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, the educational system in the
United States has gone through a series of reforms to mobilize and improve school
systems, and increase student achievement. One key component but forgotten factor for
establishing a successful school district is defining the role of the school board
(Danzberger et al., 1987; Usdan, 2010). In California, prior experience in the field of
education is not required to serve as a school board member, but the expectations and
responsibilities are broad and complex.
The California School Boards Association categorizes the responsibilities of
school boards as (1) setting the direction for the community’s schools, (2) estab-
lishing an effective and efficient structure for the school district, (3) providing
support, (4) ensuring accountability to the public, and (5) acting as community
leaders. (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2007, pp. 5–6)
Each category encompasses a list of duties that range from adopting curriculum materials
to managing facilities and transportation services. The CSBA offers training and events
that provide continuous educational opportunities for school board members to support
them in their governance role. The most predominant training is the Masters in Gover-
nance (MIG) training. This study explored the effectiveness and perceptions of school
board members who have completed the MIG training to determine its effectiveness and
to determine whether California should mandate the MIG training for all school board
members.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 14
Background of the Problem
In the United States, there are nearly 100,000 school board members (CSBA,
2007) who make policy decisions that affect the education of millions of students. In
California, more than 5,000 school board members govern more than 1,000 school
districts, varying in size from “fewer than 20 students to the largest urban district with
over 700,000 students” (CSBA, 2007, p. 3). California school board members’ decisions
affect 6,214,204 students enrolled in grades Kindergarten through 12 (California Depart-
ment of Education [CDE], 2012), which is greater than the total population of other states
in the nation. School board members have an important job. Nonetheless, whereas the
No Child Left Behind Act calls for highly qualified teachers to be in classrooms, there is
no statute that calls for prepared school board members as a requirement to serve.
Indeed, the National School Boards Association (NSBA; 2012b) reported that 23 states
mandated training for school board members.
School board members must be aware of the changes that occur in education, such
as best practices in teaching, rising demands of accountability, and technological innova-
tions (Dillon, 2010). Moreover, school board members are faced with public criticism
and must make decisions while taking into consideration the community’s demands,
adopt curriculum, and deal with millions of dollars in litigation and facilities (Bianchi,
2003; Hill, Warner-King, & Campbell, 2002; Land, 2002; Quigley, 2008). Being a
school board member is not easy, whether or not the member has had experience in the
field of education (Dillon, 2010). Despite the number and magnitude of responsibilities,
lack of training is a prevailing problem (Hess, 2002; Resnick, 1999). Moreover, there is
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 15
no mandated training for California school board members. Although the CSBA
provides the MIG training, not every school board member participates nor is held
accountable for seeking professional development. For those school board members who
participate in the MIG training, it is unclear whether this training prepares and equips
them to be more effective in their governance practices. In addition, it is also unclear
whether school board members who have participated in the MIG training consider the
training to have been valuable and worthwhile to increase the level of their performance
and to demonstrate better leadership traits for a successful district.
Statement of the Problem
Quality school board leadership is especially necessary in the rapidly changing
world of education. School board members must understand their roles and responsibili-
ties in order to create an effective district environment, demonstrate professionalism, and
be knowledgeable to make policy decisions regarding student achievement, finance, liti-
gation, human resources, and facilities. Because the responsibilities of school board
leadership are diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board profes-
sional growth are vital characteristics for success.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relationship exists between
effective school boards and a commitment to school board training, in particular, CSBA’s
MIG training. In this study, the researchers evaluated the benefit of the MIG training and
its impact on school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective
governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the school board
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 16
members’ perceptions of the MIG training to determine whether the aforementioned
training should become a mandate in California.
Research Questions
The University of Southern California (USC) dissertation cohort researchers
developed three questions to guide the study. The questions were aimed to determine
whether school board members are equipped to serve when they have different career
backgrounds. Moreover, the researchers aimed to see how the MIG training helps school
board members to understand their roles, how it equips school board members to be
effective leaders in their governance practices and decision making, and whether or not
California should mandate the MIG training for all school board members. The three
research questions were as follows:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gov-
ernance?
Significance of the Study
Most studies on school board effectiveness indicate that school board members
feel unprepared to assume the role and take on the responsibilities that the job entails
(Danzberger et al., 1987; Hess, 2002; Resnick, 1999). School board members face
increased accountability and make policy decisions on myriad topics, including
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 17
curriculum, facilities, personnel, finances, food services, and transportation. Few board
members have a professional background in education; however, with or without prior
experience on education-related issues, school board members agree that the job is more
difficult than expected and less than half of all school board members report that they
will not run a second term (Dillon, 2010; Resnick, 1999).
The NSBA (2012b) stated that 23 states mandated school board training. Each of
these states has its own set of professional development opportunities for its school board
members. This study measured the perceptions of California school board members
regarding the effectiveness of the MIG training and informed CSBA of the impact of this
program. Furthermore, this study evaluated the impact of the MIG training and whether
school board members who have participated in the MIG training reported that it pre-
pared them to be effective school board members. Finally, this study examined the
potential for a mandated school board training in California so that there is a uniform
preparation program that equips school board members to govern a district effectively.
Assumptions
It was assumed that the instruments used in the study were valid and reliable and
that board members and superintendents responded honestly to the survey questions and
the interview questions. Because the study measured perceptions of school boards and
superintendents who had participated in the MIG training, the study was qualitative. It
was assumed that this method was appropriate for this study. The researchers assumed
that school boards and school board members have a direct governance impact on their
districts, that training improves practice, and that school board members seek and commit
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 18
to training. The researchers assumed that the MIG training is research-based and that
attending the training would improve the school board’s performance. The researchers
also assumed that the database of school board members and superintendents provided by
CSBA was accurate.
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations to this study. The researchers did not consider
other forms of training but focused solely on the MIG training offered by the CSBA.
Whereas the MIG training is offered throughout California, the researchers delimited the
participants to six counties in southern California due to geographical constraints and
limited time available to the research team: Los Angeles County, Orange County,
Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and Ventura County.
Delimiting the study to six counties restricted the pool of participants, which may not
represent all superintendents and school board members. The study was limited by the
participants’ recollections of their experiences during training and to the time allotted for
completion of the survey and interview. The validity of the study was based on how well
the participants understood the survey instructions and their own interpretation of what
each point value on the Likert-type scale represented. The study was limited by the
truthfulness of the participants but their responses may have been subjective and may
have reflected personal viewpoints. Finally, this study was limited to the number of
board members and superintendents who returned the survey and agreed to participate in
the interview process.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 19
Delimitations
Although the participants were selected from the aforementioned six counties,
there were other selection criteria for the districts: (a) Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
between 2,000 and 50,000 students, (b) an Academic Performance Index (API) of at least
800 or API growth of 21 points over the previous 3 years (since 2008), (c) at least one
school board member trained in the MIG training. There was no consideration for the
districts’ socioeconomic status, and only school board members and superintendents who
had completed the MIG training were included in the study.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): A single number ranging from 200 to 1,000
that summarizes a school’s or local education agency’s (LEA) performance level, as
measured by the results of statewide testing.
Accountability: The idea of holding educators responsible for results, where pol-
icymakers reward and punish failure in schools to ensure that no child is left behind in
receiving quality education ("Accountability," 2004).
Average Daily Attendance (ADA): The total number of days of student attendance
divided by the total number of school days in a regular calendar school year. The number
of students attending every school day equals the total ADA.
California School Boards Association (CSBA): A collaborative group of all of the
state’s school districts, their governing boards, superintendents, and senior administrative
staff that develop, communicate, and advocate the perspectives of California school dis-
tricts and county offices of education (CSBA, 2012a).
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 20
Effective school board leadership: Leadership provided by school board members
who do not interfere with the superintendent’s obligations to manage the school system
and to conduct day-to-day affairs by avoiding micromanaging of the superintendent
(Campbell & Greene, 1994; Grissom, 2009; WestEd, 2001; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Governance: The process whereby a school board sets the direction for a school
district and makes decisions regarding budget, personnel, curriculum, and policies.
Leadership: The capacity to lead; distinct from authority and position; not to be
confused with management (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Leaders “do the right thing”
(Bennis & Nanus, as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008; Northouse, 2010).
Management: The focus on execution and doing things right (Bennis & Nanus, as
cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008; Northouse, 2010).
Mandate: A direction that is not voluntary but is required of all members of a
certain group, with specific emphasis on school board members.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A leadership program offered by CSBA for
school board members, composed of nine modules that define the roles and responsibili-
ties of school boards and are aimed at school board members to provide the necessary
knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure (CSBA, 2007).
Module: Any of the nine unit of MIG: (a) Foundations of Effective Governance,
(b) Setting Direction, (c) Human Resources, (d) Policy and Judicial Review, (e) Student
Learning and Achievement, (f) School Finance, (g) Collective Bargaining,
(h) Community Relations and Advocacy, and (i) Governance Integration.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 21
National School Boards Association (NSBA): The organization at the national
level that works with and through state associations. The Association represents more
than 90,000 school board members who govern 13,809 school districts serving 50 million
public school students in the United States (NSBA, 2012a).
Professional development (PD): Training opportunities for school board members
to improve their effectiveness (Land, 2002).
School board: The representative body of three, five, or seven publicly elected
officials that governs each school district, is in charge of public schools, and represents
the community’s beliefs and values (CSBA, 2007). Also known as governing team, gov-
ernance team, governing board, or board of trustees.
School board member: A member of the school board. Also known as trustee.
School district: System of public schools within a geographical area that is gov-
erned by a school board, which appoints a superintendent to function as the chief execu-
tive administrator. In this study, a school district can be Elementary, Union, Joint, or
Unified.
Successful school district: For the purpose of this study, a successful school
district is defined as a district that has had at least a 21-point growth in API scores over
the course of 3 years (2008–2009 to 2010–2011) or an API equal to or greater than 800
points in 2011.
Superintendent: The person hired by a school board to exercise administrative
oversight of a school district.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 22
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduc-
tion to school boards; the problem, the purpose, and the importance of the study; research
questions; limitations and delimitations; and definitions of terms as they are used in this
study. In Chapter 2, a detailed background is given to provide information on existing
literature and research on the topic of school board history, leadership, governance, roles
and responsibilities, and training. Chapter 3 explains the methodology of the study,
which includes the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, validity and
reliability, collection of data, and data analysis. The findings of the study are reported in
Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, the results are analyzed in relationship to the research questions
and the implications are synthesized.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 23
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants to the people all powers
not assigned to the federal government. The result is decentralization of authority; the
educational systems and method of governance vary from state to state and, on a smaller
scale, from one district to another (Kolb & Strauss, 1999). Although the system may
seem simple—the responsibilities are delegated from Congress to the U.S. Department of
Education to states to school districts to schools to principals to teachers (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004)—the multiple layers of governance make the system unique and
complex (Brewer & Smith, 2007). Whereas Anderson (2003) and Brewer and Smith
(2007) indicated that successful school districts have various strategies to support and
meet student achievement goals, ultimately, it is district-level leadership—the superin-
tendent and the school board—that make districts successful (Bainbridge & Thomas,
2002; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Carol et al., 1986; CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994,
1998; Danzberger et al., 1987; Delagardelle, 2008; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Elmore, 2000;
Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins, O’Neil, & Williams, 2007; Kansas Association
of School Boards [KASB], 2011); Land, 2002; Lashway, 2002; Petronis, 1996; Quigley,
2008; Resnick, 1999; Rice et al., 2000; Usdan, 2005).
The world of education is constantly changing. As discussed in Chapter 1, school
boards must understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an effective
school district environment. School boards must demonstrate professionalism and
knowledge in policy making and decision making regarding student achievement,
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 24
curriculum, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. The problem that school
board members face is that, despite the broad range of duties, there is a lack of training
and preparation to assume their roles as school board members. In fact, Resnick (1999)
stated that most school board members report not having the necessary tools or the prepa-
ration to be effective leaders and Hess (2002) reported that about 22% of current board
members will not seek another term.
Chapter 2 discusses the historical background of school boards, the organization
of school boards in California, the school board’s roles and responsibilities, the meaning
of effective school board leadership and governance, school boards and accountability,
and how professional development can increase the effectiveness of school boards.
Historical Context of School Boards
School boards have been in existence since colonial times. When schools were
established, the main goal was to provide a civic education that would shape citizens to
be leaders of society (Thomas, 2001). In addition, education focused mostly on religious
studies and schools operated under the concept of in loco parentis (D. Evans, instructor,
University of California-Irvine, personal communication, September 27, 2010). But with
population growth, a committee was selected to be in charge of education and to balance
civic responsibilities (Danzberger, 1994, 1998; French, Peevely, & Stanley, 2008;
Hopkins et al., 2007). In 1837, Massachusetts created the first state board of education
and the office of state superintendent (Danzberger, 1994) to give the state a greater role in
education (Land, 2002). However, even with the creation of the office of the superinten-
dent, the local school boards were still in control of their schools (Danzberger (1992,
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 25
1994). Since school districts were funded by local taxes, school boards were given the
authority to oversee financial and administrative matters, as well as the education of
children (French et al., 2008; Land, 2002).
According to Carol et al. (1986), Danzberger (1992), and Land (2002), the
number of school boards increased drastically in the late 19th century to the early 20th
century. In the late 19th century, the school board was the administrative body and each
member had his/her own responsibility for a specific task (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). How-
ever, this way of governance led schools to be subjected to corruption (Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002); as a result, in the early 20th century, the system became somewhat central-
ized and elections were held by cities to select a group of people to govern schools. This
group was meant to focus more on policy, be less involved in the administration of
schools, and work closely with the superintendent (Land, 2002).
Carol et al. (1986) argued that electing school board members is the ultimate form
of democracy in the United States and that school boards are needed to oversee school
districts and county offices of education. Today, approximately 95,000 school board
members serve on more than 15,000 local public school boards in the United States
(Danzberger et al., 1987; French et al., 2008; Grissom, 2009; Hess, 2002; Hopkins et al.,
2007; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999). In California, more than 5,000 school board members
govern more than 1,000 school districts and make decisions that affect about six million
students (CSBA, 2007).
School boards members are not required to belong to a particular political party
(CSBA, 2007) and there are no laws or regulations regarding what experiences board
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 26
members must have to run for a board of education. In California, anyone can become a
board member as long as he/she is (a) at least 18 years old, (b) a citizen of the state, (c) a
resident of the school district, (d) a registered voter, and (e) not disqualified by the
Constitution or laws of the state from holding a civil office (CSBA, 2007, p. 8).
Requirements to be a school board member are minimal (Kolb & Strauss, 1999) and there
are no statutes that require school board members to have prior experience in education
or to seek preparation before and/or while they serve.
School boards have a rich history that dates back to colonial times. Since then,
the United States has gone through many educational changes and reforms. School
boards must quickly adjust and be ready to face these changes while maintaining focus on
student achievement. In order to determine whether school board training is necessary, it
is important to understand the concept of leadership and governance, accountability, the
roles and responsibilities of school boards, and the impact of training to be successful
board members.
Leadership
Effective leadership skills are required to ensure that an organization moves
forward (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). Rather than lead-
ership being a person’s trait, it is defined as a process whereby a person influences a
group of people to work toward achieving a common goal (Northouse, 2010). In other
words, Northouse (2010) contended that leadership occurs when there is a two-way inter-
action between the leader and his/her followers; the interaction itself is referred to as
leadership. It is important to note that leadership is different from management, as
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 27
leadership involves the power or capacity to influence others, while management
involves the capacity to direct an organization in an effective and efficient manner
(Northouse, 2010). A person may exhibit the characteristics of a leader when the person
does the right thing; a manager, when the person does things right, or both (Bennis &
Nanus, 1985).
Bolman and Deal (2008) posited four frames of leadership (structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic). The structural frame portrays the architectural for-
mation of an organization. People are at the core of an organization through the human
resource frame. The political frame sees the organization as the political arena. The
symbolic frame focuses on the culture of an organization. Bolman and Deal (2008)
explained that the ability to combine the four frames allows for a sound leader because
leaders can approach any given situation through the lens of the four frames of leader-
ship.
Many of the roles and responsibilities of school boards are based on both leader-
ship and management to help the school district to achieve a goal; however, leadership is
important so that the outcome is not merely administrative (Northouse, 2010). Research
indicates that effective school boards share two integral characteristics: Board members
have leadership skills and a compatible relationship with the superintendent (Bainbridge
& Thomas, 2002; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Carol et al., 1986; CSBA, 2007;
Danzberger, 1994, 1998; Danzberger et al., 1987; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Elmore, 2000;
Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007; KASB, 2011; Land, 2002;
Lashway, 2002; Petronis, 1996; Quigley, 2008; Resnick, 1999; Usdan, 2005). It is
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 28
important to note that the purpose of leadership is to improve instructional practice and
performance of students, promote ongoing learning for all stakeholders, model expertise,
and ensure reciprocity of accountability and capacity (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002;
Elmore, 2000).
Effective Governance
Brewer and Smith (2007) stated that the governance structure in public schools is
extremely complex, as it involves thousands of people, from state legislators to teachers,
who share responsibility for educating children. At the core of a school district, however,
the school board makes decisions about educating youth. Ehrensal and First (2008)
explained that school boards exist to govern public school districts. A significant point is
that board members do not govern as individuals but as a group (Land, 2002). As a
group, school boards have an extensive list of duties to govern a school district and each
board member is an essential constituent in the teamwork of school politics (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). In addition, school boards are responsible to set the political tone for their
school district and have the power to influence everyone around them (Usdan, 2010).
Thus, Resnick (1999) argued that, in addition to the need for effective leadership skills,
effective governance skills are essential for a successful school district.
Extensive research explains what effective boards do and look like. For example,
Land (2002) suggested that the ability to carry out a vision is a critical element of effec-
tive leadership. Resnick (1999) indicated that effective boards provide appropriate
responsibility to all constituents to achieve certain results. Resnick observed that
effective school boards demonstrate visionary leadership, evaluate and monitor past and
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 29
present plans, and continually reevaluate and revise goals. Effective boards see the need
to engage the community, provide leadership to create an appropriate climate, and focus
on policy issues that help students to achieve.
CSBA (2007), Delagardelle (2008), and the Center for Public Education (CPE;
2011) agreed on traits for an effective governance team. CSBA (2007) identified a set of
professional standards for effective school board governance, which has been adopted by
hundreds of school districts throughout California (Figure 1). Delagardelle (2008) listed
seven additional traits of an effective governance team: creating awareness of the need to
improve, applying pressure for accountability, demonstrating commitment to education,
providing ongoing support for quality professional development, supporting and con-
necting with district-wide leadership, deliberative policy development, and connecting
with the community and building the public to improve achievement. The CPE (2011)
stated that effective school boards exhibit eight characteristics: having a vision, sharing
beliefs and values, being driven by accountability, collaborating with all constituents,
embracing and monitoring data, aligning and sustaining resources, working as a team
with the superintendent, and seeking professional development and training.
Leithwood et al. (2008) stated seven claims about successful leadership: putting
teaching first and school leadership second, adhering to best leadership practices, know-
ing that the best practices depend on the context in which they work, being able to exert
influence on staff motivation and commitment, distributing leadership widely between
school and students, building capacity among people, and being open-minded and willing
to learn from others.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 30
Figure 1. Professional governance standards of the California School Boards Associa-
tion. Source: School Board Leadership: The Role and Function of California’s School
Boards, by California School Boards Association, 2007, Sacramento, CA: Author.
According to these sources, effective governance teams work toward the same
vision, share common beliefs and values, monitor data, seek professional development
and training, and communicate with the community, as well as work as a team with the
superintendent. In other words, not only do school board members need to exhibit certain
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 31
characteristics as individuals and as a group; they must also keep the public informed, as
they are held accountable for the outcomes of their decisions.
On the contrary, ineffective school boards tend to micromanage, focus on one
issue rather than focusing on the vision, do not treat each other with respect, do not have
effective board meetings, board members are guided by their own political agenda, do not
keep confidentiality of issues, do not involve the community, and do not participate in
professional growth opportunities (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002; French et al., 2008;
Land, 2002; Petersen, 2002; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Accountability
When A Nation at Risk was published in the 1980s, it was clear that the United
States was not making the type of improvements in education that were expected due to
the launch of Sputnik (Danzberger, 1994). Since then, education has seen a series of
movements and reforms, such as No Child Left Behind, as people, especially those who
govern the system, have questioned everything that is done in schools. Today, everything
that the school board oversees must focus on increased student achievement (KASB,
2011; Quigley, 2008). School boards must monitor student achievement and keep the
public informed on district programs, goals, and status, while ensuring that the policies
and resources are aligned to the district’s vision (Ehrensal & First, 2008).
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) explained that accountability is a series of
relationships stemming from Congress, which delegates responsibilities to the U.S.
Department of Education, which delegates responsibilities to states, which delegate
responsibilities to school districts, to principals, and to teachers. Hentschke and
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 32
Wohlstetter (2004) stated that there will always be problems in accountability. Accord-
ing to Land (2002), school boards face criticism for various reasons, including a lack of
representation for the local public’s interests and values, micromanagement, and the
inability to collaborate. Hence, school boards must be accountable to the public through
continuous assessment of every component that affects education (Resnick, 1999). One
of the measures of accountability is to evaluate and communicate to the public the
district’s progress toward achieving the vision. As Resnick (1999) stated, school boards
hold themselves and the system publicly accountable by establishing clear objectives and
reporting those objectives in quantifiable terms.
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards
It is important to understand the major roles and responsibilities of governing
boards. Every member of a given district (school board, district personnel, and the com-
munity) is part of the whole and each member directly affects student learning and
achievement (Danzberger et al., 1987). CSBA (2007) grouped the roles and responsibili-
ties of school boards into five major categories: setting the direction of the school district,
establishing an effective and efficient structure for the district, providing the right support
for the superintendent and personnel, ensuring accountability, and acting as the leaders of
the community. Each of the categories includes myriad responsibilities that portray the
scope of a school board’s job and explain the necessity to seek preparation and training.
The following subsections review the scope of responsibilities of school boards (CSBA,
2007).
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 33
Establishing the District’s Vision
Setting a long-term vision for the school district is a crucial component for
success and the purpose of governance because it shows agreement between school board
members and the superintendent and shows that they are working as a team (Campbell &
Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007). A school district’s vision acts as a guide to how the school
board will operate and will be the driving force for every decision the board makes; the
vision shapes the direction for the school district (CSBA, 2007; Johnson, 2011). KASB
(2011) suggested that students should be the focus of any district’s vision and that the
vision should be based on the community’s beliefs. The board of trustees must establish
a vision to lead a school district in an efficient manner and implement the right programs
for its students.
Providing Structure
School boards must provide a structure that supports the district’s vision. KASB
(2011) stated that structures must be created to ensure that all students have the oppor-
tunity to learn. Although the vision is the foundation, an appropriate structure is needed
so that all constituents can work toward achieving a common goal. The school board
must ensure that the right environment is in place for a variety of programs, including
hiring the right superintendent; adopting policies, curriculum, and budgets; and adopting
collective bargaining agreements (CSBA, 2007; Elmore, 2000; Quigley, 2008; Resnick,
1999).
Hiring the superintendent. The school board’s most important task is to hire
and evaluate the district’s superintendent. The superintendent acts as the chief executive
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 34
officer of the district and translates the district’s vision into reality (Campbell & Greene,
1994; CSBA, 2007; Danzberger, 1994; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Elmore, 2000; Grissom,
2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007; KASB, 2011; Land, 2002; Lashway, 2002;
Petronis, 1996; Quigley, 2008; Resnick, 1999; Usdan, 2005). As Campbell and Greene
(1994), Resnick (1999), and Lashway (2002) suggested, the school board makes policies
but the superintendent executes them. An important detail to consider is that a
harmonious relationship between the school board and the superintendent is necessary to
achieve the district’s goals (Johnson, 2011). In a two-way relationship, the school board
makes policies for the superintendent to implement and school boards must provide the
adequate structure for the superintendent that is in line with the district’s vision. In addi-
tion, the superintendent must communicate and report district matters, as he/she can
influence the school board’s decisions (Ehrensal & First, 2008).
Policies: From state to district. Researchers have argued that policymaking is
critical because it provides the appropriate structure for the district. Policies must support
and be aligned to the district’s vision to set boundaries for what is or is not acceptable to
achieve the district’s goals (Campbell & Greene, 1994; CSBA, 2007; Danzberger et al.,
1987; Ehrensal & First, 2008; Grissom, 2009; Hill et al., 2002; Hopkins et al., 2007;
Johnson, 2011; Land, 2002; Resnick, 1999; Usdan, 2010).
A pivotal role of the school board is to enact policies that are aligned with state
laws. This includes being aware of the extensive list of education codes and board
policies that exist to govern effectively. School boards are required by law to pass and
adopt policies to ensure that state laws and regulations are implemented at the local level,
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 35
as well as to address the district’s various needs and issues (Campbell & Greene, 1994;
Ehrensal & First, 2008).
Adopting and monitoring curriculum. Instruction is at the center of school
districts and reflects the district’s vision. However, researchers have stated that the
school board is responsible not only for adopting curriculum but for monitoring the out-
comes of the instructional programs and taking action when goals are not met (Bianchi,
2003; Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Danzberger et al., 1987; Ehrensal &
First, 2008; Elmore, 2000; Hill et al., 2002; Quigley, 2008). In addition to this responsi-
bility, school boards must monitor programs and student achievement, and take correc-
tive action if they are not working in accordance with goals (Bracey & Resnick, 1998;
Campbell & Greene, 1994; Danzberger, 1994; Grissom, 2009; Johnson, 2011; KASB,
2011; Land, 2002; Quigley, 2008). To monitor programs, school boards can review data
by creating benchmarks for content and practice (Elmore, 2000). Johnson (2011) sug-
gested that data should be at the heart of all conversations regarding the district’s
progress.
Budgets. The most important policy document of a school district is the annual
budget (Campbell & Green, 1994). Maureen Di Marco, a school board member,
explained that she works with four other board members at a $190 million annual corpo-
ration and, as a board, they are responsible for 4,500 employees at more than 60 plants,
along with nearly 40,000 units of production on a 13-year production cycle. Di Marco
said that they also serve more than 22,000 meals a day, deal with more regulations than a
corporate attorney, and at the same time are required to provide supervision in close to 90
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 36
languages (as cited in Campbell & Greene, 1994, p. 392). Di Marco’s metaphor of
working for a multimillion-dollar (sometimes billions) corporation represents the magni-
tude of a school board member’s responsibility for handling taxpayers’ money.
Budgeting includes overseeing services for transportation, food, technology,
facilities, capital campaigns, and bonds (Bianchi, 2003; Hill et al., 2002; Land, 2002;
Quigley, 2008). Campbell and Greene (1994) stated that the way in which the money is
spent reflects the district’s priorities. Although there are few empirical studies that show
that money does not guarantee success (Land, 2002), school boards must identify and
fund effective programs and policies (Picus, 2000) and allocate financial resources
accordingly (Quigley, 2008). While citizens can continue to exercise partial control over
how their tax dollars are spent to educate their children, it is important that board
members provide for effective leadership and governance of the schools (Danzberger,
1994) and act as good stewards of the money that they control.
Collective bargaining. A great part of a school board’s responsibility of control-
ling the school district’s budget has to do with negotiations with labor unions. Personnel
salaries constitute a great portion of a district’s total revenue and it is critical for school
boards to understand the implications of their decisions in the school district. The school
board must also understand their role in collective bargaining by being familiar with best
practices of negotiation (Campbell & Greene, 1994).
Providing Support
Providing support encompasses certain behaviors that will ensure that all con-
stituents follow the school board’s vision for the district. CSBA (2007) stated that this
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 37
includes demonstrating professionalism, modeling and providing support for the district’s
vision, adhering to policies, and being knowledgeable about district programs. It is also
important to note that the professionalism of the school board becomes the model for the
entire district (Campbell & Greene, 1994). Modeling is crucial because it permeates
district personnel, such as site administrators, who work with teachers on a day-to-day
basis. As Resnick (1999) argued, school boards must know to use consensus-building
practices to do what is best for students and continue to guide the district in working
toward the vision. This includes creating the right climate and treating all constituents
with respect (Campbell & Greene, 1994). Furthermore, school boards must create an
environment to empower the staff by providing support for innovation and ongoing pro-
fessional development (Elmore, 2000; KASB, 2011).
Leaders of the Community
Resnick (1999) stated that school boards represent the communities that they
serve, that good governance requires community engagement, and that school boards are
the link between a district and its community. Danzberger et al. (1987) reported that the
public lacks understanding of the roles of the school board, and Hess (2002) reported a
low rate of voter participation. Public support is necessary to accomplish success, and by
reaching out to the community and involving others in the development of the district’s
vision, the school board can empower appropriate parties to act on the implementation of
the vision.
Resnick’s (1999) research supports the notion of parental involvement and student
achievement. A good environment at home fosters appropriate school environments,
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 38
which will help the school district to achieve desired results. Resnick (1999) explained
that, by being actively involved in the community, school boards provide stewardship to
the community, as well as credibility and a sense of direction in education.
Kolb and Strauss (1999) suggested that elected board members act in the public’s
interest. Thus, school boards are responsible for providing a forum in which the com-
munity will participate and be heard so that the public has a voice in the education of
their children (Ehrensal & First, 2008; Resnick, 1999). School board members may have
different motives to run for board membership and be appointed to these bodies (Ehrensal
& First, 2008), but they must show that they are serving as board members for the benefit
of children and are ensuring that every child has the opportunity to learn (Hess, 2002;
Johnson, 2011). Furthermore, board members are advocates for improving the social,
economic, and emotional conditions of children and ensuring that children receive
necessary services (Campbell & Greene, 1994). In other words, school board members
also have the responsibility to advocate for children (Campbell & Green, 1994; KASB,
2011; NSBA, 2012c), including their social, economic, and emotional conditions, and to
ensure that all children receive the necessary services (Campbell & Green, 1994).
The aforementioned roles and responsibilities reflect the scope of a California
school board, which is extremely broad and complex. Not only should school board
members abide by the Professional Governance Standards (CSBA, 2007), but they must
also have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities in order to be effective
school boards.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 39
Professional Development for Board Members
Board members have many roles and responsibilities to govern a school district
effectively while exhibiting effective leadership and governance skills, abiding by stand-
ards, and being held accountable by the public for their every move. Unfortunately,
school board members cannot be recruited based on preparation and qualifications
(Newton & Sackney, 2005). As Dillon (2010) presented, there is nothing that prepares
board members for their job.
It takes several skills to be effective, but the majority of board members tend to
begin serving without prior experience in education or come with little knowledge and
preparation. In fact, Danzberger et al. (1987) found that board members lacked prepara-
tion, were unprepared for the role, and had little idea of the scope of the commitment
required when they ran for the position. Further studies have indicated that board
members generally rated themselves least effective in the core areas of governing respon-
sibilities, including leadership, planning and goal setting, policy oversight, involving
parents and the community, relating to and influencing others, board operations, and
board development (Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002). Furthermore, school board
members come as individuals but are expected to work collaboratively with other board
members as a team. The need to participate in training is evident; however, Danzberger
et al. (1987) reported that board members rarely participated in training, although there
were countless training opportunities and materials available, depending on the state.
Danzberger et al. (1987) also reported that effective board members recognized
the need for training and professional development. Land (2002) emphasized that board
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 40
members are often perplexed by the scope of their roles and responsibilities and therefore
training is beneficial. However, in order to be effective and have positive student learn-
ing outcomes, board members must be willing to devote themselves individually and as a
group to ongoing learning to be successful leaders (Delagardelle, 2008). There is a need
to incentivize school board members to understand that training will help them become
better by equipping them for their tasks.
Goal of Professional Development and Types of Training Needed
The primary goal of professional development for board members is to increase
awareness and understanding of best practices for the effective governance of schools, as
well as to gain knowledge of the role of policy making and support of instructional lead-
ership (Petronis, 1996). Training should be available for board members so that they can
be equipped with the knowledge and techniques that will allow them to govern a school
district in an effective and efficient manner (Dillon, 2010; Land, 2002; Petronis, 1996;
Quigley, 2008). School boards must also understand legislation and policymaking
processes, school law, district personnel management, budgeting, and facilities manage-
ment (Land, 2002). In line with the Professional Governance Standards for effective
school board leadership presented by the CSBA (2007), board members may need
specific instruction on the use of educational outcome measures to monitor students’
progress, as well as methods on how to hold themselves and their schools accountable,
how to be effective communicators, how to monitor progress through the process of self-
evaluation, how to make the most effective use of technology, and how to be a better
liaison between the district and the community.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 41
Masters in Governance Training
Organizations such as the Institute for Educational Leadership, the Danforth
Program for School Board Members, and the NSBA provide various types of profes-
sional development for school board members. In California, the CSBA provides
training for school board members called MIG training. The MIG training program is a
60-hour voluntary governance leadership program to be completed within a 2-year
timeline. The MIG is composed of nine modules that are directly correlated to the roles
and responsibilities of school boards (CSBA, 2012b): (a) Module 1, Foundations of
Effective Governance, addresses the roles and responsibilities of the school board; (b)
Module 2, Setting Direction, explains how a district’s vision can influence the
educational programs offered in each district; (c) Module 3, Human Resources, explains
the importance of hiring a superintendent who meets the district’s needs, evaluating the
superintendent, and working well with the superintendent; (d) Module 4, Policy and
Judicial Review, helps the school board to develop skills in policy making, policy
revision, and policy review to ensure effectiveness of policies; (e) Module 5, Student
Learning and Achievement, addresses how to set expectations for student learning,
curriculum, and assessment; (f) Module 6, School Finance, addresses how to manage a
district’s budget; (g) Module 7, Collective Bargaining, explains the history of collective
bargaining, the board’s role during negotiations, methodologies, and goal setting; (h)
Module 8, Community Relations and Advocacy, explains how to build community
support, how to deal with media, and how to encourage community involvement; and (i),
Module 9, Governance Integration, explains the concepts of trusteeship and the
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 42
governance team. Upon completion of all nine modules, participants receive the CSBA’s
MIG certificate (CSBA, 2012b). Although the MIG training is offered by the CSBA,
California school board members are not required to participate in the MIG training or
any other type of training or professional development.
Mandatory Versus Voluntary Training
Petronis (1996) reported that only six states required school board training and
ongoing professional development at that time. In that study, training was perceived as a
necessary in all districts, but especially in smaller districts. Petronis (1996) found that the
majority of superintendents of various school districts who participated in the study
agreed that mandatory school board training should be implemented. Furthermore,
whereas training could prepare board members to understand their roles and avoid
tension between the superintendent and the board, larger districts did not see mandatory
school board training as a solution to decrease this tension.
The NSBA (2012b) reported that 23 states required school board training and ongoing
professional development. Requirements vary from state to state. For example, some
states allow the state school boards association and other approved providers to offer
training. Other states allow only the state school boards association to provide training
for school board members. Some states mandate training for new school board members,
many include specific required training topics, and the state, the school district, or both
provide funding. Table 1 summarizes these requirements. In sum, about half of the
states’ school board members are held accountable for seeking training and respecting the
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 43
Table 1
States That Mandate School Board Training
Who provides training?
Who is required to
receive training?
Are there
mandated
topics?
Who pays for the
training?
State
State school
boards
association
Other
approved
providers
New
only
New and
veteran Yes No State District
Alabama x x x x
Arkansas x x x x x
Delaware x x x x
Georgia x x x x x
Illinois x x x x
a
Kentucky x x x x x
Louisiana x x x x x
Maine x x x x x
Massachusetts x x x x
b
Minnesota x x x x
Mississippi x x x
Both
Missouri x x x x x
New Jersey x x x x
New Mexico x x x x x
New York x x x x x
N. Carolina x x x x x
N. Dakota x x x x
Oklahoma x x x x
Both
S. Carolina x x x Both
Tennessee x x x x
Texas x x x x
c
Virginia x x x x x
West Virginia x x x x Both
Total 23 16 6 17 22 2 2 14
Adapted from Mandated Training for Local School Board Members Survey, by National School Board
Association, 2012b, retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
a
Unknown.
b
Member service.
c
Both; some are free.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 44
required time spans; some are to be removed from service if they do not comply with the
training mandate.
Dillon (2010) posited that mandating training is not a significant issue, but the
point is to provide training for school board members to increase their effectiveness as
leaders. Bianchi (2003) presented two opposing views on mandated school board
training: (a) Mandating school board training can equip members to govern at optimum
levels and would reassure the public of board professionalism; and (b) rather than
mandating specific trainings, school board members should be able to choose which type
of training they need depending on the district’s needs, as forcing them to attend specific
training could lead to resentment. Bianchi (2003) found that new board members could
become overwhelmed because of the ever-rising accountability demands. Moreover,
Bianchi (2003) found that without training, new board members needed between six and
12 months to learn and perform their roles.
Roberts and Sampson (2011) compared states’ rankings by Education Week
according to requirements for board training; states that required school board training
received a grade of B or C and states that did not require training received a grade of C
or D. Roberts and Sampson (2011) concluded that board members who participated in
training and professional development were better prepared to make positive impacts in
their district. In 2010, California scored a grade of D+ in the area of K-12 Achievement
(Pew Center on the States, 2010). In 2011, California received a D- in the same area
(EducationWeek.org, 2011). In 2012 (EducationWeek.org, 2012) and in 2013
(EducationWeek.org, 2013), California received a score of D.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 45
If administrators are being made more accountable for their role as instructional
leaders, the need for training and professional development for school board members is
urgent. School boards are required to assume major roles as community leaders, encom-
passing policy making, managing millions of dollars, curriculum, food and transportation
services; they are also required to know the changes that occur in the world of education,
education codes, and federal and state laws. The level of their preparedness positively or
negatively influences the education of thousands of children in a given district. Thus,
school board members should seek professional development to exercise their power in
an efficient and effective manner.
Conceptual Frameworks
The research team studied the need for school board training and the impact of
MIG training on school boards to be effective leaders as seen through the lens of CSBA
(2007), Delagardelle (2008), and Bolman and Deal (2010). These sources were selected
because they provide foundational information regarding school boards and their profes-
sional standards (CSBA, 2007). Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four leadership frames
explain leadership styles and why it is important to have an understanding of these styles
to be good leaders of a school district. The study explored why effective leadership is
necessary to be a successful school board and to create a successful school district
(Delagardelle, 2008). Appendix A summarizes how the MIG training modules align with
the frameworks used in this study, which also shows that the training is research based.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 46
CSBA Professional Governance Standards
The Professional Governance Standards for school board members presented by
the CSBA (2007) are divided into two categories: (a) traits exhibited individually, and
(b) traits exhibited by the entire school board or governance team. These traits are
important because they outline the behaviors that must be in place to be a successful
school board member and governance team (Figure 1). The two categories are specific to
board members individually and to the board as a whole because the power to govern is
given to the team and not to the individual board member. Furthermore, when boards
understand these differences, the team will be more effective in their governance prac-
tices (Black, 2008; Brennan, 2011; Grissom, 2009).
The Lighthouse Inquiry
In 2008, Delagardelle conducted a study to determine whether school boards
affect student achievement and whether they exhibit certain behaviors that can be quanti-
fied and learned by others. The study was divided into three phases. The key areas
identified by Delagardelle (2008) during Phase II were used as one of the conceptual
frameworks for this study.
During Phase II (2002-2007), researchers studied how school boards cause a pos-
itive impact in school cultures and student learning outcomes, along with how school
boards learn to be effective. Delagardelle (2008) found that school boards do not auto-
matically cause student learning, but that their actions positively or negatively impact the
district’s environment and achievement. Delagardelle (2008) explained that trustees’
knowledge, skills, and beliefs play a major role in the creation of governance policies,
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 47
priorities, and decision-making processes. Moreover, the decisions of the school board
directly impact each classroom and therefore directly affect student learning (Berry &
Howell, 2007; Brenner, Sullivan, & Dalton, 2002; Sheppard, Brown, & Dibbon, 2009).
This part of the study determined what skills school boards must have to perform their
roles in an effective manner. The results of Delagardelle’s (2008) study clarified five
major roles and seven key areas of performance (Figure 2). During the later part of this
study, (2004-2006), Delagardelle and her team investigated the perceptions of superin-
tendents and school board members about their roles and responsibilities as instructional
leaders. The results showed varied perceptions and indicated a need for leadership
development to clarify the roles of the board.
Figure 2 shows five major roles of school boards that feed into seven key areas of
school board performance. Within each role, there is a set of key areas, which in turn
have a set of detailed responsibilities. More important, one of the key areas of board per-
formance as identified by Delagardelle (2008) was that school boards should demonstrate
commitment to learning together as a team. This framework was selected because it
summarizes the roles and responsibilities of school board members and the importance of
commitment to training in order to be an effective school board.
Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames
Bolman and Deal (2008) stated that frames are mental models to act as a roadmap
for an organization. The frames are mental models that guide an organization toward
achieving a goal. The authors suggested that organizations without frames tend to lack
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 48
Figure 2. Five major roles and seven key areas of school board performance. Source:
Modified from The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership
in the Improvement of Student Achievement, by M. L. Delagardelle, 2008, in T. L.
Alsbury (Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation (pp.
191-223), Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
guidance to get to the final destination. Consequently, they suggested that effectiveness
comes from a harmonious balance in the frames. Figure 3 shows close relationships
among the four frames required to be an effective leader.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 49
Figure 3. Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames. From Reframing Organizations:
Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, by L. G. Bolman & T. E. Deal, 2008, San Francisco,
CA: Wiley.
The Structural Frame can be compared to the skeleton of an organization. It is
necessary for an organization to have a structure in place to function. Structure includes
how resources are allocated, the coordination of responsibilities, and a sense of direction.
Bolman and Deal (2008) posited that vertical coordination is needed so people can work
to achieve a common goal and objective. This is where the “loose-tight” concept falls
into place: If the structure is too loose, people within the organization will get lost; if the
organization is too tight, people will spend too much time trying to “beat the system.”
There are various configurations of leadership models, but all require a solid structure
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 50
The Human Resource frame deals with people and organizations. Not only do
organizations need people; people need organizations. The frame refers to the relation-
ships between people and organizations, involving hiring the right people, attracting and
keeping quality employees, investing in and empowering them, and promoting diversity.
The Political Frame sees organizations as the political arena where people are
political agents. District matters require goal setting, creating the right structure, estab-
lishing policies, and bargaining and negotiations. Bolman and Deal (2008) stated that
exercising power is natural and winners are those who utilize it to their advantage.
The Symbolic Frame relates to creating the right culture in an organization. It
involves creating symbols such as myth, vision, values, and rituals. Symbols can clarify
and direct an organization in times of crisis or confusion. People who are strong in the
Symbolic Frame become role models for others.
Chapter Summary
School boards have an extensive list of roles and responsibilities and knowledge
and expertise are required so they can govern effectively and efficiently. Although
establishing the district’s vision guides the direction for a given school district, many
other components will make a school board successful. Research indicates that the
school board’s actions and expertise in the educational business and governance will
permeate the daily operations of the district, which will guide district leadership to work
toward a common goal. School boards are expected to do much; those that have little
knowledge or expertise will not govern successful districts. School board training and
professional development can aid school boards to be effective.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 51
Chapter 3
Methodology
The world of public education is constantly changing and board members are
exposed to high levels of public scrutiny and increased demands of accountability. Board
members must demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable in areas that affect
student achievement, such as finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities; these are
areas for which board members are held accountable. The duties of school board leader-
ship are complex and diverse; however, board members agree that they lack preparation
for service. In fact, many board members do not have a thorough understanding of the
scope of the commitment that is required when they are elected and/or the amount of
information they have to know (Danzberger et al., 1987).
Despite the extensive list of roles and responsibilities of school boards, there is a
lack of school board training when a quality school board is necessary. Regardless of the
level of experience in education, school board members face the daunting reality of
demonstrating knowledge to make informed decisions that affect the education of mil-
lions of students in California. Hence, the purpose of the study was to determine whether
the MIG training provided by the CSBA affected the board’s ability to adhere to best
practices for effective governance. Through this study, the researchers evaluated the
benefit of the MIG training and its impact on school board members to be effective lead-
ers. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the school board members’ per-
ceptions of the MIG training and of their leadership and governance, and whether the
aforementioned training should become a mandate in California.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 52
Using CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards, Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four frames of leadership, and Delagardelle’s (2008) description of the board’s
role in leadership as a framework, the researchers developed three research questions to
guide the study.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program? This question was designed to identify why school board
members seek training and opportunities for professional growth.
2. Does the MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance? This question was designed to determine whether
the MIG helps school board members to be effective in their practice and how effective
the training itself is.
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance? This question was part of the survey that the researchers mailed to board
members. The answers determined whether California board members agreed that the
MIG training is worthwhile enough to be a mandate for all board members across the
state.
The questions helped the researchers to determine whether school board members
are equipped to serve, whether the MIG training clarifies the roles of board members,
how the MIG training equips board members to be effective leaders in their governance
practices, and whether the MIG training should be mandated in California.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 53
Research Design
This was a qualitative study. Patton (2002) argued that the qualitative method of
study aids researchers to study specific issues by using a smaller number of participants
in much more detail than methods that include a large sample. This study involved a
summative evaluation of the MIG training: The researchers studied whether the MIG
training influences a school board to lead and govern effectively; in addition, the
researchers sought to analyze the board members’ perceptions of this preparation
program. The nature of the study involved asking questions about board members’
experiences and opinions about the MIG training, observing board members’ behaviors,
and conducting interviews to understand their opinions in a detailed manner.
The study was naturalistic and purposeful (Patton, 2002). The study was natural-
istic because a part of the study involved conducting interviews with respondents in
“real-world settings and people are interviewed with open-ended questions in places and
under conditions that are comfortable and familiar to them” (Patton, 2002, p. 39). The
study was purposeful because the interviews allowed researchers to understand the board
members’ perceptions of the MIG training in depth. The researchers triangulated data
through analysis of literature, surveys, and interviews with board members and superin-
tendents who had attended the MIG training. The last data point that the researchers
created to triangulate data was the MIG Observational Protocol (MIGOP; Appendix B),
which was used when the researchers attended and observed various MIG modules.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 54
Sample and Population
For the purpose of this study and due to proximity and time constraints, the
researchers chose six counties in southern California: Los Angeles County, Orange
County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Riverside County, and Ventura
County.
Once the counties were selected, the researching team narrowed the target popu-
lation to public school districts with ADA from 2,000 to 50,000 students. These data
were collected from DataQuest, a database provided by the CDE. DataQuest allows the
user to filter districts according to categories by counties. This technique did not yield an
adequate number of school districts. Therefore, further categorization was necessary to
ensure accuracy with the sampling of participants, as the original sample was too large.
As a result, the researching team decided to continue to filter districts until the team had a
sample of 100 school districts. Originally, the researchers had selected districts with an
API of 800 or higher, but the team added districts that had increased API scores by at
least 21 points during the previous 3 school years (since 2008) because a 7-point growth
per year symbolizes positive and successful growth.
In addition to the aforementioned criteria, the research team asked the CSBA for
assistance. CSBA provided the team with a list of California board members who had
completed the MIG training. This list was a pivotal tool as it helped to pinpoint the dis-
tricts for a purposeful sampling. The original intent was to select districts with the
majority of the board trained in the MIG training (three or four members, depending on
whether a district had five or seven board members total). This category limited the
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 55
sample to a great extent, so the research team changed the category to include districts
with at least one school board member trained in the MIG training. The team then added
Riverside County to the pool to have at least 100 districts. Only public elementary, sec-
ondary, or unified school districts were included in the sample; charter school districts
were excluded from the study. Socioeconomic status of the district was not factored in.
Instrumentation
Upon the development of the research questions, under the supervision of the dis-
sertation chair, the researchers created a survey consisting of 23 questions asking school
board members and superintendents to rate the impact of the MIG training in a 4-point
Likert-type scale (Appendix C). Each researcher focused on 10 school districts with the
intention of getting at least 50% rate of participation.
The research team developed 23 survey questions for board members and for the
superintendent, with the theoretical frameworks in mind. The questions corresponded
between the two surveys and were related to the research questions. Questions 7, 9, 16,
19, 21, 22, and 23 related to Research Question 1 (What factors impact the decision of
school board members to complete the MIG training?). Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 related to Research Question 2 (Does the MIG training encour-
age school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?). Questions
10, 11, 14, and 15 related to Research Question 3 (In what ways could mandating the
MIG training impact school board governance?). The alignment of research questions to
survey and interview questions, including the MIGOP, is shown in Appendix D.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 56
The second aspect of instrumentation involved conducting a 30- to 60-minute
interview with responding school board members and superintendents from two matching
districts. The researchers scheduled separate interviews to fit the schedule of the board
members and the superintendents.
Validity and Reliability
Patton (2002) stated that a researcher should include triangulation of data to
“increase the accuracy and credibility of findings” (p. 93) because “no single method ever
adequately solves the problem of rival explanations (p. 555). Triangulation strengthens a
study. “Theory/perspective triangulation” is a method described by Patton (2002) that
consists of “using multiple perspectives or theories to interpret data” (p. 556). Patton
(2002) stated that theory triangulation involves examining data from various angles. The
researchers triangulated data by (a) using information found in the review of literature,
(b) surveying both school board members and superintendents, (c) conducting interviews
with a board member and corresponding superintendent from two matching school
districts, and (d) using the MIGOP, which was created by the researchers using the
theoretical frameworks (Appendix B).
To enhance the credibility of the study, the researchers remained neutral, so that
the study was not merely subjective (Patton, 2002). This is due to the fact that the
researcher is the main instrument of the study and personal thoughts and beliefs could
affect the subjectivity of the study.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 57
Data Collection Procedures
Qualitative research consists of observations and interviews to collect data that
describe (Patton, 2002). This study included raw data that stemmed from the initial
survey and conducting interviews with matching school board member and superinten-
dent from the same school district. Each researcher recorded the interview if board
members and superintendents agreed. Each researcher also captured as much detail as
possible by taking notes to understand the impact of the MIG and board members’ per-
ceptions regarding this training
Initially, the research team requested permission and guidance from CSBA to
release the database containing information regarding school board members and super-
intendents who had completed the MIG training. This list contained the names of all
former and current school board members and superintendents in California. The list has
not been included in the report to ensure confidentiality of information.
The researchers began the data collection procedure by reviewing this database,
counting the number of board members and superintendents, and recording the number of
MIG trainees. This list was used in conjunction with the list of districts that qualified per
the sampling criteria. The researchers divided the total number of qualifying school
districts and assigned each researcher to focus on 10 districts.
Once the districts were selected, the researchers mailed the invitation packets to
the superintendents of the qualifying districts in Los Angeles County, Orange County,
San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Riverside County, and Ventura County via
U.S. Postal Service in August 2012. The invitation packets included a letter of
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 58
introduction of the researcher (Appendix E); an explanation of the purpose of the study,
procedures, and other pertinent information regarding the confidentiality and process of
the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved study (Appendix F); and the survey
(Appendix C). Each board member and superintendent was asked to complete and return
the survey and other forms in a return addressed, stamped envelope.
Each district was coded to identify the board member and to facilitate the follow-
up interview portion of the study. The researchers changed the names of participants and
district identifiers in the final report to ensure confidentiality of participants. Only the
researchers had access to the data associated with this study. Data were stored in a secure
location in the dissertation chair’s office and a password-protected computer for 3 years
after the study was completed and were then destroyed. No names are revealed in the
report of findings.
The other method for data collection was conducting interviews with matching
pairs of school board member and superintendent. Patton (2002) argued that the quality
of data obtained from interviews relies on the interviewer (p. 341). The researcher kept a
position of neutrality to allow the interviewee to elaborate answers and established
rapport with the interviewee as quickly as possible. As Patton (2002) explained,
“Rapport is a stance vis-à-vis the person being interviewed [and] neutrality is a stance
vis-à-vis the content of what that person says” (p. 365).
The researchers took an open-ended approach to maximize the collection of raw
data. Patton (2002) stated that dichotomous questions lead to an interrogation session
and do not allow for an in-depth conversation. Hence, the questions addressed no more
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 59
than one idea at a time and allowed the interviewee to elaborate. In turn, each researcher
used an interview guide to systematize the interview process among the members of the
researching team (Appendix G). The researchers needed to understand that questions
would change depending on the conversations that would take place. There was a need
for flexibility “in probing and in determining when it is appropriate to explore certain
subjects in greater depth, or even to pose questions about new areas of inquiry that were
not originally anticipated” (Patton, 2002, p. 347). Data collection from interviews
occurred through notetaking, recording, and coding.
Data Analysis
Patton (2002) posited that the holistic approach allows researchers to analyze a
program as a whole. The researchers collected data to analyze the participants’ percep-
tions of the MIG training and the kind of impact that this training has on their duties as
school board members. The research team used the survey results to determine whether a
pattern existed between board members with a MIG certificate and to align the interview
questions with initial survey results.
There are no formulas to analyze qualitative data (Patton, 2002). Patton (2002)
explained that data analysis begins “while still in the field” (p. 436). Extensive
notetaking, observing the stance and facial expressions of the interviewee, and listening
for the tone of voice constitute raw data. The researchers synthesized data and looked for
key patterns and recurring themes. Such themes allowed for an organized data analysis
for the report on findings and to determine the substantive significance of the study.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 60
Patton (2002) argued that the interviewer must address four essential questions to
increase substantive significance:
1. How solid, coherent, and consistent is the evidence in support of the findings?
2. To what extent and in what ways do the findings increase and deepen under-
standing of the phenomenon studied?
3. To what extent are the findings consistent with other knowledge?
4. To what extent are the findings useful for some intended purpose? (p. 467)
The four questions were key to analyzing the data collected during the interviews with
board members and superintendents. The data guided in understanding the impact of the
MIG training on board members and superintendents, how this training helped them to be
prepared to be successful leaders as they govern school districts, and whether the gov-
ernance team is more effective as a result of the MIG training.
Chapter Summary
This methodology was chosen to gather as much detail as possible while respect-
ing the board members’ and superintendents’ schedules. The research team understood
that time is valuable. Thus, the survey questions were intended to be clear and concise to
allow school board members and superintendents to complete the survey without viewing
it as another task on their list of responsibilities. Furthermore, interviews were conducted
with those who agreed to participate further, and the researchers scheduled the interviews
to fit the participants’ schedules. The research team collected and analyzed data from a
neutral point of view between August 2012 and January 2013.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 61
Chapter 4
Results
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the data collected, based on the
data from the survey, interviews, and the MIGOP. This study examined the impact of the
CSBA MIG training program on board members’ ability to exhibit effective leadership
skills to govern a school district. The following research questions guided the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gover-
nance?
First, a description of the participants is provided to describe the background and
experiences of the interviewees and to put their answers into perspective. Next, the
results of the study are presented according to each research question and the themes that
emerged from the surveys, interviews, and the MIG observation protocol used when the
researching team went to the MIG training modules.
Participants
During the first phase of the research, the researching team surveyed a total of
100 superintendents and at least one school board member in qualifying districts in six
southern California school districts. A total of 61 of the 100 superintendents responded
to the initial survey. In addition, 86 of 226 school board members surveyed responded to
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 62
the survey (Table 2). It is important to note that a few board members and superinten-
dents failed to respond to some of the survey questions, resulting in fewer responses than
the total number of respondents. The second phase of the research included conducting
interviews with two school board members and two superintendents from the same
districts to gauge their perceptions of the MIG training and what impacts it had on any
particular school district. The interviews were designed to collect more data to address
the three research questions. An alignment of research questions to survey, interview,
and MIG Observation Protocol (MIGOP) is provided in Appendix B.
Table 2
Number of Surveys Sent and Number of Surveys Received
Participants Surveys sent Surveys received
Superintendents 100 61
Board members 226 86
Total 326 147
The researcher interviewed one extra school board member and respective super-
intendent, for a total of three superintendents and three school board members. The three
superintendents who were interviewed had been in their position for 1 to 2 years and the
three school board members had served in their respective districts for 4 to 13 years. For
the purpose of this study, the districts, superintendents, and board members are referred
to as A, B, and C. Districts A, B, and C are considered successful districts based on their
API scores, which increased 43 to 48 points between 2008 and 2012.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 63
District A has an API of over 900 and serves close to 10,000 students. Superin-
tendent A is a female superintendent in her second year in her position. Board Member
A is a female trustee who has served for 13 years. Four of five board members in District
A have completed the MIG training.
District B has an API of over 850 and serves close to 26,000 students. Superin-
tendent B is a male superintendent in his first year in his position. Board Member B is a
male trustee who has served for 5 years. All five trustees have completed the MIG
training.
District C has an API in the upper 700s and serves close to 33,000 students.
Superintendent C is a female superintendent who has been in her position for 3 years.
Board Member C is a male trustee who has served for 11 years. Three of five board
members have completed the MIG training.
Results for Research Question 1
The first research question was, What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete the MIG training program? Despite the long list of responsibilities
and the complexity of their duties, there are no prerequisites to become a school board
member in California. Moreover, since training for board members is not mandatory in
California, the first research question was formulated to explore what leads school board
members to complete the MIG training program.
Two major themes emerged from responses related to this research question.
Board members must have motivation to seek training opportunities even though training
is a cultural expectation within the governing body. Another factor that affects the
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 64
decision of board members to take the MIG training is that accessibility issues such as
time, cost, and location, may prevent some board members from participating.
Motivation
Motivation was a key theme for this research question. Of 84 respondents, 52
school board members indicated that motivation is the primary factor that influences
school board members to participate in MIG training. However, superintendents’
answers were not as strong; only 21 of 60 superintendents stated that motivation is the
primary factor influencing participation in MIG training and 20 of 60 responding super-
intendents noted that board member encouragement was another factor.
During the interviews, all three school board members and three superintendents
reported that each person’s motivation to be a good board member is the main factor that
affects the decision to complete the MIG training. Board Member B stated, “I want to do
[the job] well; I want to be educated.” Likewise, Board Member C stated, “In order to
become efficient in your field of responsibility, I think it is important to go through the
training.” Board Member A stated that, even if receiving training is a cultural expecta-
tion within the board, “[Our board] always wants to be the best at whatever we do” and
that is why four of five trustees on her board had chosen to take the MIG training.
Superintendents’ perspectives did not differ significantly, as their answers related
to motivation as well. For Superintendent A, the main factor was commitment; the
superintendent added that “with that commitment usually comes that they want to be
trained.” Superintendent B stated that the top factor was the school board members’
“desire to be the best possible school board member” and added, “The school board
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 65
members want to [be trained]. . . . They came to us saying they wanted to do it.” Super-
intendent C posited that the main factor that influences school board members’ decision
to participate in the MIG training is motivation because the school board wants “to
provide quality leadership and represent their community.”
Cultural Expectation Versus Encouragement
Districts A and B were the only districts that stated that it was a cultural expecta-
tion, and both asserted that it depends highly on board members’ motivation to be trained.
As Board Member A stated, “It is an expectation that you will be trained because truly it
is the easiest and fastest way to get on board so that you can start asking probing ques-
tions and know when your asking isn’t relevant.” Board Member A added, “I felt it was
an expectation, but I wanted to [be trained] because I wanted to be a good board member.
I wanted to be an excellent board member.” Superintendent A stated, “We have the
expectation in our district that [school board members] be trained. . . . Even their own
board members expect that and the superintendent recommends that.” Similarly, both
Board Member B and Superintendent B stated that it is a cultural expectation within the
district but, as Superintendent B said, “[School board members] want to do their best”
and, hence, all five board members in District B had asked to participate in the MIG
training.
While school board members and superintendents placed great weight on cultural
expectations during the interviews, 66 of 84 board members and 51 of 61 superintendents
strongly agreed or agreed that it was a school board culture to participate in the MIG
training. It is interesting that 17 of 84 responding board members and 9 of 61 responding
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 66
superintendents disagreed that their school board culture highly encourages participation
in the MIG training. However, when responding to an open-ended survey question
asking about the primary factor influencing their decision to take the MIG training, only
20 of 84 board members stated that it was due to school board expectations. This dis-
crepancy was also observed in the superintendents’ answers. Superintendents reported
that motivation (21 of 60) and school board encouragement (20 of 60) were two primary
factors that had influenced their decisions to participate in the MIG training. Only 12 of
60 superintendents stated that the training was a school board expectation.
According to the interview data, when school board members and their superin-
tendents encourage other school board members to take the MIG training, it raises the
level of importance and value of the training. Board Member A emphasized, “If your
superintendent supports [the MIG training] enough for them to spend one of their very
rare days off with you, that shows how much they value what you’re doing.” A dis-
crepancy was observed on the responses to the open-ended survey item. Of 84 respond-
ing school board members, 83 strongly agreed or agreed that they encouraged fellow
board members to participate in the MIG training, but only 8 of 84 board members
reported that they had taken the MIG training because other board members had encour-
aged them to do so. Similar patterns were observed in the superintendents’ answers.
Whereas 57 of 61 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that they encouraged fellow
board members to participate in the MIG training, 20 of 60 superintendents stated that
they had been encouraged by other board members to participate in the MIG training.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 67
Overall, no matter what the external factors, board members indicated that moti-
vation was the underlying reason they chose to participate in the MIG training rather than
because someone else had suggested it. As Board Member C stated, “I wasn’t pressured
to start any of [the modules]. I was made aware that it was there.” Some board
members, like Board Member C, had learned about the opportunity and willingly chose
to be trained, not because they were forced to do so.
Accessibility Issues
The MIG training program is divided into nine modules: Foundations of Effective
Governance, Setting Direction, Human Resources, Policy and Judicial Review, Student
Learning and Achievement, School Finance, Collective Bargaining, Community Rela-
tions and Advocacy, and Governance Integration. In order to complete the training in
any one module, participants must attend an all-day training session that is held in vari-
ous locations in California. Altogether, participants must devote 60 hours of instruction
and participation and, as of 2012, the enrollment fee was $1,600, with a timeline of 2
years from date of enrollment to complete the nine modules (CSBA, 2012c). This fee did
not include traveling expenses. Survey and interview data suggest that there are prob-
lems in accessing MIG training due to the length, cost, and location of the program.
Face-to-face interaction versus MIG online. Based on survey results, school
board members did not feel that a complete online MIG certification program would
encourage more school board members to participate. Only 58 of 82 board members who
responded to this question strongly agreed or agreed that it would make an impact, and
53 of 61 superintendents strongly agreed or agreed. Twenty-one board members
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 68
disagreed with this statement. One board member had a conflicting opinion and
answered agree and disagree.
During the interviews, Board Members A, B, and C expressed that in-person
training is more valuable than courses taken online. All three board members agreed that
it was important to meet other board members and they valued the opportunity to estab-
lish networks during the nine training modules. Board Member A stated, “What was
really powerful about [the MIG training] is that we had a core group of districts going
through [the training] that I got to meet and [we talked] about [issues].” Board Member
C also agreed and stated that one of the most valuable aspects of the MIG training was
the opportunity to be “in a group setting where you can ask questions and interact with
other people and hear other people’s issues and how they handle them.”
In addition, based on the MIGOP, 10 of 10 researchers stated that the participants
were engaged and focused on presentations, activities, and discussions. This shows that
an in-person session adds value to the training. Nevertheless, it is important to note that
the participants in this study were not from small towns, where online courses could act
as an incentive to participate.
Cost of training. Another problem with accessibility of the MIG training was the
cost of the program. Only 37 of 77 board members stated that the current cost of the
MIG training impedes school board members from participating. This particular question
had the most board members disagreeing (33 of 77 board members and 29 of 61 superin-
tendents). Of 79 responding board members, 61 said that more school board members
would take the MIG training if the cost were subsidized or free. Similar patterns were
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 69
found from superintendents; 43 of 60 superintendents said that, if the cost of the MIG
training were subsidized or free, more school board members would participate. It is
important to note that more school board members and more superintendents disagreed
that the current cost of the MIG impedes school board members from participating than
in any other survey statements.
During the interview, Board Member A stated that taking the MIG is a “financial
[issue].” Board Member B and Board Member C also stated that cost contributes to lack
of participation. Board Member C commented, “There was an expense [when traveling
to another training out of town] and obviously you don’t want to spend taxpayers’ money
except for educating students.” In turn, Superintendent B said that, whereas there is no
great fiscal impact when the training costs a few thousand dollars and the district’s
budget is in the millions of dollars, the cost of the training for one person affects the rate
of participation. Superintendent A stated that the training should be important enough for
districts to set this amount aside for training purposes to ensure that all board members
are prepared for their job. When asked what factors are keeping the rest of the board
members from being trained, Superintendent C stated, “It’s probably the cost.”
Time and location of training. There were no questions on the survey or inter-
view related to time and location of the MIG training modules. However, time and loca-
tion became a recurring theme during the interviews. All board members stated that the
MIG training was too long. Board members said that, not only does each module take a
day, but it also takes too long to finish all nine modules and receive the MIG certificate.
Board Member C stated, “There is a difference if you’re retired or not retired and trying
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 70
to fit [the training] into your work schedule” and “it was difficult to get a class at a con-
venient time at a convenient location.” Board members said that it was difficult when the
training sessions were at capacity and they had to sign up for another one in another
location. For instance, if a given training session in Rancho Cucamonga is at capacity,
the next choice is to attend that module in San Diego or in northern California. Board
members contended that having to travel adds to the cost, as board members then have to
pay for accommodations and travel. Board Member A said, “I was very lucky [because]
I was able to take [the training locally]” and did not have to travel to central or northern
California. Board Member A added, “It’s a time commitment that makes it hard for
people [to take the MIG training].” Board Member B stated that the lack of variety in
date choices is a disadvantage of the MIG training and that training sessions are often
offered on the same weekend every year, so if there is a special occasion that falls on the
same weekend, the board member cannot attend that particular training session. Board
Member C stated, “Having [the training] in more places and more times throughout the
year is more of a cost, but I think that would help.”
Discussion of Results for Research Question 1
Board members want to do well. Even if completing the MIG training is a cul-
tural expectation within a given board, school board members are not required by law to
take any training or professional development to learn about their duties and to keep up
with current educational trends. The interview data suggested that the level of motivation
leads school board members to participate in the MIG training. Further analysis of data
suggested that, even though being trained in the MIG modules is a cultural expectation
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 71
within a governing board and board members encourage fellow board members, motiva-
tion is the ultimate factor that leads a board member to take the MIG training. Further-
more, the data point to several accessibility issues that impede board members from
taking the MIG training. The accessibility issues are that the modules and the full
program are too long, the locations are limited, and the cost of the program is too high,
especially if participants have to travel.
Results for Research Question 2
The second research question was, Does the MIG training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance? School board
members are responsible for student learning and achievement; handling millions of
dollars; discussing and making policies; and making decisions on legal matters, human
resources, and facilities. School board members are the leaders of an organization and it
is crucial that they understand the scope of their duties and that they be able to act as a
team.
The purpose of this research question was to investigate whether the MIG training
prepares board members to be successful. Since training or professional development is
not mandatory in California, the researchers aimed to explore whether the MIG training
equips them to be better board members. In other words, the focus of this research
question was board members exhibiting the characteristics of effective governance due to
the MIG training.
Two major themes emerged from the responses to this research question. The
MIG training equips board members as it clarifies their roles and responsibilities. Board
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 72
members who have been trained in the MIG program tend to put students first by making
more informed decisions through the use of student data and the district’s vision and
goals, and they tend to understand that the board’s role is different from that of the
superintendent. In addition, the MIG training helps governing boards to collaborate,
boards have a unified voice, and board members understand what is entailed in being a
public official.
Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities
The survey questions aligned to this research question asked how well the MIG
training had helped board members and superintendents to focus on student learning and
achievement, the use of student data, collaboration, and holding effective board meetings.
The data suggested that the MIG clarifies the board’s roles and responsibilities. More
than 80% of board members and superintendents strongly agreed or agreed with every
survey statement. One question asked whether all school board members would benefit
from completing the MIG training; all 84 board members strongly agreed or agreed that
it would do so.
Students first. Board Member A stated that “the most important things that
school board members do are actually very nebulous things,” including setting a vision,
priorities, and goals for the district. An interesting finding was that, when board
members were asked on the survey to rank the eight characteristics for effective gov-
ernance, the top characteristic was Focusing on Student Achievement, with 31 board
members ranking it first. As shown by the survey responses, 71 of 81 board members
strongly agreed or agreed that the MIG training helped them to focus more on student
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 73
achievement. Another question asked whether they referred to data to make informed
decisions; 75 of 83 board members strongly agreed or agreed. In the interview, Board
Member A stated, “School board members are there for the kids. . . . The only people
who truly advocate for children are school board members, so bottom line, every decision
our board makes, we basically think, is this the best for kids, is this moving our students
forward?”
Table 3 provides a breakdown of how many board members and superintendents
strongly agreed or agreed to statements that asked whether the MIG training affected the
use of data, focus on student achievement, and being mindful of the district’s vision and
goals when making decisions.
According to the participants’ responses to the survey, the MIG training equips
board members in the areas of student learning and achievement through the use of data
and trained board members are more likely to remember the district’s vision and goals
when making decisions. Moreover, based on the results of the MIGOP, 8 of the 10
researchers strongly agreed or agreed that student learning was the focus of the modules.
Board versus superintendent roles. Survey data indicated that the MIG helps to
clarify differences between the role of the board and the role of the superintendent. In
addition, all 10 researchers strongly agreed that the MIG modules teach board members
about the importance of governing within board-adopted policies, procedures, and struc-
ture. Table 4 reports the numbers of board members and superintendents who strongly
agreed or agreed to survey items pertaining to clarification of roles of board members
and superintendents.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 74
Table 3
Number of Board Members and Superintendents Who Strongly Agreed or Agreed to
Survey Statements Pertaining to Student Achievement, Use of Data, and District Vision
and Goals
Survey item Board members Superintendents
As a result of the MIG:
My focus on student achievement has increased
during school board meetings.
71 of 81 58 of 61
I encourage fellow school board members to
consistently use data to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
75 of 83 50 of 59
I understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process to the district’s vision
and goals.
79 of 82 57 of 60
Table 4
Number of Board Members and Superintendents Who Strongly Agreed or Agreed to
Survey Questions Pertaining to Roles of Board Versus Superintendent
Survey item Board members Superintendents
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
83 of 83 48 of 61
The MIG training helps me to differentiate
between policy and management leadership.
77 of 81 58 of 59
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 75
During the interviews, the superintendents reported that one of their pivotal roles
as superintendents is to keep board members informed, which includes reviewing and
revisiting the roles of the board members. Superintendent A, Superintendent B, and
Superintendent C stated that, as superintendents, they continuously review the roles of the
board members. They also agreed that the MIG training equips board members because
their roles are delineated by an outside voice. Superintendent B stated that CSBA
becomes “an outside voice that reiterates what the superintendent says,” which provides
support to superintendents because it further clarifies the roles of board members.
It is important to understand the difference between the roles of the board and the
superintendent because, as Superintendent C stated, “[It is the board’s] responsibility to
adopt policy for staff to implement.” Superintendent C explained that board members
and their understanding of their roles and responsibilities “have helped me as a superin-
tendent to be more effective.” Likewise, Superintendent A stated, “Those [who] have
been to the training are more clear about setting policy, discussing the big picture, and
focusing on the vision and the goals, not my job.” According to Superintendent A, the
major difference between board members who have been trained and those who have not
is that trained board members tend to respect the boundaries more than nontrained board
members. Superintendent C explained,
As a superintendent, I can tell who has had the training and who hasn’t . . . [but]
just because somebody has gone through MIG doesn’t mean they’re necessarily
going to make the right decisions or the best decisions. . . . [Sometimes, board
members] bypass the superintendent’s office and go right to staff, and then staff is
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 76
saying, “Oh my gosh, it’s a board member!” and they want to respond. And yet,
whatever the board’s interest is, may or may not align with the strategic plan, the
initiatives, etc., so now I’ve got a staff member who went off doing something
completely different than where we need to take the district.
Superintendent A stated that “trained board members tend to be more appropriate
more often” because they have a better understanding of their roles. In contrast, a board
member who is not trained tends to do things that are “out of this scope of responsibilities
and tends to be most out of line.”
From a board member’s perspective, the MIG training equips the board member
to differentiate between the roles. For example, as a consequence of the MIG training,
Board Member C refers to the training and guides other board members when they go
“the wrong direction . . . to get them in line.” Board Member A said that the MIG helped
the board to establish protocols as they discussed “what [the board] expects the superin-
tendent to do . . . how the board [members] will react with one another . . . and establish
goals.”
Two deficiencies. It is important to note that, whereas CSBA (2007) and
Delagardelle (2008) explained that one of the roles of the board is to engage the com-
munity, survey results indicated that this is an area of need. Only 57 of 83 board
members said that the MIG training had helped them to engage the community actively
through a variety of communication methods. Participants ranked the eight characteris-
tics for effective governance on the survey; 30 board members ranked school board
deliberations include diverse community views in seventh place. This was demonstrated
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 77
by the MIGOP as well, where 4 of 10 researchers indicated that the modules did not
stress the importance of community contributions.
Another area of need was the board’s self-evaluation process. This characteristic
had the highest number of participants giving it a low ranking: 36 board members ranked
it eighth. In addition, analysis of the MIGOP indicated that only four researchers
strongly agreed or agreed that the modules teach governance teams to evaluate their own
effectiveness periodically. Six of 10 researchers disagreed or did not observe this task.
The Board as One
Whether the board of education has five or seven members, it is important to
understand that the power to govern a school district is vested in the team and not in a
single board member (CSBA, 2007). Table 5 shows the numbers of board members and
superintendents who strongly agreed or agreed to survey items related to the board acting
as a team.
Superintendent A stated that “those [who] are trained seem to have an inherent
knowledge that you know there [are] five different individuals in the board . . . and they
understand that their job is to come together with one unified voice.” Furthermore,
Superintendent A stated that trained board members “are much better at that one unified
voice [than those who are not trained].” Board Member B explained that all five board
members had been trained and, as a consequence, they continuously “try to work as a
team.” Board Member A explained that the MIG strengthened the collaborative process
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 78
Table 5
Number of Board Members and Superintendents Who Strongly Agreed and/or Agreed to
Survey Questions Pertaining to Teamwork
Survey item Board members Superintendents
As a result of the MIG, I have developed a more
collaborative relationship with fellow school board
members.
77 of 83 52 of 61
As a result of the MIG, my ability to
constructively accept the majority decision, even if
I hold the minority view, has increased.
74 of 83 55 of 61
within the board and that board members are mindful to treat each other respectfully. “If
someone wanders when they’re discussing something . . . another board member will say
that’s not what we’re here to discuss.” Board Member A stated that, because of the MIG,
“we’re all much better board members.”
Effectiveness. Participants ranked the nine modules of the MIG training in order
of relevance to their role as school board members. Thirty-nine school board members
ranked Foundations of Effective Governance first. This MIG module teaches board
members about the roles and responsibilities of the Governance Team, focusing on trus-
teeship and governance (CSBA, 2012c). All 83 responding board members agreed that
the MIG training positively affected their ability to govern effectively; 81 of 82 board
members stated that the MIG training had allowed them to contribute to the effectiveness
of their school board meetings.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 79
During the interviews, Board Member C stated, “[The MIG] defined my role as a
board member . . . and it better prepared me [to be effective].” Board Member B agreed
that the MIG training had provided an in-depth understanding of what it means to be a
board member. Board Member A concurred: “It is very difficult for a newly elected
community member to realize what being a school board member means . . . it is very
difficult to realize what your responsibility is.” Board Member A commented that the
MIG modules equip board members with information that would otherwise be obtained
through what Board Member C described as “the process of osmosis.”
The board member as a public official. The interview results indicated that
governance is the most important component for school board members. The MIG
training helped board members to identify what it entails to govern a school district,
which does not mean only the creation of policies. Board members are elected officials
who will be recognized by the constituents when they are out in public and there is a
protocol that board members must be aware of when they are approached by stakehold-
ers. Board Member A stated, “The most beneficial aspect of the MIG training was
having someone clearly define to me what governance truly is, what my responsibilities
as a board member [are] . . . my public persona.” For instance, when someone
approaches a board member unexpectedly in a public location other than the Board
Room, the board member must listen to what the person has to say, which may not
necessarily be a quick greeting. Board Member A added, “It is totally different being an
elected official. . . . I am never just [myself], I am always [Board Member A] . . . and I
have to be careful when I’m with my friends [or out in public].” Board Member C said,
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 80
“[The MIG training] gave me insights into what’s going on in the board, what to expect
from the people, as in the audience, what to expect from your constituents, what to expect
from the other board members.” In addition, Board Member C explained that the MIG
training
opened your eyes as to what you will be confronted with, how to solve issues
when they come up, how to lead when you’re [the president]. . . . I think it has a
positive effect on the way a board member can and should present themselves.
Discussion of Results for Research Question 2
The results indicate that the MIG training helps to clarify the roles and responsi-
bilities of the board. Understanding roles and responsibilities helps board members to put
students first and make informed decisions through the use of data and the district’s
vision and goals. Board members who understand their roles and responsibilities tend to
respect the roles of the superintendent and district staff. However, the majority of board
members did not give priority to community involvement and self-evaluation. The MIG
training helps the board to act as a team with a unified voice, which helps them to
conduct more effective board meetings. Trained board members have better governance
skills because they understand what is entailed in being an elected public official. All of
these factors lead to a more effective board of trustees.
Results for Research Question 3
The third research question asked, In what ways could mandating the MIG
training impact school board governance? States that support mandatory training can
help board members to “operate at optimum levels” as they will receive training in
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 81
different areas in a consistent manner, which in turn will reassure the public of board
professionalism (Bianchi, 2003, pp. 2-3). Because training can equip board members to
be effective (Bianchi, 2003), the purpose of the third research question was to gauge what
board members and superintendents think about the possibility of mandating the MIG
training and what impact that would have on governance.
Two themes emerged from the responses to this research question. The first
theme was that training should not be mandated but should be highly recommended for
new board members. The second theme was that there are specific areas of need to
improve the MIG training, including finance, setting protocols, and team building.
Training Is Highly Recommended
Overall, board members indicated that the MIG training clarifies the differences
in roles between the board and the superintendent and that all board members would
benefit from taking the training. In all, 59 of 82 responding board members strongly
agreed or agreed that the MIG training should be mandated in California and 23 board
members disagreed or strongly disagreed. Forty-nine of 60 superintendents strongly
agreed or agreed that the MIG training should be a mandate, but 11 disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Whereas 48 of 61 superintendents stated that the MIG training clarified their
roles and the roles of the school board members on the survey, all 83 board members
strongly agreed or agreed. More superintendents agreed that all school board members
would benefit from completing the MIG training; 57 of 61 strongly agreed or agreed and
all 84 responding board members strongly agreed or agreed. About 72% of board
members and 82% of superintendents were in favor of a possible mandate. Compared to
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 82
other statements on which only one or two board members disagreed, this result is sig-
nificant because almost 30% of the board members were not in favor of the mandate.
During the interviews, superintendents agreed that training for board members is
helpful. Superintendent A stated that “training is helpful so they really understand the
scope of what their role is, what their job is, what they’re in charge of, what they’re not.”
On the other hand, Superintendent B stated that mandating training would bring logistical
problems and asked, “Should this training be before or after elections? What would
happen if board members do not take the training?” Another problem is cost. However,
Superintendent B added, “Training would be a good recommendation for board
members’ best practices.” Superintendent C stated that, rather than a mandate, “gov-
ernance training should be part of a board of trustee’s ongoing professional development”
because training is a natural way for people to develop professionally.
Mandating the training could bring challenges. Superintendent A stated, “[If] the
MIG is mandated, the challenge becomes how can we get people wanting to do it”
because there is a difference in attitude between a person who takes training in a volun-
tary manner because of intrinsic motivation and a person who takes it because he or she is
forced to do so. The learning might not be genuine. Superintendent C said,
the conflict would be [board members] may be pushing back a little in terms of
(a) “I don’t have an interest”; (b) maybe identify “I don’t need the training”; and
(c) “I’m functioning . . . I’m where I need to be, I know what my community
wants.”
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 83
During the interview, Board Member B stated that the MIG training would be a
reasonable mandate but the cost could be a conflict. “At the very least, a 1-day training”
would be helpful. Board Member A and Board Member C disagreed with the idea of
mandating the MIG training. Board Member A stated, “I have a problem mandating
anything [because] unfunded mandates are philosophically wrong” and added, “The fact
that there is no competition to CSBA, [means that] basically you have CSBA’s MIG or
[no other choice].” Another concern was the cost and who would be responsible for
paying the training and traveling expenses. Board Member A said that it would be more
acceptable if, instead of a mandate, “training could be opportunities for ‘continuing edu-
cation’ for board members.” Board Member C disagreed with mandating the training and
stated, “Now you’re telling a school board member what they have to do and I think
that’s a conflict” but a recommendation to take the MIG would be acceptable.
Training for new board members. Since there are no prerequisites to be a
board member other than being 18 years of age and a resident of the district in which he
or she wants to run, board members often begin their job without much knowledge.
Board Member B stated that “it is tragic that there is no requirement” to become a board
member and noted that, many times, those who are newly elected “do not have a clue
what’s going on.” Board Member A also said, “Your first year as a board member, you
really don’t know anything and you have to learn the patterns.” Board Member A added,
“I remember that urgency when you first were elected, how you wanted to [talk about
issues with someone, but] you couldn’t discuss it with anybody. It was just frustrating.”
Board member C described the learning process as the process of “osmosis” because new
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 84
board members tend to learn by observing and “soaking it all up.” Board Member C
added that the main method of learning, especially as a new board member, is “sitting in
and having meetings with the superintendent and reviewing and discussing.” Board
Member C stated, “I [would] recommend that all new board members receive the
training.”
Refresher courses for veteran board members. During the interviews, board
members expressed that one of the problems is that, once they finish the MIG training,
there is nothing else to keep them updated. Board Member C stated, “I haven’t heard
much about it over the last few years.” Whereas CSBA holds an annual conference for
board members, Board Member C stated that, in District C, board members do not attend
the annual conference because “it is costly for the district.” Board members stated that
having refresher courses for veteran board members from time to time would allow them
to revisit their roles and responsibilities in each of the areas and to develop professionally
after having received the MIG training.
Areas of Need
The MIG training has nine modules: Foundations of Effective Governance, Set-
ting Direction, Human Resources, Policy and Judicial Review, Student Learning and
Achievement, School Finance, Collective Bargaining, Community Relations and
Advocacy, and Governance Integration. Each of these topics is covered in a 1-day
training session, and the nine modules 9 must be completed with 2 years. One survey
item asked board members to identify three areas for improving the MIG training.
According to the survey responses, the first three areas of need were Finance, Setting
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 85
Direction and Vision, and Student Achievement. The third area included Common Core
State Standards, curriculum and instruction, college and career readiness, and creating
life-long learners. Superintendents’ responses were slightly different; their top three
areas of need were Roles and Responsibilities, Governance, and Student Achievement
and Data Analysis. During the interviews with board members, the emerging themes
were that not all modules are necessary but that improvement is needed in the areas of
finance, setting protocols with superintendents, and team building between board and
superintendent.
Finance. During the interviews, it was clear that board members were aware of
the impact that they can make because they are responsible for handling millions of tax-
payers’ dollars. Board Member A explained, “85% of most budgets in most districts is
[used for] personnel, so [the board] has only 15% to look over.” Even if this means
handling 15% of the district’s budget, the board’s decisions determine how the district
will use the money, which will affect thousands of students. Board Member A explained,
“In order to ask probing questions, board members must be knowledgeable. In addition,
Board Member A stated that the MIG module on finance “needs to be bumped up” to
include courses “according to different levels of knowledge” because some trustees may
have an accounting background and may not need to know the basics as much as
someone without this type of knowledge. Furthermore, Board Member C expressed that
the board should not misuse taxpayers’ dollars and stated that it is important to “educate
the populous” and learn about the district’s budget and how the dollars are spent.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 86
Setting protocols. On the extensive list of roles and responsibilities of the school
board, perhaps the most important item was to set the direction and vision for the school
district. During the interviews, board members expressed that the MIG training had
strengthened the collaborative process within board members and that one of the main
events after a new superintendent is hired or a new board member is elected is that the
board and superintendent meet to set protocols that will guide the team. Superintendent
A stated that, although the superintendent’s task is to keep the board informed, the board
“certainly can say they don’t want to go in a certain direction, that is not the vision they
have for kids, they want a different priority goal.” Board Member A added that, when a
new superintendent is hired, they invite CSBA to “do a workshop . . . so that protocols,
expectations [can be discussed] and [decide] how we’re going to communicate with each
other” and “what [the board] expects the superintendent to do, what the superintendent
expects of the board to do, [how] the board will react with one another . . . and establish
goals.” Board Member A explained that, when there is a set of expectations and proto-
cols, “everything is going to move more smoothly and more quickly.” Superintendent C
stated, “I spend a lot of time with my trustees in developing the relationship and estab-
lishing parameters, establishing boundaries, reviewing roles and responsibilities.” Over-
all, board members expressed that setting protocols helps to keep the district aligned and
moving forward as a team.
Team building. Another indicator was the need for team-building opportunities
between the superintendent and the school board. Superintendents agreed that the rela-
tionship between the superintendent and board members is a key component for moving
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 87
forward. Superintendent C stated, “[Part of a superintendent’s] responsibility is the care
of their board, so I spend a lot of time with my trustees and developing the relationship,
and establishing parameters, establishing boundaries, reviewing roles and responsibili-
ties.” Superintendent B explained that it is crucial that a new superintendent “build the
relationship with board members to move forward.” Superintendent A agreed and stated,
“The relationship is important; they have to trust me when I give them input. . . . Because
they’ve hired me, they should be trusting what I’m advising them and recommending.”
Furthermore, based on the MIGOP, all 10 researchers agreed that the modules teach
strategies for governance teams to operate openly and in a professional manner and to
govern within board-adopted policies, procedures, structures, and strategies to develop
and focus on a common vision.
Discussion of Results for Research Question 3
The results indicate that unfunded mandates and telling board members what to
do are philosophically wrong. Whereas the MIG training should not be a mandate, board
members contended that it should be highly recommended because they believed that
training is necessary, especially for newly elected board members. Board members indi-
cated that veteran board members need refresher courses after the MIG training to keep
abreast educational issues. Board members stated that not all modules of the MIG are
necessary and identified key areas of need to improve the MIG training: Finance, Setting
Protocols, and Team Building. Superintendent/board member relationships also emerged
as a theme, but in the context of team building.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 88
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that affect the decision of board
members to seek training, to determine whether the MIG training equips and encourages
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and to determine
whether the MIG training should be mandated in California. The emerging themes were
that board members take training because of motivation, board members want to do a
good job and be excellent board members, and, even if there is a cultural expectation
within the district that all board members should take MIG training, board members
could opt not to take it because it is not a mandate.
Board members identified accessibility issues related to the fact that the MIG
training is the only training available in California. They agreed that training could not
be as beneficial if the entire program was online. Board members stated that they value
the networking opportunities with fellow board members from districts in California
during in-person training sessions.
Cost, time required to complete the training, and the location of training sessions
were problematic. On the other hand, it is evident that the MIG training is beneficial to
those who take it, as it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the school board. Super-
intendents valued the MIG training because it reinforces what they communicate to the
board: They are the policymakers, and superintendents implement the policies. Board
members appreciated that the MIG training helps them to understand their public stance
and that it helps them to have a unified voice. Through the interviews, it was evident that
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 89
board members should and must put students first; the MIG training had helped them to
use data and the district’s vision to improve student achievement.
Although board members expressed concern about the idea that the MIG training
should be a mandate, they agreed about the need for training. It was evident that
refresher courses would be beneficial for veteran board members. Board members also
expressed that training is especially needed for newly elected board members. Board
members stated that not all MIG training modules are necessary and identified key areas
of need, which included reinforcing the finance module, putting an emphasis on setting
protocols between the board and the superintendent, and team building activities to foster
the relationship.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 90
Chapter 5
Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations
A board member’s job is extremely demanding because of the extensive list of
roles and responsibilities that are assumed upon election. Generally, a board member
joins a team of four or six other board members; regardless of the trustee’s career and
educational background, the demands are high. The board as a team needs to know and
understand various educational concepts and processes in order to make decisions that
affect the education of thousands of students.
In California, there are no prerequisites to run and be elected as a school board
member. As discussed in Chapter 2, the school board manages millions of taxpayers’
dollars, adopts policies, approves curriculum, and hires the district’s superintendent.
However, there is no mandatory training to equip board members to be effective. CSBA
is the only organization for school boards in California, and the only organization to
provide training, called the MIG training. Nevertheless, only 2,000 of 6,000 board
members and superintendents (33%) have taken the MIG training (CSBA, 2012b). The
purpose of this study was to describe the relationship between effective school boards
and a commitment to school board training. The study was guided by three research
questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance?
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 91
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact school board gov-
ernance?
The research team established selection criteria, which included school districts
with an ADA between 2,000 and 50,000 students, an API of over 800 or at least a 21-
point growth in the previous 3 years. Districts were in six southern California regions
and had at least one board member who had taken MIG training. The research team sent
surveys to 226 board members and 100 superintendents, of which 88 board members and
61 superintendents responded to the survey. Each researcher chose two pairs of board
members and superintendents from the same district and conducted an in-person inter-
view with each of them. The research team also attended and observed various MIG
modules and used the MIGOP as a rubric. The survey data were disaggregated by
research question and interviews were conducted to gauge board members’ and superin-
tendents’ perceptions of the MIG training. Six major themes emerged from the responses
to the three research questions.
Summary of Findings
The findings stem from a list of major themes that emerged while analyzing the
survey results and conducting interviews. Two themes emerged for each of the research
questions. Each major theme had a list of important elements, which included ways to
improve the MIG training to help board members be more effective in their governance.
Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question was, What factors impact the decision of school board
members to complete the MIG training program? Two major themes emerged:
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 92
(a) motivation, and (b) accessibility issues, which included cost, location, and time
required to complete the MIG training. These themes led to the finding that board
members participate in the MIG training if they have the motivation and that more school
board members might participate if the accessibility issues were addressed.
California does not require board members to complete training or have any
knowledge or experience in education to be elected. In other words, anyone who meets
the minimum requirements can run for school board and be elected by the stakeholders
(CSBA, 2007). Because board members have an extensive list of roles and responsibili-
ties, once they are elected, the learning curve is steep. Newton and Sackney (2005) stated
that, because there are no prerequisites to be elected, board members “have to acquire
knowledge through other means, namely through individual and group learning” (p. 435).
Delagardelle (2008) suggested that boards should have a commitment to learning as a
team to understand their roles and responsibilities. This study found that, whether
training is a cultural expectation within the board, ultimately, motivation to do a good job
and be the best board member in the field leads board members to participate in the MIG
training program. The psychological aspect of motivation was not incorporated, as it
would drastically change the direction of this study.
The second major theme for responses to Research Question 1 was that there are
key accessibility issues, such as time, location, and cost of the MIG training. Board
members found that the MIG training modules are beneficial and they appreciated the in-
person training because it allows them to network with one another and share best prac-
tices. MIG training courses online would offer greater accessibility and would increase
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 93
the number of participants, but interaction would be limited and networking opportunities
would be decreased. However, it is important to consider that the impact of an online
MIG certification program would not be the same in urban, suburban, and rural cities.
Thus, a hybrid training program that includes both online and in-person meetings might
best meet the needs of MIG participants.
Although cost was identified during the interviews as an issue for greater accessi-
bility, it may not be the sole reason for the low board member participation rates in the
MIG training shown in the survey data. Another issue that board members identified was
the time required to complete the nine modules and the times at which the training is
offered. Board members found that nine all-day training sessions over the course of 2
years is too much and that training dates were too limited. Finally, the location of the
trainings is also limited, which adds to the cost, especially if there are travel expenses.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was, Does the MIG training encourage and equip school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance? Two major themes that
emerged from responses to this question were that (a) the MIG clarifies board members’
roles and responsibilities, and (b) board members display increased levels of collabora-
tion as a result of the MIG training. These key themes indicated that, as a result of the
MIG training, board members were better at having a unified voice and working as a
team because their roles and responsibilities were clearly delineated.
It is important to understand the difference between the roles of the board and the
superintendent. The board adopts policy; the superintendent implements it. Among the
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 94
list of responsibilities, the most important is to have good leadership skills, which include
the ability to balance the four frames of leadership: the political frame, the symbolic
frame, the structural frame, and the human resources frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
While Land (2002) suggested that good leadership skills are demonstrated by carrying
out an organization’s vision, Resnick (1999) suggested that school board members’ main
job is to govern and that good governance skills are necessary for a successful school
district. This study found that board members who were MIG trained tended to be mind-
ful of the differences between the roles of the board and the superintendent and were
therefore equipped to exhibit characteristics of effective governance (CSBA, 2007;
Delagardelle, 2008).
Both CPE (2011) and CSBA (2005, 2007) explained that effective boards exhibit
eight characteristics. CPE (2011) identified these characteristics as commitment to a
vision and goals, strong shared beliefs and values, accountability and focus on policies,
collaboration, understanding of data, ability to align and sustain resources, the capability
to lead as a team with the superintendent, and participation in professional development
and training. CSBA (2005, 2007) posited that effective boards display the following
eight characteristics: focus on student achievement, communication of a common vision,
operation with trust and integrity, governing in a dignified manner, treatment of everyone
with respect, governing within board policies, assumption of collective responsibility for
their performance, and conduct of self-evaluations of their effectiveness, including the
community’s views.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 95
Research has indicated that training board members helps them to govern more
effectively (Bianchi, 2003; Quigley, 2008; Dillon, 2010; Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
The collected data demonstrate that, evidently, the MIG training helps to clarify the roles
and responsibilities of board members. In addition, this study determined that board
members trained in the MIG also displayed some of the characteristics identified by CPE
(2011) and CSBA (2005, 2007). Board members were more conscious about not
micromanaging and working with fellow board members and the superintendent. The
focus was more on student achievement and the district’s vision and goals. As a result of
the MIG, board members treated each other with more respect, even when there were
disagreements. Moreover, this study found that the MIG training empowered trustees to
bring other board members in line, which allowed them to have effective board meetings.
In turn, the superintendents stated that the MIG training becomes a supporting agent as it
reiterates what they communicate to board members to their trustees.
Another finding related to Research Question 2 was that the MIG training helps
board members to focus on students. Board members stated that the MIG training had
helped them to utilize data to make informed decisions that affect thousands of students.
It is important to use student data to establish the district’s vision because they have a
direct impact on student achievement (Bianchi, 2003; Delagardelle, 2008; Dillon, 2010;
Hess, 2002; Petronis, 1996; Roberts & Sampson, 2011). In fact, Berry and Howell
(2007) found that, although the work of school board members does not directly impact
students, their work does affect the quality of student learning, which affects the district’s
achievement. Furthermore, board members should advocate for students (CSBA, 2007),
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 96
and the MIG training prepared them to put students first at all times. Although the MIG
training helps to clarify roles and responsibilities, the study identified that board members
need to engage with the community to include their views on issues and to engage in self-
evaluation practices. These two characteristics of effective school boards were described
by CPE (2008) and CSBA (2005, 2007).
The second major theme related to this question was that board members trained
in the MIG showed increased levels of collaboration and were conscious that the board
must act as a team and have a unified voice. This study found that the MIG training had
helped board members to work more closely as a team because they understood that the
power had been granted to the entire board, not to individuals. The MIG training helped
to clarify this by providing a set of protocols of governance. Hence, board members were
prepared to hold effective board meetings. In addition, board members trained in the
MIG had a better understanding of what is entailed in being a public official. As elected
officials, they are recognized and approached by the public. The interview data indicated
that board members want to understand the needs of the community even outside the
board room, but that the people must be informed and must participate with the board.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was, In what ways could mandating the MIG training impact
training to school board governance? Two major themes emerged from the responses to
this question related to the responses: (a) recommending training, and (b) how to improve
the MIG training to make it more effective. Per the two themes, this study found that the
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 97
MIG training positively affected school board governance. Thus, training should be
highly recommended to increase the effectiveness of school board governance.
According to CSBA (2007), California has more than 5,000 school board mem-
bers governing approximately 1,000 school districts. CSBA (2012c) reported that more
than 2,000 school board members and superintendents have completed the MIG training.
That means that about 33% of all school board members and superintendents in Califor-
nia have completed the MIG training. Although participating board members were
uncomfortable with the idea that the MIG training should be mandated, they recognized
that training is necessary and suggested that training should be “highly recommended”
instead. The main concern for board members was the cost of the training and having an
unfunded mandate.
Land (2002) suggested that formal training tends to be superficial and that partici-
pants can show resentment if it is mandated. Similarly, this study found that, although
the MIG training could be an effective mandate, the issue would be how to make people
want to take training because the learning might not be genuine. Mandating training goes
beyond creating a mandate, as discussions would have to revolve around what topics to
require, choosing what agency would provide training, and the length of the training
(Land, 2002; Schmidt, 1992).
Board members recognized that the first year as a newly elected official is the
most difficult year because of the lack of knowledge of roles, responsibilities, processes,
and simply how to act. This study found that new board members learn by observing. In
fact, other than sitting in with the superintendent, who reviews the board’s roles and
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 98
responsibilities, there is no other way to learn; without proper training, new board
members need at least 6 months to be effective (Bianchi, 2003). Hence, new board
member training was recommended because it is the fastest way to get up to speed to
perform the role (Dillon, 2010).
Trustees indicated that veteran board members also need refresher courses to keep
current with educational trends and concepts. Whereas board members stated that
training and ongoing professional development are crucial for effectiveness, they noted
that the MIG training program is a one-time program without follow-ups. Even though
CSBA holds annual conferences, board members stated that not everyone attends because
it is expensive. In times of economic distress, board members are mindful of how they
spend taxpayers’ dollars, and they noted that it is inappropriate to spend money on
training rather than on students. However, it is important to note that not being familiar
with procedures and budget can cause more financial damage to the district. Crane
(2005) interviewed a former superintendent who stated that it is a board member’s
responsibility to participate in professional development. Furthermore, the cost of the
training may seem expensive at the time, but trained board members will operate more
effectively, which could result in better use of district resources (Crane, 2005).
Board members stated that not all MIG modules are necessary and identified key
areas for making the MIG training more effective. Because the board handles millions of
dollars, they believe that revamping the finance module would prepare them better for the
job. Another area of need is to set protocols for the board and the superintendent. Estab-
lishing protocols allows the board and the superintendent to have clear guidelines in how
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 99
to work together in an effective manner (Brennan, 2011). These guidelines include dis-
cussing the goal and vision for the district and how to communicate with each other. The
data indicate that board members and superintendents valued a good working relationship
with one another and that team-building opportunities are necessary to solidify their rela-
tionship. Effective school boards tend to cooperate, and there is trust between board
members individually and collectively with the superintendent (Crane, 2005).
Implications for Practice
The purpose of this study was to examine factors that relate to board members
participating in training, especially because this is not a mandatory task. Second, this
study was designed to determine whether the MIG training truly equips board members
for their job. Third, the study was designed to determine whether the MIG training
should be mandated in California. Based on the results of the study, there are several
implications for practice related to school board members, superintendents, CSBA, and
citizens.
School Board Members
The data indicate that, when board members understand their roles and responsi-
bilities, board effectiveness is increased. Thus, providing professional development for
board members seems to be a logical way to equip them for their tasks. School board
members should participate in ongoing professional development to keep current with
educational trends and concepts.
Trained board members are more aware of their roles and responsibilities. This
encourages and equips a board member to remind fellow board members that the goal of
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 100
their job is to set policies, not micromanage district staff. Thus, board members should
encourage one another to participate in training to continue to grow professionally.
The results of this study showed that all participating board members agreed that
training is beneficial. Board members should have opportunities to network with fellow
board members and share best practice ideas. As teachers and school administrators are
expected to develop continually as leaders and professionals and collaborate with one
another, board members should also participate in professional growth opportunities.
Board members reported that, because of the MIG training, their focus on student
achievement increased and they understand their roles and responsibilities much more
than when they were not trained. However, their responses indicated that their focus and
involvement with the community was lower than in other areas. Board members should
actively seek to involve their community and translate the community’s wishes into poli-
cies that will enhance the effectiveness of the school district.
Survey data indicated that board members did not practice self-evaluation often.
Board members should engage in evaluating their own performance and monitor their
progress toward achieving the district’s goals. Board members should also continue to
align initiatives with the district’s vision.
Superintendents
Superintendents reported that having an outside agency reiterate what superinten-
dents communicate to the board provides support for them. Superintendents should con-
tinue to work closely with their trustees and promote the importance of professional
development opportunities in their district.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 101
Superintendents can help to increase the participation rates by providing the lead-
ership necessary to accomplish this task. Superintendents can use Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four frames of leadership to promote this. Although superintendent-board rela-
tionships tend to be more toward the political frame of leadership, superintendents can
use the symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008) to create a culture of learning to promote
and encourage board members to participate in training or professional development.
This will aid in the establishment of an effective board environment.
This study found that the relationship between the superintendent and the board
promotes district effectiveness. Data analysis suggests that superintendents can partici-
pate in the MIG training, which will increase the chances for teamwork by superintendent
and board. Although board members are the main audience for the MIG modules,
superintendents can benefit from what board members are learning and discussing.
CSBA
CSBA can use the results of this study to enhance their training program by
adjusting their modules to meet the needs of board members. Board members reported
that some of the MIG modules are not as necessary as others. Because it was reported
that the length of the MIG training limits board member participation, changing the
requirements of the MIG training might encourage more participation across California.
In addition, the MIG training times and locations should have more variety. By offering
training at local county offices of education, board members could have easier access and
have more opportunities to interact with districts at a more local level.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 102
The data suggest that, once board members complete the MIG training, there is no
further follow-up from CSBA. CSBA should consider ways to keep board members
informed even after training has been completed, in addition to their annual conference.
Board members noted that they would benefit from ongoing training or refresher courses.
Although board members reported that an online MIG certification program
would not be as beneficial as in-person training, online training would help rural com-
munities to have more accessibility to participate and interact with other board members.
A hybrid in-person and online training program would give all board members more
accessibility and enable rural communities to partake in training while interacting with
others.
Training is a necessity for professional growth. CSBA should explore ways to
include legislators in the process and give genuine feedback to mitigate unintended con-
sequences of mandating training. Careful consideration should be given to the content,
funding, length, and provider of the training program.
Citizens
Board members reported that citizens must be educated to make informed deci-
sions when voting for board members. Citizens should educate themselves on current
educational trends and acquaint themselves with their district’s board of education. Citi-
zens should make informed choices when electing trustees.
Board members and superintendents reported that, although board meetings and
workshops are open to the public, there is low participation by stakeholders. In order for
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 103
citizens to make informed decisions, they should attend board meetings and other events
open to the public to be more informed and involved.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the results of this study, there are many variations for future research.
Future research should include a larger population sample. For a study like this, it would
be beneficial to include statewide data without strict selection criteria. High-performing,
average-performing, and underperforming districts should be included, especially
because the results could lead to mandated training for California board members.
Future research should examine how board member training affects the effective-
ness of a district. A study could evaluate board performance by analyzing the board
members’ interaction among themselves, with the superintendent, and with the com-
munity. Such a quantitative or qualitative study should include data from a wide group of
stakeholders, including but not limited to parents, students, staff, and other citizens in the
district.
Trained board members tend to exhibit characteristics of effective governance. A
more complex study could analyze the impact of training and compare two districts to
determine whether there is a correlation between a trained board and a nontrained board,
and the repercussions on student achievement.
Future research could include trained board members and nontrained board
members. It would be worthwhile to determine the correlation between these two groups
and their behaviors related to effective governance practices.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 104
Future research could compare states that mandate training with states that do not
do so. As reported by Roberts and Sampson (2011), states that mandated training
received a higher grade than those that did not mandate training. Future studies could
determine the types of relationships between board member training and student
achievement.
Future research could study the origins of board members’ motivation to partici-
pate in training. The field would benefit from a study that defines board members’ moti-
vation. In turn, if training is mandated, the field would benefit from knowing how to
make training more appealing so that this task does not become another chore but is seen
as valuable to board members in their practice.
Doctoral students from the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education should conduct a gap analysis to determine whether there are barriers within
the realms of knowledge, motivation, and organization that are preventing a school board
and superintendent team from displaying the behaviors and characteristics of effective
governance.
Conclusion
Board members have an extensive list of roles and responsibilities. Research
indicates that training is required for professional performance of the board (Bianchi,
2003; Brennan, 2011; Dillon, 2010; Land, 2002). This study found that board members
participated in the MIG training because they were self-motivated, but there are several
accessibility issues that CSBA needs to address in order to promote more participation
throughout California. Trained board members exhibited the traits of effective
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 105
governance because they were more mindful of their roles and responsibilities than those
who had not been trained. Board members displayed better collaboration skills, were
better at having one unified voice, and made more informed decisions by utilizing student
data. However, though training strongly improved school board performance, trustees
who participated in this study did not agree that training should be mandated, but rather
highly recommended, especially for newly elected board members.
Another key component of a successful district is the superintendent. The role of
the superintendent becomes even more pivotal when promoting a culture of learning that
encourages board members to commit to professional development opportunities. The
community (i.e. parents and residents within district boundaries) also has important
responsibilities, such as learning about the board and each trustee, and becoming more
involved with the school district. The community can be more involved by attending
board meetings and other public events.
This study revealed that board members who commit to ongoing learning and
professional development allow for a sound school board that exhibits the characteristics
of effective governance. Ultimately, the work of effective governance teams will result
in districts that operate more smoothly, which is vital for student achievement.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 106
References
Accountability. (2004, August 3). Education Week. Retrieved from http://www
.edweek.org/ew/issues/accountability/
Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature. Ontario, Canada: International Centre for Educational Change, Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. D. (2002). Boards of education: The need for effective
leadership. Journal of the Agency for Instructional Technology, 11(4), 1-3.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Berry, C., & Howell, W. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking retro-
spective voting. Journal of Politics, 69, 844-858.
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast:
Emerging Issues in Public Education, 1(3), 1-4.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Bracey, G. W., & Resnick, M. A. (1998). Raising the bar: A school board primer on
student achievement. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Brennan, N. (2011). Governance matters: Applying principles of good governance in a
school board context. In H. O’Sullivan & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Leading and
managing schools (pp. 24-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 107
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. H. (2002). Effective best practices for school
boards: Linking local governance with student academic success (Technical
Report #2002-13). El Paso, TX: University of Texas, Institute for Policy and Eco-
nomic Development.
Brewer, D., & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the “crazy quilt”: Educational governance in
California. Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/STUDIES/
08-Brewer/8-Brewer(3-07).pdf
California Department of Education. (2012). Largest and smallest public school districts.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceflargesmalldist.asp
California School Boards Association. (2005). CSBA effective governance system. Re-
trieved from http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/
MastersInGovernance/~/media/C5F8D3951BE94B43B444BF5876A7CEF4.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and
function of California’s school boards. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California School Boards Association. (2010). Masters in Governance. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/
MastersInGovernance.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2012a). About CSBA. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/en/AboutCSBA.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2012b). Masters in Governance. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/MastersInGovernanc
e.aspx
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 108
California School Boards Association. (2012c). Program information. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/~/~/link.aspx?_id=5DED5209D0524D97ACF9531457C352
DA&_z=z
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in
the 21st century. The Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391-395.
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., &
Usdan, M. D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership.
Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Center for Public Education. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards.
Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-
education/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards
Crane, E. (2005). The effective school board. District Administration, 41(1), 60.
Danzberger, J. P. (1992). School boards: A troubled American institution. Facing the
Challenge: The Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on School
Governance, 19-24.
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local
school boards. The Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 367-373.
Danzberger, J. P. (1998). School boards: Partners in policy. In R. R. Spillane & P.
Regnier (Eds.), The superintendent of the future: Strategy and action for achiev-
ing academic excellence (pp. 191-218). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 109
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., &
Usdan, M. D. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team.
The Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 53-59.
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The
future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191-223).
Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Dillon, N. (2010). The value of training. American School Board Journal, 197(7), 14-19.
EducationWeek.org. (2011). Report awards state grades for education performance,
policy: Nation earns a D-plus on achievement, some movement seen on reform
initiatives despite recession. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/
qc/2011/QualityCounts2011_PressRelease.pdf
EducationWeek.org. (2012). Report awards grades for education performance, policy:
Nation earns a C, Maryland ranks first for fourth straight year. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/media/qualitycounts2012_release.pdf
EducationWeek.org. (2013). State report cards, 2013. Retrieved from http://www
.edweek.org/ew/qc/2013/state_report_cards.html
Ehrensal, P. A., & First, P. F. (2008). Balancing public voice and professional power. In
B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education pol-
itics and policy (pp. 73-88). New York, NY: Routledge.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 110
French, P. E., Peevely, G. L, & Stanley, R. E. (2008). Measuring perceived school board
effectiveness in Tennessee: The latest survey results. International Journal of
Public Administration, 31(2), 211-243.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public
organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Admin-
istration Research and Theory, 20, 601-627. doi:10.1093/jopart/mup043
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004, Spring/Summer). Cracking the code of
accountability. Urban Education: The Magazine of the USC Rossier School of
Education, 17-19.
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century. Washington, DC:
National School Boards Association.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., & Campbell, C. (2002). Big city school boards: Problems
and options. Washington, DC: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Hopkins, M., O’Neil, D., & Williams, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence and board gov-
ernance: Leadership lessons from the public sector. Journal of Managerial Psy-
chology, 22, 683-700.
Johnson, P. A. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a-changin’. Journal
of Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1-20. doi:10.1177/
1555458911413887
Kansas Association of School Boards. (2011). So you want to be a school board member:
2011 guide for school board candidates. Topeka, KS: Author.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 111
Kolb, R. F., & Strauss, R. P. (1999). State laws governing school board ethics. Pitts-
burgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in rela-
tion to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72,
229. doi:10.3102/00346543072002229
Lashway, L. (2002). The role of the superintendent in an age of accountability. Retrieved
from file:///D|digests/digest161.html
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27-42.
National School Boards Association. (2012a). About the National School Boards Associ-
ation (NSBA). Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/About
National School Boards Association. (2012b). Mandated training for school board
members. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2012c). Why school boards: Five reasons for local
control of public education. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-
Leadership/Governance/WhySchoolBoards/WhySchoolBoards.txt
Newton, P. M., & Sackney, L. (2005). Group knowledge and group knowledge processes
in school board decision making. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 434-457.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 112
Petronis, J. (1996). Mandatory school board training: An idea whose time has come?
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED400625.pdf
Pew Center on the States. (2010). Report card grades states on education performance,
policy; nation scores high on standards policies, but struggles to provide oppor-
tunities to succeed. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/
QualityCounts2010_PressRelease.pdf
Picus, L. O. (2000). Setting budget priorities. School spending 2000: Investing in learn-
ing. Retrieved from http://www.asbj.com/schoolspending/resourcespicus.html
Quigley, D. D. (2008). Teaching school boards about leadership and strategic policy-
making: The Texas Institute Training and lessons in reform governance. Redondo
Beach, CA: The Texas Institute Evaluation Team, Evaluation & Research
Services.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and
tomorrow’s promise. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Rice, R., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., . . .
Weathersby, J. (2000). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board/superintendent
team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achieve-
ment. Duquesne, IA: Iowa Association of School Boards.
Roberts, K. L., & Sampson, P. M. (2011). School board member professional develop-
ment and effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational
Management, 25, 701-713.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 113
Schmidt, P. (1992). Boards of contention: “Minimal” training may not fit boards’ needs.
Education Week, 11(32), 19-21.
Sheppard, B., Brown, J., & Dibbon, D. (2009). School district leadership matters. Studies
in Educational Leadership, Vol. 8. Available from http://www.springer.com/
education+%26+language/book/978-1-4020-9746-1
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The
quest to define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University,
Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Usdan, M. D. (2005). A story of school governance. American School Board Journal, 4,
32.
Usdan, M. D. (2010). School boards: A neglected institution in an era of school reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 8-11.
WestEd. (2001). Leading in difficult times: Are urban school boards up to the task?
Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/pt-03-01.pdf
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd
ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 114
Appendix A
MIG Alignment to Theoretical Frameworks
MIG Training
Modules (CSBA,
2010)
Four Leadership
Frames for Effective
Leadership (Bolman
& Deal, 2008)
Professional
Governance
Standards (CSBA,
2007)
Key Areas of Board
Performance
(Delagardelle, 2008)
Policy and Judicial
Review
School Finance
Structural Frame:
Rules, policies,
and procedures
Hierarchical
structures with a
specified divi-
sion of labor
Govern within
board-adopted
policies and
procedures
Operate openly
with trust and
integrity
Creating awareness
of the need to
improve
Deliberative policy
development
Human Resources
Student Learning
and Achievement
Human Resource
Frame:
Productive work-
ing conditions
Support and guid-
ance
District focus
on student
achievement
Periodically
evaluate its
own effective-
ness
Providing ongoing
support for quality
professional
development
Demonstrating
commitment and
willingness to
learn
Foundations of Ef-
fective Govern-
ance
Collective Bargain-
ing
Governance Inte-
gration
Political Frame:
Negotiation and
diplomacy
Distributive
leadership
Persuasion and
negotiation
Govern in a
dignified and
professional
manner
Take collective
responsibility
for the board’s
performance
Supporting and
connecting with
districtwide
leadership
Applying pressure
for accountability
Setting Direction
Community Rela-
tions
Advocacy
Symbolic Frame:
Rituals, stories,
ceremonies, tra-
ditions
Vision
Respect
Communicate a
common
vision
Ensure oppor-
tunities for
diverse view-
points from the
school com-
munity
Connecting with
the community
and building the
public will to
improve achieve-
ment
Based on Masters in Governance, by California School Boards Association, 2010,
retrieved from http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/
MastersInGovernance.aspx; Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership
(4th ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; School Board Leadership: The Role and
Function of California’s School Boards, by California School Boards Association, 2007,
retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk
.ashx; “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of School Board Leadership in the
Improvement of Student Achievement,” by M. Delagardelle, 2008, in T. Alsbury (Ed.),
The Future of School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation (pp. 191–224), Blue
Ridge, PA: Rowman & Littlefield. MIG = Masters in Governance.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 115
Appendix B
MIG Observation Protocol
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 116
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 117
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 118
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 119
Appendix C
Board Member and Superintendent Surveys
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 120
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 121
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 122
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 123
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 124
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 125
Appendix D
Alignment of Research Questions to Survey, Interview, and MIGOP
Research Question # 1
What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school
board training program?
Survey Questions
7. I encourage fellow school board members to participate in the MIG training as a means
of professional development.
9. Our school board culture highly encourages participation in the MIG training.
16. A complete, online MIG certification program would encourage more school board
members to participate.
19. I would strongly recommend the MIG training to fellow school board members.
21. The primary factor influencing my participation in the MIG program was 1) School
board expectation; 2) Self-motivation; 3) Encourage by board members; 4) Other.
22. The current cost of the MIG training program impedes school board members from
participating.
23. If the cost of the MIG training program was subsidized or free, more school board
members would participate.
Interview Questions
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school board
training program?
7. Is receiving the MIG training a cultural expectation in your school district?
8. Have you recommended the MIG training to non-trained board members? What was
their response?
13. Did you feel any pressure to complete the MIG training?
16. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
For example, what would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?
MIG Observation Protocol
2. Student learning is the focus of the training.
5. Teaches governance teams to govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating
everyone with civility and respect.
7. Teaches governance teams the importance of taking collective responsibility for their
performance.
8. Teaches governance teams to periodically evaluate its own effectiveness.
11. Activities to foster teamwork, trust, and cooperation.
12. Education concepts, acronyms, and teams are presented and explained in a manner
that is comprehensible to all regardless of their background in education.
13. Participants are engaged and focused on presentations, activities, and discussions.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 126
Research Question # 2
Does the Masters in Governance training encourage and equip school board
members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
Survey Questions
1. As a result of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training, my focus on student
achievement has increased during school board meetings.
2. As a result of the MIG training, I encourage fellow school board members to con-
sistently use data to make informed decisions regarding student achievement.
3. As a result of the MIG training, I actively engage the community utilizing a variety of
communication methods (email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
4. As a result of the MIG training, I understand the importance of aligning the decision-
making process of the district’s vision and goals.
5. As a result of the MIG training, I have developed a more collaborative relationship
with fellow school board members.
6. As a result of the MIG training, my ability to constructively accept the majority deci-
sion, even if I hold the minority view, has increased.
8. Superintendents should be required to participate in the MIG training.
10. The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and responsibilities as a
school board member and those of the superintendent.
11. All school board members would benefit from completing the MIG training.
12. The MIG training has positively impacted my ability to govern effectively.
13. The MIG training has allowed me to contribute to the effectiveness of our school
board meetings.
17. Please rank the following nine MIG modules in order of relevance to your role as a
school board member.
18. Please rank the following characteristics for effective governance (8 characteristics).
20. The MIG training helps me to differentiate between policy and management leader-
ship.
Interview Questions
5. What was the most beneficial aspect of the MIG training?
6. How could the MIG be improved in order to enable school board members to govern
more effectively?
9. Has the MIG training impacted the decision-making and governance practices in your
school district?
10. Which of the MIG modules was the most effective and why?
11. Which MIG module failed to meet your expectations, if any?
12. Has the MIG training affected the way your board members govern? If so, please
explain.
14. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process
(teamwork) in your district?
15. What indicators suggest that the MIG training was effective or ineffective?
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 127
MIG Observation Protocol
1. Roles and responsibilities of governance teams are clearly defined.
2. Student learning is the focus of the training.
3. Teaches strategies to develop and/or keep focus on common vision.
4. Teaches strategies for governance teams to operate openly, with trust and integrity.
5. Teaches governance teams to govern in a dignified and professional manner, treating
everyone with civility and respect.
7. Teaches governance teams the importance of taking collective responsibility for their
performance.
8. Teaches governance teams to periodically evaluate its own effectiveness.
9. Ensures opportunities for the discussion of a diverse range of views and opinions.
10. Stresses the importance of community contributions.
11. Activities to foster teamwork, trust, and cooperation.
Research Question # 3
In what ways could mandating the Masters in Governance training impact school
board governance?
Survey Questions
10. The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and responsibilities as a
school board member and those of the superintendent.
11. All school board members would benefit from completing the MIG training.
14. Our school board would benefit from training in the following three areas: (open-
ended).
15. School board training is mandated in 20 states. The MIG training should be mandated
in California.
Interview Questions
2. Should school board training be a California mandate?
3. What potential conflicts, if any, would you anticipate with such a mandate?
16. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
For example, what would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?
17. What potential fiscal impact would mandating training have on your district?
MIG Observation Protocol
1. Roles and responsibilities of governance teams are clearly defined.
3. Teaches strategies to develop and/or keep focus on common vision.
4. Teaches strategies for governance teams to operate openly, with trust and integrity.
6. Teaches the importance of governing within board adopted policies, procedures, and
structures.
7. Teaches governance teams the importance of taking collective responsibility for their
performance.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 128
8. Teaches governance teams to periodically evaluate its own effectiveness.
9. Ensures opportunities for the discussion of a diverse range of views and opinions.
10. Stresses the importance of community contributions.
Interview Questions not aligned to RQs
4. Have you been trained using all nine modules of the MIG? If not, why?
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 129
Appendix E
Recruitment Letters: Superintendent and School Board
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 superintendents 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 Asso-
ciation. 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. Infor-
mation obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance,
for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Vivian Choi Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
[phone number] ###
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
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 130
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 Cali-
fornia 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 infor-
mation 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. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anony-
mous by the researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a
manner that will ensure that no individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
_________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in
advance, for your time and assistance.
Respectfully,
Vivian Choi Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
[phone number] ###
I have read this board member recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to
ask questions. I consent to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits
______________________________________________________________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 131
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE ON
SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at the Uni-
versity of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one of the six south-
ern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in
completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. It is recommended
that you read the information below prior to consenting to participate in this study.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association (CSBA)-
Masters in Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to best practices for
effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and
advancements in technology, school board members need to understand their roles and responsi-
bilities in order to create an effective district environment. School board members must
demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regarding
student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of
school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board
professional growth are vital characteristics for success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists
of 21 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective governance.
You may be asked to participate in a 30- to 60-minute interview at a time and place convenient to
you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission and include
questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the interview without
audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.
POTENTIAL RISKS`
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts that you
may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the question.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 132
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participation may
add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG training on effec-
tive governance practices. These findings will benefit school board members who strive to
improve conditions that lead to effective governance.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and confidential-
ity. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only the researcher and
the dissertation committee members will have access to the data associated with this study. The
data will be stored in a secure location in the investigator’s office and a password protected com-
puter.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern Califor-
nia’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any time
without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want
to answer and still remain in the study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Univer-
sity Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272 or uprib@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Vivian Choi
at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, faculty supervisor, at mescalan@usc.edu.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS 133
Appendix G
Board Member and Superintendent 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 mem-
bers/superintendents?
15. What would it take to make all school board members/superintendents want to be
trained?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
School board members have a complex list of roles and responsibilities to fulfill individually and as a governance team. The purpose of this study was to determine what factors impacted the decision of school board members to participate in the Masters in Governance (MIG) training offered by the California School Boards Association (CSBA), whether the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and how the MIG could impact school board governance if mandated. Eighty-six of 226 trustees and 61 of 100 superintendents from six southern California counties responded to surveys. The next phase was conducting interviews with two board members and their respective superintendents. Findings suggested that even though training was a cultural expectation and board members encouraged one another to participate, ultimately self-motivation led board members to take the MIG training. Second, those who participated in training were more likely to exhibit the characteristics of an effective leader because the training clarified their roles and responsibilities. Third, whereas those who participated valued the MIG training, they did not believe that training for board members should be mandated
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
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 program on California school board governance
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
The significant correlation between school board member training and effective school governance
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
Influence of Masters in Governance training on California K-12 school boards
Asset Metadata
Creator
Choi, Vivian J.
(author)
Core Title
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/14/2013
Defense Date
02/22/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
California School Boards Association,effective school boards,mandatory training,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board governance,school board training
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Doll, Michele (
committee member
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
)
Creator Email
vivian.choi@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-225252
Unique identifier
UC11294036
Identifier
usctheses-c3-225252 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChoiVivian-1472.pdf
Dmrecord
225252
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Choi, Vivian J.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
California School Boards Association
effective school boards
mandatory training
Masters in governance
school board governance
school board training