University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 1
IMPACT OF MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE TRAINING ON SCHOOL
BOARD MEMBER PRACTICE
by
Marco A. Nava
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 Marco A. Nava
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 2
Dedication
“Days unfold to what’s untold, and every budding rose tells its story; and to
smell the rose we much touch the prickly thorns” (personal communication, Dr. Imelda
L. Nava, 1990).
I dedicate this work to my wife, Imelda Nava, who rescued me from a life of
prickly thorns and taught me to appreciate the roses through patience, understanding,
and compassion. I am grateful for her unconditional love and inspiration. I also dedi-
cate this dissertation to our children, Román and Rubén, and sincerely hope that this
inspires them to be passionate in the pursuit of their dreams and keeps their inquisitive
nature alive. This work honors my courageous parents, Mardonio and Heriberta Nava,
who sacrificed so much leaving behind their parents and relatives in Mexico in the hope
of affording their children the opportunity of a high-quality life in the United States.
Their sacrifice was not in vain. I thank siblings, Edilberto, Luz Maria, Osvaldo, and
Lillian, for their continued support. I sincerely hope that this work inspires all of our
children to do great things. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my cousin Bernie, my
uncle Cerillo, and all of my extended family from Colmeneros, Guerrero, México, who
have enriched my life.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 3
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the people who provided support, guidance, and
encouragement throughout the process of completing this dissertation. I thank Dr.
Michael Escalante, my dissertation chair, for accepting me into his thematic dissertation
group. After being on leave for several years, I wondered if I would return to the Uni-
versity of Southern California (USC) to complete the doctorate. Dr. Escalante allowed
me to join his group and provided much need guidance and assistance to ensure that I
was successful in my endeavor. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee
members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Michele Doll, for their time commitment and
recommendations to strengthen my study.
My friends, colleagues, and students provided mental and moral support
throughout this process. I appreciate the encouragement I received from colleagues
throughout the Los Angeles Unified School District, especially at Annandale Elemen-
tary, whose words inspired me to reach this accomplishment. I thank Dr. Frederick
Freking for recommending me to Dr. Escalante’s group; my friends in South Pasadena
for cooking dinner, supplying wine, and supporting me in any way they could; my USC
dissertation group—Vivian Choi, Rebecca Gogel, Rocky Murray, Issaic Gates, Sergio
Canal, Kristina Turley, Letitia Bradley, and especially team MLM, Mercedes Gomez
and Lena Richter.
With great appreciation, I thank Ms. Nancy Greenberg, my fourth- and fifth-
grade teacher, who inspired me to look and think beyond the invisible inner-city walls
and taught me to persevere.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 4
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family for their patience and under-
standing throughout this process. With deep gratitude and appreciation, I thank my
wife, Dr. Imelda Nava; my two sons, Román and Rubén; and my parents, siblings,
inlaws, and all of my extended family for their constant support and encouragement.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 11
Background of the Problem 13
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 15
Theoretical Frameworks 15
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations 16
Delimitations 17
Definitions 18
Academic Performance Index (API) 18
CSBA 18
Four-Frame Model 18
Governance Team 18
Professional Growth Standards 18
School Boards 19
Organization of the Study 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
Theoretical Framework 21
Four Frames of Leadership and Management Model 21
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards 26
The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance 27
History and Context 28
Indicators of Effective School Boards 30
Impact on Student Achievement 36
School Board Training 39
Summary 44
Chapter 3: Methodology 46
Population and Sample 50
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 6
Instrumentation 51
Data Collection Procedures 54
Data Analysis 56
Ethical Considerations 56
Summary 57
Chapter 4: Research Results 58
Participants 59
Survey Participants 60
Interview Participants 61
Results for Research Question 1 62
Motivating Factors 63
Participation in MIG Training 67
Summary of Results for Research Question 1 70
Results for Research Question 2 71
Focus on Student Achievement 72
The Unified Board Team 76
Roles and Responsibilities, Protocols, and Procedures 79
Summary of Results for Research Question 2 82
Results for Research Question 3 83
MIG Training Mandate 84
Deterrents to Mandating MIG 87
Summary of Results for Research Question 3 89
Chapter Summary 90
Chapter 5: Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations 92
Summary of Findings 94
Limitations 97
Implications for Practice 97
Recommendations for Future Research 99
Conclusions 99
References 101
Appendices
Appendix A: School Board Member Survey 109
Appendix B: Superintendent Survey 112
Appendix C: Interview Guide: Superintendent 115
Appendix D: Interview Guide: School Board Member 117
Appendix E: MIG Observation Protocol 119
Appendix F: Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and MIG
Observation Protocol 123
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 7
Appendix G: Research Questions/Survey/Interview/MIGOP Protocol
Grid 124
Appendix H: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 128
Appendix I: School Board Member Recruitment Letter 129
Appendix J: Information Letter: Superintendent 130
Appendix K: Information Letter: School Board Member 133
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 8
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Identifying the Primary Influence for Their Masters in Governance
Participation 64
Table 2: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Identifying Strong Recommendation for Masters in Governance
(MIG) Participation 66
Table 3: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Identifying That Full Online Masters in Governance (MIG)
Certification Would Increase Participation 71
Table 4: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Identifying Impact That Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Had on Board Members’ Governance Practice 73
Table 5: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Identifying Impact That Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Had
on Increasing Focus on Student Achievement During Board Meetings 74
Table 6: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Prioritizing the Importance of Effective Governance Characteristics 77
Table 7: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Regarding Belief That Masters in Governance (MIG) Training
Provides a Clearer Understanding of Board Members’ and
Superintendent’s Roles and Responsibilities 80
Table 8: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Regarding Recommendations for Board Training (Open-Ended
Question) 82
Table 9: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Regarding Making Masters in Governance (MIG) Training a
California Mandate 85
Table 10: Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members
Regarding Cost of Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Being
an Impediment to Participation 89
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model for effective leadership 22
Figure 2: Comparison of theoretical frameworks used 43
Figure 3: Framework alignment: Four-frames model, Professional
Governance Standards, and Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of
Board Performance 49
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 10
Abstract
This study used best practices identified in the relevant literature as a means to under-
stand effective school board governance. The purpose of this qualitative study was to
determine whether Masters in Governance (MIG) training provided by the California
School Boards Association (CSBA) impacted school board member governance prac-
tices. With increased public scrutiny and accountability, school board members need to
understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an effective learning envi-
ronment. Three research questions guided this work: (a) what factors impacted the
decision of school board members to complete the MIG training program, (b) whether
the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behav-
iors of effective governance, and (c) in what ways mandating the MIG training could
impact school board governance. The research team surveyed and interviewed school
board members and superintendents across 6 southern California counties and included
observations of MIG training modules. Targeted for participation were school districts
with a student enrollment between 2,000 and 50,000, an API score of 800 or higher or
an increase of 21 API points in previous 3 years, and having at least 1 fully MIG trained
school board member. General findings included MIG adjustments to increase partici-
pation; the fact that MIG directly impacts effective governance practices; and if man-
dated, MIG training should be subsidized. Implications for practice include suggested
CSBA modifications of MIG training, the fact that MIG training enhances school board
member practice and effective governance, and mandating MIG training.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 11
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
School boards are the locally elected governing bodies that oversee public
schools. School boards have great responsibility, as they must manage the district
budget, appoint the superintendent and hire key members of central office personnel,
adopt and implement educational initiatives including state and federal policies, create
the district’s vision and mission, monitor progress and adapt if needed, provide profes-
sional development, and create a climate where educational excellence can be attained
(Johnson, 2011). School boards represent their local communities’ beliefs and values
when it comes to education and, by default, are the strong advocates for their students
(National School Boards Association [NSBA], n.d.). They are also accountable to the
communities they serve and must hold open meetings, understand legal mandates, avoid
abusing power, and assess their own effectiveness (Allen & Mintrom, 2010). The
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], Institute of Education Sciences, 2012)
estimated that school districts in the United States had a total expenditure of $596.6
billion during the 2007–2008 school year. Given the enormous amount of money
invested in public education, the responsibility on school boards to ensure that the
money is spent wisely is a huge one (NSBA, n.d.).
Despite the significant amount of responsibility, citizens across the country
regularly run for school board membership, most for little or no compensation and often
self-funding their own election campaign (Hess, 2002). According to Nylander (2007),
in any given year, approximately 13% of school board members are in their 1st year of
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 12
service. It is estimated that an additional 38% of school board members have been
serving 1-4 years (Nylander, 2007). In addition to newness to the position, the vast
majority of school board members have no background in education other than their
own or their children’s experiences with public schools (Bianchi, 2003; Hess, 2010;
Roberts & Sampson, 2011), yet they are responsible for ensuring the success of the
students they serve. This issue highlights the importance of school board governance
training.
School board training has been mandated in 23 states with varying degrees of
required hours, topics, and providers (Bianchi, 2003; NSBA, 2012). In California,
school board training is a voluntary process that is encouraged but not mandated. The
California School Boards Association (CSBA; 2007) provides professional develop-
ment opportunities to new and experienced school board members. The CSBA (2010)
has developed a specialized school board training program called Masters in Gover-
nance (MIG).
MIG is a leadership development program that works toward building profes-
sional relationships between governance teams, specifically school board members and
superintendents. The MIG program provides 60 hours of professional development that
must be completed within 2 years of initial enrollment. Training topics include effec-
tive governance practices, goal setting, managing human resources, setting policies,
student achievement, school finance, collective bargaining, community relations, and
governance integration (CSBA, 2010).
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 13
The success of a school board depends greatly on its effectiveness in carrying
out its responsibilities, its relationship with the superintendent and community, and its
ability to implement district, state, and federal mandates (Hatrick, 2010). School board
training can provide participants with the requisite knowledge regarding current leader-
ship practices, education trends, school finance, and managing human resources. This
study seeks to explore whether a connection exists between school board training and
effective governance. The study will examine the perceived impact that MIG training
has on school board members and their governance teams. For California, it can influ-
ence whether school board training remains a voluntary practice or becomes mandated.
Background of the Problem
There is research to support claims that formal school board training can im-
prove effectiveness. With high turnover rates in membership, school board training can
quickly introduce new members to their governance responsibilities that would other-
wise take up to 1 year to learn through on-the-job experience (Bianchi, 2003; Dillon,
2010). Districts organization structures are highly complex and overlap with state and
federal structures. School board training can help members navigate this complex
structure through management and leadership training (Brewer & Smith, 2008). Within
organizations, some degree of conflict is inherent and, if not properly managed, could
have detrimental effects on the organization (Grissom, 2009). Formal training can
equip school board members with the knowledge necessary to identify, manage, and
mitigate conflict to ensure success in the school districts they manage (CSBA, 2007).
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 14
Some literature suggests that training is needed for school board members, but
the findings are not conclusive as they measure personal dispositions and beliefs (Rob-
erts & Sampson, 2011). While is it important for governance teams to have positive,
professional interactions, school site administrators and teachers have a greater impact
on student achievement than school board members (Petersen, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
In the highly complex and rapidly changing world of public education, never
before has quality school board leadership been more necessary. With increased public
scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and advancements in technology, school
board members need to understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an
effective district environment (Johnson, 2011). School board members must demon-
strate professionalism and be knowledgeable to make informed policy decisions regard-
ing student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities (CSBA,
2007). Because the duties of school board leadership are so diverse, collaboration,
communication, and ongoing school board professional growth are vital characteristics
for success (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the MIG training provided by
the CSBA impacts a school board’s ability to adhere to best practices for effective lead-
ership and governance. School districts where at least one board member had com-
pleted MIG training will be recruited. Participants will receive a survey consisting of 25
questions developed from the research questions. Participants will be asked to volun-
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 15
teer for the interview portion of the study with the intent of interviewing school board
member and superintendent pairs.
Research Questions
To examine the perceived impact that MIG training has on schools board mem-
bers’ daily practice, the following research questions were developed to guide the study:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
school board MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG program impact school board gover-
nance?
Theoretical Frameworks
Three theoretical frameworks served as the foundation for this study. Bolman
and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for effective leadership provides support in ana-
lyzing the leadership practices of effective school boards. The CSBA’s (2007) Profes-
sional Governance Standards, and The Lighthouse Inquiry project’s Key Areas of Board
Performance (Delagardelle, 2008) provide the lens to examine characteristics and be-
haviors that effective school boards practice in their governance of school districts.
Significance of the Study
School boards have a tremendous amount of responsibility in their stewardship
of local school districts as they oversee the education of over 52 million children, $600
billion in expenditures, and supervise 6 million employees on a national level (Hess &
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 16
Meeks, 2010). Not only are school boards responsible for managing district finances,
human capital, and facilities, but their decisions also directly impact the lives of the
students they serve. School boards are accountable to the communities they serve,
making success essential (Leithwood et al., 2008).
With accountability stakes so high, it is imperative for governing boards to
understand and engage in best practices. This study will provide school board members
and superintendents with a platform to voice their beliefs and opinions regarding the
effectiveness of the MIG training program. This study can be accessed by school board
members who wish to learn about effective practices prior to or without enrolling in
formal training programs, especially those new to school board membership.
The findings of this study should add to the current literature base and may have
a direct impact on how training programs are structured or restructured, which concepts
are included in training, and possibly lead to state-mandated training for school board
members. School boards face increased and challenging demands to educate students in
preparation for highly technical jobs and global competition. This study examines
school board members’ dispositions about the impact of the MIG training on school
board member effectiveness.
Limitations
Geographically, California is a large state. Participation was limited by the large
distances between the northern and southern areas of the state and the location and con-
straints of the 10-member University of Southern California (USC) research team. Only
six counties in southern California are included in this work. The collected data were
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 17
self-reported by participants. Accuracy of the data was contingent on the honesty and
accuracy of responses of participants. Caution had to be exercised when drawing con-
clusions from survey and interview data. Participation in this study was on a voluntary
basis. Although several recruitment efforts were made to increase participation rates,
not all of the targeted population participated in the study. The limited time frame of
the study also limited participation rates.
Delimitations
The targeted district sample size of 2,000-50,000 students represented typical
school districts in California but still left out the top 10 California school districts,
whose enrollment accounts for approximately 25% of the state’s student population.
The results of this study may not be easily generalized due to California’s highly diverse
population and district sizes. This research study focused only on southern California,
CSBA majority-trained school districts. California is a very large geographically and
has a highly diverse student population in regard to race and ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, and home language. Southern California school districts are not typical represen-
tations of other statewide districts. Individuals in nonmajority CSBA-trained school
districts were not interviewed. It is possible that school board members within these
districts also engaged in best practices, had received no training or alternative training,
and were still considered effective school board members. In addition to CSBA, there
are other organizations that provide California school board members with training that
were not included in this study.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 18
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions apply:
Academic Performance Index (API)
The API measures academic performance and growth for California public
students and students (California Department of Education [CDE], 2012).
CSBA
The CSBA (2010) is a member-driven association that supports school board
members, superintendents, and administrative staff through advocacy and professional
development.
Four-Frame Model
This model is Bolman and Deal’s (2008) theoretical framework for effective
leadership consists of the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame, and
symbolic frame.
Governance Team
The governance team consists of school board members and the superintendent,
who have the power to make decisions that will best serve the students they represent
(CSBA, 2007).
Professional Growth Standards
Eight principles of effective governance developed by CSBA with input from
school board members and superintendents throughout California (CSBA, 2007).
These eight principles are used as one of the theoretical frameworks for this study.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 19
School Boards
These are locally elected governing bodies that reflect communities’ beliefs and
values and are responsible for managing public schools and setting the standards for
student achievement (NSBA, n.d.).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized and presented through five chapters. Chapter 1 has
provide an introduction and overview of the research. The background, statement of the
problem, purpose, significance, and limitations are discussed. Included in Chapter 1
one were definitions of terms used throughout the research. Chapter 2 is a review of
literature synthesizing related literature associated with school board training. This
chapter provides a full discussion of the theoretical frameworks employed in this study,
history and context of school boards, indicators of school board effectiveness, and
school board training. Chapter 3 presents the methodology, a description of the sample
population and their recruitment, instrumentation, and an overview of data collection
procedures.
Chapter 4 summarizes the findings of the research data in relation to the research
questions. This chapter also includes insights about what the findings mean. Chapter 5
presents the summary of findings, conclusions, implications for practice, recommenda-
tions for further research, and a conclusion.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 20
Chapter 2
Literature Review
In the highly complex and rapidly changing world of public education, never
before has quality school board leadership been more necessary. With increased public
scrutiny, rising demands of accountability, and advancements in technology, school
board members need to understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an
effective district environment (Hess & Meeks, 2010). School board members must
demonstrate professionalism and the ability to make informed policy decisions regard-
ing student achievement, finance, litigation, human resources, and facilities (CSBA,
2007). Because the duties of school board members are so diverse, collaboration, com-
munication, and ongoing school board professional growth are vital characteristics for
success (Leithwood et al., 2008).
The aim of this case study was to determine whether a connection existed
between effective California school districts and a commitment to school board training,
specifically MIG training. Do effective schools boards engage in school board training?
If they do, what are the characteristics of the training? The theoretical frameworks used
to explain effective school board leadership and governance practices are Bolman and
Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for effective leadership, The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key
Areas of Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008), and the CSBA’s (2007) Professional
Governance Standards. These frameworks will guide the study and explore the mean-
ing of effective school board practices, characteristics, and behaviors. The review of
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 21
literature examines the history of school boards, indicators of effective school boards,
impact on student achievement, and generalized school board training composition.
Theoretical Framework
The three frameworks used to guide and direct this study highlight and define
effective leadership and governance practices. The four-frame model for effective
leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008) includes the structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic frames. The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance
(Delagardelle, 2008) identifies seven effective governance practices for school board
members. CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards outlines eight gover-
nance team practices that lead to effective governance.
Four Frames of Leadership and Management Model
There are over 14,000 school systems in the United States (Hess, 2002) serving
over 49 million public elementary and public school students (NCES, Institute of Edu-
cation Sciences, 2012). Each school system has a governing board responsible for the
education of its students and the perpetuity of democratic values (Allen & Mintrom,
2010). Given the immensity of this responsibility, it is important to study board mem-
ber leadership and governance practices. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frames model
was selected as one of this study’s theoretical frameworks because the four frames
connect directly to the leadership challenges that school board members face on a daily
basis when making important decisions that impact students’ lives. This section de-
scribes the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames as they apply to
school systems and school boards. Figure 1 illustrates the four frames and how they
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 22
interconnect (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Effective leaders and governance teams under-
stand the importance of knowing and practicing key elements of each frame in order to
improve success in their school systems (Simkins, 2005).
Figure 1. Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model for effective lead-
ership. Taken from Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice,
and Leadership (4th ed.), by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2008,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 23
The structural frame refers to an organization’s structure, policies, and proce-
dures (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The structural frame is the skeletal framework that
determines how an organization functions. It is the blueprint of expectations and behav-
iors for an organization’s constituencies. School districts are large structural systems
with rules, policies, and delineated practices that school board members cannot ignore
in their quest to improve organizational structures. The form of the structure is essential
to a school system’s success. One study found that school systems with tighter struc-
tures resulted in higher staff morale (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Achieving tighter struc-
tures takes time to develop, as leaders still have many other responsibilities such as
managing personnel issues, implementing and enforcing policies and procedures, over-
seeing curriculum, providing professional development, and engaging in collective
bargaining—all areas that demand a streamlined coherent process (Black, 2004; Hess,
2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
The human resource frame emphasizes the relationship between people and
organizations. Organizations need talented, enthusiastic, and energetic employees to
help the organization succeed; and people need the organizations that they serve to be
successful to guarantee continued employment. The core assumption of the human
resource frame is treating the workforce as an investment rather than a cost. It is impor-
tant for the needs of the organization and its people to be aligned to avoid conflict and
produce positive results (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Providing growth opportunities and support in order to develop human capital is
the domain of the human resource frame. Bolman and Deal (2008) wrote that
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 24
organizations can be energetic and mutually rewarding, thus necessitating the need to
focus and train people. The Hawthorne studies showed that people performed better at
work when they were being paid attention to (Gale, 2004). Paying attention to employ-
ees is important, but not sufficient. To truly motivate and maximize human capital,
leaders should invest in their employees’ goal setting, valuing their ideas and allowing
them to problem solve (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Dahlkemper, 2005).
The political frame views organizations as arenas where the political beliefs of
individuals and groups interact in dynamic and, at times, combative ways (Bolman &
Deal, 2008). Political decisions in school systems are made regarding scarce resources,
thus creating arenas for conflict among the various stakeholders that can be resolved
only through negotiation, bargaining, and diplomacy. Politically, school districts are
accountable not only to forces within the organization and its constituents, such as
students, parents, and teachers, but also to forces outside of the district such as state and
federal mandates (CDE, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under
Secretary, 2002). School boards, knowingly or unknowingly, manage these political
arenas on a daily basis, especially when making decisions regarding curriculum, staff-
ing, and budget, as these arenas fall within the political frame (Allen & Mintrom, 2010).
Within the political frame, public accountability is critical in order to gain and
maintain support from the local community, along with state and federal agencies.
Board members must demonstrate that their leadership has resulted in higher student
achievement, more effective teaching in the classroom, and appropriate budget manage-
ment (Leithwood et al., 2008; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). For school districts, budget
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 25
management has become increasingly important. In times of austere budget cuts, pro-
fessional development can save districts money in the long run. A study by Roberts and
Sampson (2011) noted that through specialized school board training, school board
members were more likely to make informed decisions and practice a higher degree of
collaboration with colleagues. Professional development protocols are deemed essen-
tial by the CSBA (2007) and the Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008) in building
rapport among board members and working toward a common vision and goals.
The symbolic frame focuses on the culture, rituals, and traditions of organiza-
tions. Several core assumptions of the symbolic frame are events are important because
of what they mean and not what happened. People interpret experiences differently; life
is uncertain; high levels of ambiguity undercut rationality. People create symbols to
anchor hope and faith in the face of uncertainty; and myths, rituals, ceremonies, and
stories help people find purpose (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In contrast to the other
frames, this is the forum in which vision and inspiration dominate.
While there is no leadership frame that is more effective than any other, leaders
should recognize their own strengths and weaknesses. Having a clear understanding of
the four leadership frames can assist leaders in using their strengths more productively
while improving areas where they may be lacking. Successful leaders understand the
power, structural, and human dynamics of educational organizations and use this knowl-
edge to their advantage (Mountford, 2004).
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 26
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards
The CSBA (2007) generated a list of the five most important responsibilities for
school board members: “(1) setting the direction for the community’s schools, (2)
establishing an effective and efficient structure for the school district, (3) providing
support, (4) ensuring accountability to the public, [and] (5) acting as community lead-
ers” (pp. 5-6). To guide and support school board members in their quest to reach these
governance goals, CSBA (2007) developed a list of effective practices known as the
Professional Governance Standards.
In order to adequately explore the governance aspect of effective school board
practices, this study uses the CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards as a
guide to explore the best practices of effective school boards. California school districts
are highly diverse and complex systems with equally varying governance structures
(Brewer & Smith, 2008). The Professional Governance Standards are fundamental
principles for effective school board governance and accountability that can be adapted
to suit the needs of individual districts. These standards have been adopted by hundreds
of school boards across the state of California. The eight Professional Governance
Standards for governance teams are as follows: (a) keeping student learning and
achievement as the primary focus, (b) communicating a common vision, (c) operating
with trust and integrity, (d) governing in a professional manner, (e) governing within
adopted policies and procedures, (f) taking collective responsibility for the its perfor-
mance, (g) evaluating their own effectiveness, and (h) allowing for a diverse range of
views in the community.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 27
While there is no ideal scripted model for school board governance because each
school district has its own set of unique circumstances, these Professional Governance
Standards (CSBA, 2007) shed light on effective board practices. The National School
Boards Association created a framework, The Key Work of School Boards Guidebook
(Gemberling, Smith, & Villani, 2009), which mirrors the best practices outlined in
CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards. NSBA identified eight areas to
focus on and guide school boards in their efforts to improve student achievement:
vision, standards, assessment, accountability, alignment, climate, collaboration and
community, engagement, and continuous improvement (Gemberling et al., 2009). One
problem with lists of governance standards produced by school board associations is
that they tend to be a compilation of practical advice with no follow-up (Hess & Meeks,
2010). In an effort to develop unity of purpose among governance teams, CSBA (2010)
offers a 60-hour MIG training program.
The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance
The Lighthouse Inquiry provides a lens for examining school board member
governance roles and responsibilities in creating effective school districts (Delagardelle,
2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry is a comprehensive, mixed-methods study sponsored by
the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) over a 10-year period (Rice et al., 2001).
The study was conducted in three phases and focused on the roles and responsibilities of
school boards in improving student achievement. The first stage of the study was con-
ducted from 1998 to 2000 on a small number of school districts in Georgia. In the
findings, school districts were categorized as “moving” or “stuck.” In moving school
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 28
districts, students were educated for a changing world—a belief that all students needed
a greater challenge, innovation, and flexibility. In contrast, in stuck districts, there was
a sense of satisfaction with the status quo, and change came as a result of state pressure
and a laissez-faire attitude toward decision making (Rice et al., 2001).
The second phase of the study took place from 2002 to 2007 and continued to
focus on the role of school board leadership on student achievement (Delagardelle,
2008). This study identified board members’ knowledge, beliefs, governance policies,
priorities, district and school culture, and classroom instruction as key linkages to
student learning outcomes. More importantly, The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle,
2008) identified seven key areas of board performance that are essential in improving
and sustaining high levels of student achievement: (a) “creating awareness of the need
to improve” (p. 215), (b) “applying pressure for accountability” (p. 216), (c) “demon-
strating commitment” (p. 217), (d) quality professional development, (e) “supporting
and connecting with districtwide leadership” (p. 218), (f) “deliberative policy develop-
ment” (p. 219), and (g) connecting with the community to improve student achieve-
ment. These key areas assist as one of three conceptual frameworks utilized in this
study.
History and Context
The history of school boards in the United States dates back to over 200 years
with the early beginnings in Massachusetts (Hess, 2002; Land, 2002). The manner in
which board members were then selected has changed dramatically in today’s election
methods, and so have the responsibility and accountability of board members
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 29
(Mountford, 2004). Initially, a group of selectmen were appointed with the responsibil-
ity to oversee and administer public schools. Later, laymen were elected by local wards,
but controversy soon followed as elected officials were accused of corruption and not
adequately educating students. As a result of increased local governance responsibili-
ties and a growing population, the separation of educational governance and local
governance was necessary (French, Peevely & Stanley, 2008; Land, 2002).
In another “first” for the state of Massachusetts, the first school board and super-
intendent office were established in 1837 (Danzberger, 1994). However, in order to
maintain local control over educational issues, local school boards were established. As
the population continued to grow, more school districts were created and funded by
local taxes—each with their own school boards (Land, 2002). Even though early school
board members lacked educational expertise, this model proved to be highly successful
and was quickly adopted throughout the rest of the original colonies. It is still the gov-
ernance prototype used by school boards and public schools today (Danzberger, 1994;
Land, 2002). A major difference is that today, accountability is much greater than
before, there is much higher degree of state and federal regulation, and the student pop-
ulation has grown exponentially—leading to the creation of many more school boards
(Brewer & Smith, 2008).
Today, it is estimated that there are approximately 95,000 school board members
representing over 15,000 school boards across the United States (Hess, 2002). In Cali-
fornia, over 5,000 school board members govern over 6,000,000 students in over 1,000
school districts with the most diverse student population in the United States (CSBA,
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 30
2007; Grissom 2007). Although school districts and policies have changed, the pressure
and responsibility of being a school board member have not. The vast majority of
school board members in California are locally elected (Howell, 2005). To be eligible
for school board office, one must be at least 18 years of age, a citizen of the state, a
resident of the school district, a registered voter, and not disqualified by the state from
holding a holding office (CSBA, 2007).
Despite all of the eligibility criteria and diversity of school districts, most school
boards have developed similar management characteristics, such as local control to
meet the needs of local population, separation of educational from general governance,
large school districts with small school boards, lay oversight with reliance on a profes-
sional superintendent, and democratic selection of members through at-large elections
(Land, 2002). Land pointed out that the greatest deviation from these characteristics
today is the number of state and federal mandates that have assumed greater governance
and control. Many states must follow the No Child Left Behind (NCLB; USDOE,
Office of the Under Secretary, 2002) mandates for greater school district accountability
in regard to standardized student achievement.
Indicators of Effective School Boards
As student achievement proficiency targets continue to climb, school districts
face higher and—at times—punitive, state and federal accountability mandates (CDE,
2012; USDOE, Office of the Under Secretary, 2002). In addition to the pressure of
meeting higher student achievement targets, school boards face pressure from the local
community, district personnel, charter school encroachment, legislative reform efforts,
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 31
budget issues, and a myriad of other concerns that can detract from the primary focus of
educating students (Hess, 2002; Johnson, 2011). Although school boards do not di-
rectly cause students to learn, there is growing evidence that effective board practices
directly create the conditions that impact a school’s student achievement performance in
a positive or negative manner (Anderson & Togneri, 2005; Delagardelle, 2008).
Land (2002) examined the characteristics that determine the effectiveness of
school boards their impact on student achievement. While successful school districts
rely on more than just their school boards, they are a central facet and critical to success.
Survey results indicated that more than half of the members of school boards tended to
be White, from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, and with higher levels of formal
education in the form of advanced degrees. Almost half of the members were in mana-
gerial positions, 13% owned their own business, and 44% were female. Interestingly,
43% of them reported that they did not have a child currently attending a public school.
It appears that board membership does not reflect the demographics of society as a
whole and possibly does not mirror the local population, either. However, even though
school boards may not mirror the populations they serve, they still engender public
support as they are in close proximity to its constituents (Land, 2002).
According to Land (2002), the challenges that school boards face today, as evi-
denced by surveys and data, are securing adequate funding sources, recruiting and main-
taining talented staff, state and federal interference, diverse student populations with
specialized needs, lack of confidence in public schools by local communities, and
pervasive social issues. In Land’s review of literature, five overarching characteristics
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 32
surfaced that are considered essential by researchers to improve student achievement
and bring about effective reforms: (a) student’s academic achievement; (b) policy, not
administration; (c) good relations; (d) effective performance; and (e) adequate evalua-
tion and preparation. The basic tenets of these five characteristics can be found embed-
ded within the Professional Governance Standards of the CSBA (2007) and the Key
Areas for Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008). Land warned that although these
are important characteristics that school boards should practice, boards must be careful
not to make assumptions based on opinions, personal experience, and anecdotal evi-
dence. Instead, school board members should make informed decisions based on data
and well-designed research studies.
Hess and Meeks (2010) found that nationally, school board members focus on
improving student achievement. One effective strategy employed by board members to
help them improve student achievement is through participation in training or profes-
sional development. In the study by Hess and Meeks, 66% of board members indicated
that they participated in state-level conferences and 63% reported that they participated
in seminars or workshops. State school board associations were the main providers of
professional development.
A study by Brewer and Smith (2007) found that effective governance was neces-
sary in meeting stated student outcome goals. A barrier to meeting effective governance
practices in California is that the state’s educational governance structure is highly
complex, as it is influenced many government organizations including schools, districts,
counties, and state and federal agencies. While school boards make decisions that
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 33
directly impact the district they govern, they must work within the constraints set by
outside government agencies on topics such as organizational structure, staffing, train-
ing, funding, curriculum, and testing accountability measures. Brewer and Smith
(2007) found that in most instances, decisions on these topics were made outside of the
district, thereby leading to frustration among board members who desired more local
control. Given the amount of control that external agencies yield over school districts
and the manner in which this control can frustrate school boards, it is important for
board members to rely on their leadership skills to positively impact areas that they do
control.
A literature review concerning successful school leadership (Leithwood et al.,
2008) found several characteristics, beliefs, and practices that school leaders employed
to positively impact student learning. The authors found that school leaders were
second only to teachers as an influence on student learning. School leaders wielded this
influence through their staffing decisions, implementation of local motivational initia-
tives, commitment to students, and the creation of positive working conditions (Leith-
wood et al., 2008). These findings echo CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance
Standards and Delagardelle’s (2008) Key Areas of Board Performance in that they focus
on student achievement and engender trust. Leithwood et al. (2008) also found that
successful school leaders have a common core of basic leadership practices, and the
manner in which they apply these practices makes a significant difference especially for
those who engage in distributive leadership. Effective leaders distribute leadership and
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 34
involve everyone in the educational process while developing leadership skills within
staff members at all levels.
A 2008 study by French et al. in Tennessee had similar findings to the study by
Leithwood et al. (2008). French et al. studied school board members’ perceptions
regarding their impact on student achievement. In high-performing districts, board
members and other leaders believed that they could elevate students’ achievement; they
practiced distributive leadership, focused on student achievement, understood their roles
and responsibilities and avoided micromanagement, developed trust between board
members and superintendents, evaluated staff fairly, engaged in short- and long-term
goal planning, and provided adequate funding (French et al., 2008; Grissom, 2009).
These school boards were effective in part because they had established a common
vision of educational excellence that CSBA (2007) and The Lighthouse Inquiry (Dela-
gardelle, 2008) identified as a best practice. Districts with higher quality governance
tended to have higher student achievement results as measured by test scores, gradua-
tion rates, and college attendance rates (French et al., 2008).
In a 2011 report from the Center for Public Education, Dervarics and O’Brien
studied school boards to determine what made them effective. They evaluated many
functions of boards including governance, policy formulation, communicating with
teachers, developing administrators, and public relations. Dervarics and O’Brien iden-
tified eight characteristics that bear a striking resemblance to those identified by the
CSBA (2007) and The Lighthouse Inquiry (Delagardelle, 2008). They found that effec-
tive school boards committed to a vision of high expectations for student achievement,
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 35
felt that their students could achieve at high levels, avoided micromanagement, focused
on policies to improve instruction, and had collaborative relationships with staff and the
community. Effective school boards monitored data to guide instruction, aligned pro-
fessional development to meet district goals, understood their roles and responsibilities,
and participated in training to improve their own practice. These attitudes and ap-
proaches are what separated high-achieving districts from low-performing ones (Der-
varics & O’Brien, 2011).
In summary, most of the studies linked effective school board leadership with
several key behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics. These attributes included adherence
to established structures such as rules, policies, procedures, and distributive governance
based on trust and integrity (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Delagardelle, 2008). Effective
school boards have invested in their employees by providing productive working condi-
tions, support, and guidance, access to high-quality professional development, growth
opportunities, and by demonstrating a willingness to learn (CSBA, 2007; Fusarelli,
Kowalski, & Petersen, 2011).
Successful school districts are those where the school board had a clear under-
standing of education politics, issues, and trends; understood its role and responsibility
in supporting the superintendent; engaged in distributive leadership; governed in a dig-
nified and professional manner, and connected positively with the community (Allen &
Mintrom, 2010; Bolman & Deal, 2008; CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008). Finally,
effective school boards understand the importance of symbolism in their organizations.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 36
They respect traditions, ceremonies, and welcome diverse viewpoints from the school
community (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Delagardelle, 2008).
Impact on Student Achievement
The impact that school boards have on student achievement is unclear and diffi-
cult to quantify because board members do not work directly with students (French et
al., 2008; Land, 2002). There are many factors that may have a greater and more direct
impact on student achievement, such as individual student motivation, social influences,
parents’ level of education and wealth, and individual teachers (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy,
2000). However, there is a growing body of research suggesting that school boards do
have a significant amount of impact on student achievement through their governance
and leadership practices (French et al., 2008; Hess & Meeks, 2010). To gain a clearer
understanding of school board impact on student achievement, it is important to focus
on a school boards’ ability to govern effectively and identify behaviors, beliefs, and
attitudes about their ability to improve student outcomes (Land, 2002). Even though
school boards do not engage students directly on a regular basis, they are responsible for
creating an environment where high levels of student achievement can exist (NSBA,
n.d.).
In order for board members to have an impact on student achievement, they
must develop their capabilities with each of the four leadership frames (Bolman & Deal,
2008). The four frames will help board members in that educating the whole child
requires board members to have a deep understanding of current educational issues;
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 37
knowledge of local, state, and federal mandates; and the ability to create an environment
in which students will thrive.
Unfortunately, the current environment in most public education systems is that
of high-stakes standardized testing where the instructional focus is on language arts and
mathematics at the expense of other content areas, such as science and social studies
(Fitchett & Heafner, 2010). The purpose of education has become to reach proficiency
levels in order to avoid punitive sanctions, as prescribed in the NCLB legislation
(USDOE, Office of the Under Secretary, 2002). Goodman and Zimmerman (2000)
went beyond defining student achievement as only the results of standardized tests.
Student achievement also includes higher level thinking, creativity and curiosity, voca-
tional skills, appreciation for the arts, citizenship, character development, healthy life-
styles, and tolerance of America’s diverse society. In order for school districts to help
students reach these lofty goals, they must be able to attract and retain qualified school
board members, create an atmosphere of public engagement, attract and prepare out-
standing educators to become outstanding superintendents, engage in continuous school
board–superintendent professional development and growth, and awaken teachers and
students to the changing demographics of American society. Each of these items covers
the four leadership and management frames without necessarily stressing the impor-
tance of one over the other.
The NSBA (2012) identified eight areas of focus that help guide school boards
in their efforts to improve student achievement. In The Key Work of School Boards,
effective school boards were identified as those that developed and communicated a
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 38
common vision, continuously looked to improve their practice, developed collaborative
partnerships, had a positive climate, maintained rigorous standards, and were account-
able for their actions. The author stated that the higher the integration of these focus
areas into daily practice by school boards, the better the results would be for all stake-
holders.
Waters and Marzano (2006) also discovered similar components in their study
of school board effectiveness. The authors found that school boards could positively
impact student achievement through focusing their efforts directly on students. These
districts set high goals for student learning, monitored district progress toward specified
goals, and targeted resources toward supporting student achievement goals. In districts
with high levels of student achievement, the school board is aligned with the superinten-
dent and supportive of non-negotiable goals of achievement and instruction.
In high-performing districts, micromanaging by the school board was eliminated
and support for the superintendent became the priority. In low-performing districts,
micromanagement by the board is one of the characteristics of poor governance. Other
elements of success were a clearly outlined purpose, shared vision, and board experi-
ence in strategic planning—all with the central goal to reach high levels student
achievement (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011).
With escalating public demands for high student achievement and greater ac-
countability, school boards can no longer give the impression that they do not directly
impact student achievement (Usdan, 2010). It is clear that school boards can positively
impact student learning through their leadership and governance practices. Effective
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 39
school boards have been those that were successful in creating a united vision for
success, that kept success for all students as the primary focus, that invested in the
human capital of the district, that understood roles and responsibilities, that provided
and participated in high-quality professional development, that evaluated their own
effectiveness and accepted responsibility, and that forged positive political alliances
with the community at large (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008). Leaders in high-
performing school districts share these common characteristics, beliefs, and attributes.
School Board Training
Public education funding is a 600 billion dollar investment in the United States
(NCES, Institute of Education Sciences, 2012). Of the thousands of school board
members responsible for overseeing this investment, up to 51% are in their first 4 years
of service (Nylander, 2007). In exchange for this huge investment of money, the Ameri-
can public has demanded higher student achievement results and greater accountability
for school districts and their governing boards (USDOE, Office of the Under Secretary ,
2002). Research has shown that school boards can create the necessary learning envi-
ronment to reach high levels of students achievement through their practice of effective
governance practices and beliefs (Delagardelle, 2008). Given that the majority of
school board members are locally elected lay people with little to no experience in
education, experts believe that formal school board training is a worthwhile endeavor
(Bianchi, 2003). Not all school board members avail themselves of training opportuni-
ties, as only 20 states mandate some form of training and some board members perceive
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 40
training as irrelevant or as having little impact on student achievement (Bianchi, 2003;
NSBA, 2012).
In the third study of the Lighthouse Project, LaMonte and Delagardelle (2009)
looked at factors that improve board leadership. One key aspect was professional de-
velopment. Effective school boards supported high-quality professional development
through funding and calendaring decisions (LaMonte & Delagardelle, 2009). Not only
did they make a commitment to support professional development, but they also
engaged in the learning process in order to make informed decisions about training
areas. A study by the Kentucky Office of Education Accountability (Seiler et al., 2010)
affirmed Lamonte and Delagardelle’s finding regarding the impact that school board
training has on board member effectiveness. Seventy-five percent of participating
school board members reported that they felt better prepared to carry out their duties as
a result of attending mandated training. The majority of school board members also
perceived training as helping them prepare to address student achievement issues (Seiler
et al., 2010).
Roberts and Sampson (2011) studied the effect of school board member profes-
sional development on student achievement. They compared the survey results from
state directors of education on their perceptions of the effectiveness of school board
training. The protocol was sent to 50 directors in states where training was either man-
dated or optional. Twenty-six directors participated, and their responses were compared
to Education Week’s 2009 rating of state education systems. Roberts and Sampson
found that in states where training was mandated, Education Week (“Quality Counts,”
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 41
2009) rated the education systems with grades of B or C, and grades of C or D for states
that did not mandate training. One important conclusion was that while the connection
between training and student achievement was not altogether conclusive, it did appear
that training benefitted the school system as a whole through more informed governance
that indirectly improves student learning.
California does not mandate school board training (NSBA, 2012). In 2012, Ed-
ucation Week gave the state’s education system a C with a score of 76.1, which was 0.4
below the U.S. average (“Quality Counts,” 2012). In the K-12 achievement portion,
California received a D grade. Many factors were considered in assigning these grades,
but it is clear that there is room for improvement.
To help school board members in their efforts to improve student achievement,
CSBA (2010) has developed the MIG training program. The MIG is a governance
leadership program for school board members and superintendents that provides 60
hours of instruction to its participants (CSBA, 2010). There are nine modules that
define the roles and responsibilities of school governance teams and provide them with
knowledge and skills to help keep their efforts focused on student achievement:
1. Foundations of Effective Governance—covers roles, responsibilities, trustee-
ship, and governance;
2. Setting Direction—helps board members understand the district’s vision,
beliefs, and strategic goals impacting the educational program;
3. Human Resources—covers appropriate working relationship with superinten-
dent and establishes a framework for personnel practices;
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 42
4. Policy and Judicial Review—develops skills in policy setting, communica-
tion, and evaluation to ensure effectiveness;
5. Student Learning and Achievement—sets expectations for student learning,
curriculum development, and assessment of student achievement;
6. School Finance—establishing budget priorities, budget development, imple-
mentation, monitoring, and auditing district finances;
7. Collective Bargaining—history and context of collective bargaining, negotia-
tions, methodologies and legalities;
8. Community Relations and Advocacy—building community support, dissemi-
nation of information, handling the media, and community concerns and interests; and
9. Governance Integration—integrates concepts of trusteeship and the gover-
nance team, including daily job responsibilities (CSBA, 2010).
These nine program modules cover a wide range of governance topics and are
aligned to Bolman and Deal’s (2008) leadership frames, CSBA’s (2007) Professional
Governance Standards, (2007), and The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board
Performance (Delagardelle, 2008). Figure 2 illustrates how each module is grounded
within each of the three theoretical frameworks used in this study.
Although school board training is not mandatory in most states, the literature
suggests that school board training is worth pursuing in order to create the conditions
that can positively student achievement (Bianchi, 2003; CSBA, 2007; Roberts &
Sampson, 2011). Considering the large investment of public funds into the public
school system and the lack of experience in the field of education by elected board
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 43
MIG Training
Modules (CSBA,
2010)
Four-Frame Model
for Effective Leader-
ship (Bolman &
Deal, 2008)
Professional Govern-
ance Standards
(CSBA, 2007)
Lighthouse Inquiry:
Key Areas of Board
Performance (Dela-
gardelle, 2008)
• Policy and Judicial
review
• School Finance
Structural frame:
• Rules, policies, and
procedures
• Hierarchical structures
with specified division
of labor
• Governing with board-
adopted policies and pro-
cedures
• Operating openly with
trust and integrity
• Creating awareness of
need to improve; build-
ing commitment to
identified needs
• Deliberative policy
development
• Human Resources
• Student Learning &
Achievement
Human resource frame:
• Productive working
conditions
• Support and guidance
• District focus on student
achievement
• Periodically evaluating
own effectiveness
• Providing ongoing sup-
port for quality profes-
sional development
• Demonstrating com-
mitment; willingness to
learn
• Foundations of Ef-
fective Governance
• Collective Bargain-
ing
• Governance Integra-
tion
Political frame:
• Negotiation and diplo-
macy
• Distributive leadership
• Persuasion and nego-
tiation
• Governing in dignified
and professional manner
• Taking collective respon-
sibility for board’s per-
formance
• Supporting and con-
necting with dis-
trictwide leadership
• Applying pressure for
accountability
• Setting Direction
• Community Rela-
tions & Advocacy
Symbolic frame:
• Rituals, stories, cere-
monies
• Vision
• Respect
• Communicating a com-
mon vision
• Ensuring opportunities
for diverse viewpoints
from school community
• Connecting with
community and
building public will to
improve achievement
Figure 2. Comparison of theoretical frameworks used. Based on Masters in Governance,
by California School Boards Association, 2010, retrieved from http://www.csba.org/
Services/Services/GovernanceServices/MastersInGovernance.aspx; Reframing Organiza-
tions: 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; and “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role
of School Board Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement,” by M. Dela-
gardelle, 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 Gover-
nance.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 44
members, school board training provides valuable information and tools that gover-
nance teams can use to meet state and federal accountability measures (NSBA, n.d.;
Nylander, 2007). Training programs that help school board teams focus on student
achievement, understand their roles and responsibilities, assess their effectiveness and
be accountable for their efforts, invest in their human capital, and build collaborative
relationships with community members and organizations are successful in altering
governance teams’ perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors to positively impact student
achievement (CSBA, 2007; Johnson, 2011).
Summary
The literature review began with a description of the three theoretical frame-
works that served as a lens to analyze the impact that formal school board training has
on governance team practices, characteristics, and beliefs in their ability to positively
impact student achievement. The four-frames model for effective leadership (Bolman
& Deal, 2008), Professional Governance Standards (CSBA, 2007), and Key Areas of
Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008) served as the theoretical frameworks. The
literature also provided a history and context for the emergence and evolution of school
boards. A growing population and increased accountability measures prompted a need
for change but also added significantly to the responsibilities of locally elected school
board members (Grissom, 2009; Land, 2002).
Based on literature reviewed, several characteristics emerged that school boards
should practice as effective governing strategies to employ in their management and
leadership of school districts. Effective school governance teams believed and
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 45
understood the following: (a) highest priority—student achievement and students’
needs; (b) the role and responsibility of school board members and their relationship to
the superintendent and staff; (c) operating within adopted structures, policies, and
procedures within the organization; and (d) the impact of professional development and
training on organizations (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; Dervarics & O’Brien,
2011). A review of the impact of training programs on board member dispositions was
also included in this chapter.
While the direct impact that school board governance has on student achieve-
ment is difficult to quantify (Hess, 2002), there are characteristics that were common to
successful and effective school boards. School boards that work cooperatively as effec-
tive teams, develop a common vision, understand their role and responsibility, and have
a positive relationship with the superintendent are more successful at creating an envi-
ronment that is conducive to student success (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Specific
attention was paid to CSBA’s (2010) MIG training program, as this study will focus on
southern California school districts.
Chapter 3 will provide a description of the research methods and procedures to
be used in this study. It describes the target population and recruitment efforts to
increase the sample population. A description of instrumentation, data collection and
analysis procedures, and ethical considerations is also included.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 46
Chapter 3
Methodology
The roles and responsibilities for school board members have changed signifi-
cantly since they were established in the early 19th century. Since their establishment,
not only have the populations they serve grown in size and diversity, but school board
roles and responsibilities have grown as well. School board members make decisions
on a wide range of topics that directly impact district employees and student learning;
they must also have a clear understanding of the consequences of their decisions and
know that they will ultimately be held responsible (Allen & Mintrom, 2010). In order to
make informed decisions that can lead to a successful school district, it is crucial that
board members continue to purse professional growth opportunities.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a connection exists between
effective California school districts and a commitment to school board training. Man-
datory school board training is not a requirement in California and not the norm in the
United States (Bianchi, 2003). Bianchi (2003) wrote that high-performing school
districts differ in their knowledge and beliefs from their low-performing counterparts.
The present study investigates California school board members’ perceptions of effec-
tiveness regarding the voluntary CSBA trainings they attend (CSBA, 2007; Delagar-
delle, 2008) and how they exhibit the best practices for governance. Particular attention
is being paid to how board members perceive training effectiveness in managing the
four- frames model for leadership within their respective districts (Bolman & Deal,
2008).
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 47
The four-frames model for leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008), along with
CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards and The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key
Areas of Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008) served as the theoretical framework
for this study. The four-frames model serves as a lens to analyze effective leadership
practices of successful school boards when addressing issues within the structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic frames. Leadership is but one of many factors
that influence success in school districts, but it is very important to that success
(Simkins, 2005). The research questions were developed to identify effective leadership
practices reported by study participants.
In addition to good leadership practices, school board members must have a
deep understanding of governance practices when managing school district resources,
educational policies, and the expectations of the community they serve (Brewer &
Smith, 2008). To study these governance practices, CSBA’s (2007) Professional Gov-
ernance Standards and The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance
(Delagardelle, 2008) served as the theoretical framework. The research questions were
developed based on the identified effective governance practices by CSBA and The
Lighthouse Inquiry. The three research questions that drove this study were the follow-
ing:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a
MIG training program?
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 48
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG program impact school board gover-
nance?
This study’s research questions were developed using the leadership and gover-
nance tenets of the three theoretical frameworks. Figure 3 illustrates how leadership
and governance are closely integrated and complement each other to create conditions
that foster effectiveness. The four-frames model focuses on leadership qualities, while
CSBA and Lighthouse support governance.
This research was a qualitative case study that investigated the connection
between school board training and effective school board leadership. Selected school
districts in southern California where at least one of its board members was CSBA-MIG
trained were studied. A qualitative approach was the best suited method for this study,
as school board member and superintendents were surveyed and interviewed in order to
understand their opinions on the effectiveness of MIG school board training (Patton,
2002).
In order to mitigate threats to internal validity, surveys were distributed to all
CSBA-trained board members and their superintendents within eligible school districts.
Inclusion of both helps to avoid sampling errors, and the availability of print or elec-
tronic surveys ensures a greater response by participants. An introduction and recruit-
ment letter were sent to board members via email and U.S. mail to targeted participants
who met the study criteria.
External validity is the ability to make generalized inferences regarding out-
comes from one study to another while measuring if causal relationships hold with
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 49
Four-Frames Model for
Effective Leadership
(Bolman & Deal, 2008)
Professional Governance
Standards (CSBA, 2007)
Lighthouse Inquiry: Key
Areas of Board Performance
(Delagardelle, 2008)
Structural Frame
• Rules, policies, and proce-
dures
• Hierarchical structures with
specified division of labor
• Govern within board-adopted
policies and procedures
• Operate openly with trust and
integrity
• Create awareness of the need
to improve—build commit-
ment to the identified needs
• Deliberative policy develop-
ment
Human Resource Frame
• Productive working condi-
tions
• Support and guidance
• District focus on student
achievement
• Periodically evaluate its own
effectiveness
• Provide ongoing support for
quality professional develop-
ment
• Demonstrate commitment and
willingness to learn
Political frame
• Negotiation and diplomacy
• Distributive leadership
• Persuasion and negotiation
• Govern in dignified and pro-
fessional manner
• Take collective responsibility
for board’s performance
• Support and connect with dis-
trictwide leadership
• Apply pressure for account-
ability
Symbolic Frame
• Rituals, stories, ceremonies,
traditions
• Vision
• Respect
• Communicate a common vi-
sion
• Ensure opportunities for di-
verse viewpoints from school
community
• Connect with community and
build public will to improve
achievement
Figure 3. Framework alignment: Four-frames model, Professional Governance
Standards, and Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance. Sources: Re-
framing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.), by L. G. Bolman
and T. E. Deal, 2008, 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.aspx; and “The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the Role of
School Board Leadership in the Improvement of Student Achievement,” by M. Dela-
gardelle, 2008, in T. Alsbury (Ed.), The Future of School Board Governance: Rele-
vancy and Revelation (pp. 191–224), Blue Ridge, PA: Rowman Littlefield. CSBA =
California School Boards Association.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 50
variances in persons, settings, and other circumstances (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
2001). The research cohort gathered survey results, interview data, and training obser-
vations from board members and superintendents whose districts were CSBA trained in
order to determine whether school board training results in effective school board
leadership. This study’s attempt to reduce the threats to its internal validity limited the
degree of generalizations and inferences that can be made about causal relationships
between school board training and effective school districts.
Population and Sample
California has a large geographical footprint and the largest student population
of any state in the United States. There are currently over 6 million students enrolled in
just under 1,000 California public school districts that vary dramatically in size
(EdSource, 2012). Some serve as few as 10 students, while the largest, the Los Angeles
Unified School District, educates almost 700,000 students. The majority of California
school districts serve between 1,000 and 50,000 students (EdSource, 2012). There are
approximately 5,000 school board members and 1,000 superintendents in California.
The population was too large and too diverse for this study to sample; therefore, a
targeted population was selected.
No matter how diverse school districts and their students may be, one common
factor that California uses to measure effectiveness is the API for student achievement.
In order to be considered effective, the state has mandated that all public schools must
reach an API score of 800 or higher. Schools not reaching this target must meet growth
targets each year until they reach the 800 mark (CDE, 2011).
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 51
School districts within six counties in southern California were selected as the
target population: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and
Ventura. In addition to geographical location, district enrollment had to be between
2,000 and 50,000 students and the district had to be considered a traditional public
school district, not a charter district. EdSource (2012) has identified three types of
school districts in California included in this study: (a) elementary K–8 districts, (b)
unified K–12 districts, and (c) high school 9–12 districts. Targeted school districts had
to have at least one board member CSBA MIG trained, an overall API score of 800 or
above in 2011, or an API growth of 21 points or more in the previous 3 years.
Instrumentation
A survey questionnaire, interview protocol, and training observation tool were
designed specifically for this study to measure school board members’ and superinten-
dent’s perceptions about formal training and its potential impact on student achieve-
ment. One survey was exclusively tailored for board members (see Appendix A) and
the other for the superintendents (see Appendix B). Each survey consisted of 21 ques-
tions that were specifically couched within the central research questions and refined to
accommodate ease of completing the survey while acquiring valuable information for
the study (Creswell, 2003). To ensure validity in this qualitative study, the survey
instrument was carefully constructed to ensure that it measured what it was intended to
measure: school board members’ beliefs and attitudes about board training and its
impact on their practice. Survey questions were also tailored to match the target popu-
lation to ensure valid results (Couper, 2000). The instrument was administered in a
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 52
prescribed manner to ensure standardization (Patton, 2002). Using Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four leadership frames, CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards, and
The Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008) in the
survey design further aided the construct validity, as survey questions were grounded
within each of the theoretical frameworks.
All survey questions were close ended and constructed to examine aspects of
leadership and management. The 21 survey questions utilized a 4-point Likert response
scale where 4 = Strongly Agree, 3 = Agree, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly Disagree.
The scores of the questions that measure common areas were added together and then
divided to determine an average score that measured perceptions on the effectiveness of
school board training.
In order to mitigate threats to internal validity, surveys were distributed to all
CSBA-trained board members and their superintendents within eligible school districts.
Inclusion of both helped to avoid sampling errors, and the availability of print or elec-
tronic surveys ensured a greater response by participants. An introduction and recruit-
ment letter were sent to board members via email and U.S. mail to targeted participants
who met the study criteria.
Selected school board members and superintendents from all six counties were
interviewed with a similarly designed interview guide drawn from the original research
questions (see Appendices C and D). Interviewees will be selected from survey partici-
pants who indicate their willingness to be interviewed. Ten school board member and
superintendent pairs, for a total of 20, will be interviewed from the targeted population
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 53
by the (USC) research team. Interview questions are also grounded in the theoretical
underpinnings of this paper. A set of main questions was developed along with probes
to provide further clarification (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
In addition to the survey and interview guides, the research team developed the
MIG Observation Protocol (MIGOP; see Appendix E). The MIGOP was an observa-
tional tool designed to collect evidence regarding effective governance practices and
behaviors as identified through the theoretical frameworks of CSBA (2007) and Dela-
gardelle (2008). The MIGOP consisted of 13 identifying factors of effective gover-
nance that were aligned to the research questions and assessed using a 4-point Likert
Scale. Observations were recorded on the MIGOP, and a final score was assigned to
each identifying factor for future analysis.
Survey and interview questions were carefully constructed using the three
research questions as guides. The Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and
MIGOP (Appendix F) aligns each survey and interview question and the observation
evidence to the research questions. The Research Protocol Grid (Appendix G) demon-
strates the alignment between each data item and the research questions.
External validity is the ability to make generalized inferences regarding out-
comes from one study to another while measuring whether causal relationships hold
with variances in persons, settings, and other circumstances (Shadish et al., 2002). The
research team gathered survey results and interview data from board members and
superintendents whose districts were CSBA trained in order to determine whether
school board training resulted in effective school board leadership. The size of the
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 54
targeted school districts was that of a typical district in the state of California; however,
it is difficult to generalize results to atypical school districts within California, as their
student populations and management structures are significantly diverse. The attempt
to reduce the threats to the study’s internal validity limits the degree of generalizations
and inferences that can be made about causal relationships between school board train-
ing and effective school districts.
Data Collection Procedures
Approval for this study was acquired from USC’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB). Participation in this study was completely voluntary. School board member and
superintendent contact information was received from the CSBA in May 2012.
Participants who received CSBA-MIG training were recruited via email and
U.S. mail in August 2012. They received an introductory letter about the study that
briefly described its purpose (see Appendices H and I). Participants received assurances
that their participation and/or nonparticipation would not be reported and that their
participation would be kept confidential and data coded in order to maintain anonymity.
Data were housed in secure locations on personal computers in the homes and
offices of the principal investigators. Data were password protected, and audio record-
ings of interviews were destroyed after transcription. Names and identifiers were not
used in this study, and information was not shared with third parties. These safeguards
ensures that harm to participants is minimized. The information from this study was
designed to be generalized and contribute to the improvement of school board prepara-
tion.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 55
The CSBA assisted in providing the emails of targeted school board members
and superintendents. In August 2012, participants were mailed and emailed a message
that contained a descriptor of the study, an assurance of confidentiality, and an elec-
tronic link to complete the survey online. The online survey was created using an
online tool, and the data were collected using the same site. A reminder email was sent
2 weeks later to nonresponsive participants.
In the summer of 2012, surveys were mailed to participants to ensure a broader
scope of participation and increase the sample size of the study. Included in the mailer
were a descriptor of the study, a confidentiality statement, the survey, and a self-ad-
dressed and stamped envelope for return to the researcher. All surveys were coded to
correspond to each participant. This system aided in identifying individuals who might
be nonresponsive and needed follow-up reminders. Coding also ensured confidentiality
and privacy for the participants.
Individual interviews were conducted at a location or in a format convenient to
the participants. School board members and superintendents receives information about
the study and assurances that their responses would be kept confidential. Interviewees
were asked the same set of open-ended questions, and their responses recorded. These
responses were transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify common themes that
emerged from the interviews. This method yielded valuable information that could not
be gathered from a survey protocol alone.
The research team observed MIG training modules in the fall of 2012. Obser-
vations were later analyzed to identify emergent themes. There was no benefit provided
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 56
to the participants; however, an invitation to view the results of this investigation was
extended to the participants.
Data Analysis
This study was structured to analyze the impact of MIG training on the effective-
ness of school boards. Each member of the research team collected and shared data for
analysis. Surveys were created using a 4-point Likert scale. The results of the surveys
were analyzed and the mode identified and presented as a percentage score.
Interviews were transcribed and coded. Emergent themes were sorted, com-
bined, ranked, and connected to the theoretical frameworks (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
This analysis assisted in understanding the core values and concepts by participants,
thereby leading to their perceptions on the effectiveness of school board training. The
MIGOP observations were tallied and sorted into common themes to assist in identify-
ing findings. To strengthen validity, survey, interview, and observation results were
triangulated with the literature review.
Ethical Considerations
All 10 coresearchers of the thematic dissertation group completed the required
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) prior to application for IRB ap-
proval. CITI is an online training program intended to assure the any research involving
human subjects is carried out in an ethical manner (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 1979). The USC University Park IRB office reviewed and approved
the application as an exempt study. A CSBA research agreement was signed by all 10
coresearchers to ensure the privacy of MIG-trained board members. This process also
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 57
facilitated in the distribution and collection of surveys to board members and superin-
tendents. Appendices H and I contain the consent letters (containing a confidentiality
and privacy statement); Appendices J and K contain the recruitment letters for the
superintendents and school board members. Participants received no compensation for
participation in this study. This study was conducted in an ethical manner, as prescribed
by CITI, and without any emotional or physical harm to participants.
Summary
This chapter has described the methodology used to gather research data that
will shed light on the perspectives of school board members and superintendents toward
school board training and its effectiveness in improving student achievement. The
literature review, survey protocol, interview data, and observation data were analyzed in
order to triangulate the study and increase its internal validity. A significant effort was
made to increase the amount of participation through emails, mailers, and in-person
interviews to ensure a larger sample population.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 58
Chapter 4
Research Results
School board members assume great responsibility when accepting a position on
their local board. They make decisions on budget, curriculum, collective bargaining,
and facilities that directly impact the educational lives of the students they serve (John-
son, 2011). Not only do they engage in the process of making high-impact decisions,
but also the personal time commitment required to perform their duties as a school
board member heavily impacts their own families (Hess, 2002). The CSBA (2010) has
offered the MIG training program to help school board members make the most of their
time by teaching them all facets of educational policies, issues and trends. This training
provides board members with necessary knowledge to make well-informed decisions
that could ultimately lead to higher or improved student learning and achievement
(French et al., 2008; Hess, 2010).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether participation by board
members in MIG training offered by the CSBA impacted their ability to adhere to best
practices for effective leadership and governance. Using a qualitative approach, this
study explored board members’ and superintendents’ perceptions regarding the effect
that training has had on board members’ governance practices, behaviors, and beliefs.
Three research questions examined the connection between formal school board train-
ing and its impact on school board members’ daily governance practices:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 59
2. Does MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the
behaviors of effective governance?
3. In what ways could mandating the MIG program impact school board gover-
nance?
These three research questions were aligned with the study’s theoretical frame-
works on leadership and governance. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for
effective leadership provided the lens for analyzing effective leadership practices. The
CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards and the Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key
Areas of Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008) provided the lens to study the charac-
teristics and behaviors that lead to effective school board governance.
Reflective of the literature reviewed, five instruments were used to collect data:
(a) a superintendent survey, (b) a school board member survey, (c) superintendent inter-
view questions, (d) school board member interview questions, and (3) the MIGOP. All
five instruments were aligned to this study’s three research questions and three theoreti-
cal frameworks. First, a brief description of participants is provided. The results for the
study will then be presented by research question, followed by a summary.
Participants
The research team consisted of 10 members studying school districts located in
six southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura. The research team limited participation to only public school
districts with enrollments between 2,000 and 5,000 students; elementary K–8 or unified
K–12, or high school 9–12 districts. The districts had at least one board member fully
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 60
MIG trained and a 2011 API score of at least 800 points or an API growth of 21 or more
points in the previous 3 years. Within the six targeted counties, 100 school districts
were identified that met the strict participation criteria. In this pool, there were 100
superintendents and 226 MIG-trained school board members targeted for participation.
Survey Participants
Once eligible school districts were identified, the research team developed two
survey instruments: one survey for fully MIG trained school board members and one for
the matching superintendent of that school district regardless of whether the superinten-
dent had participated in MIG training or not. The survey questions were aligned to the
research questions and the theoretical frameworks and were scored on a 4-point Likert
scale. The questions on the superintendent survey and the school board member survey
were constructed to mirror each other, with the focus on board member leadership char-
acteristics and governance practices. Special care was taken to avoid the inclusion of
biased, double, wordy, and confusing questions (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Survey participants received an email introducing the study and an invitation to
participate. A packet containing an introductory letter, recruitment letter, consent form,
a superintendent survey, and a survey for each MIG-trained board member within that
district was mailed to the superintendent of each eligible district. Superintendents were
asked to complete and return their survey and to distribute the board member survey to
their respective MIG-trained board members. Superintendents were asked to encourage
eligible board members to participate in the study. From the targeted population of 100
superintendents and 226 school board members, 61 superintendents and 86 school
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 61
board members completed and returned their surveys. It is important to note that not
every question was answered on a few surveys; however, these omissions were so small
in number that it did not impact the emergent themes from the surveys.
Interview Participants
Survey participants had the opportunity to indicate on the survey their desire to
participate in the interview portion of this study. The goal of the research team was to
interview paired members from targeted school districts. This meant that the superin-
tendent and one of the board members were interviewed separately in order to analyze
their perceptions of how MIG training impacted school board member governance
practices. A total of four interviews (two matched pairs) were conducted for this study.
The interview questions were constructed to analyze the perceptions that super-
intendents and board members had regarding MIG training and its impact on board
member governance. The survey questions were aligned to the research questions, the
theoretical frameworks, and were designed in an open-ended manner to allow partici-
pants the freedom to fully explain their positions. In order to ensure confidentiality,
anonymity, and protect privacy, fictitious names were used for participating districts,
superintendents, and school board members. Any resemblance to actual school districts
and their employees is entirely coincidental.
School district 1will be referred to as Mountain Ridge Unified, its superinten-
dent as Superintendent Thomas, and the participating school board member as Board
Member Nadine. Superintendent Thomas completed his doctorate degree at a local
university and had also completed the full MIG certification program. Mountain Ridge
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 62
Unified was Superintendent Thomas’s second assignment as superintendent. Board
Member Nadine received her degrees from a local southern California university. She
completed MIG training and had served on a variety of district committees. She had
also served several terms as a board member. Mountain Ridge Unified had an enroll-
ment of over 20,000 students, an API score above 800, and at the time of this study only
one of its board members had completed the MIG training offered by the CSBA.
School district 2 will be referred to as Desertscape Unified, its superintendent as
Superintendent Michael, and the participating school board member as Board Member
Susan. Superintendent Michael had a history of employment in the district that he ad-
ministered. He received his doctorate from a southern California university. Board
Member Susan had completed MIG training and had experience as a classroom teacher
and as a board member in a state outside California. Desertscape Unified had an enroll-
ment of over 9,000 students, had a combined growth of over 60 points in its API for the
previous 3 years, and had a majority of its board members MIG trained.
Results for Research Question 1
What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
Masters in Governance training program? School board members are locally elected
public figures who are entrusted with the management of local public school systems
(CSBA, 2007). School board members set the direction for the district, establish opera-
tional structures and protocols, provide support for employees, ensure accountability,
and act as community leaders (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle 2008). Many school board
members seek out professional development opportunities to assist them in their desire
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 63
to perform their duties in an effective and professional manner (Hess & Meeks, 2010).
California does not mandate participation in professional development by school board
members (Bianchi, 2003; NSBA, 2012).
Because California does not mandate training, research question 1 explored the
motivating factors that influenced school board members to seek out the MIG profes-
sional development program. Two major themes emerged from the data analysis:
1. School board members were self-motivated or motivated through encourage-
ment by their colleagues to advance their professional growth; and
2. Participation in the MIG certification program would increase if trainings
were more accessible.
Motivating Factors
In “The Importance of School Board Training,” Dillon (2010) wrote that school
board members must have an awareness of educational best practices and innovations.
In many cases, this knowledge can be gained only through training, networking, and
professional development opportunities. Research question 1 explored the motivating
factors that compelled board members to seek out training. The data analysis revealed
that the primary influencing factor was self-motivation to participate in professional
development that would help them perform their duties well.
When responding to the survey question regarding the primary factor that influ-
enced board member participation in MIG training (see Table 1), the #1 answer for both
superintendents and school board members was self-motivation. School board mem-
bers themselves overwhelmingly agreed that self-motivation was the primary factor in
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 64
Table 1
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Identifying the
Primary Influence for Their Masters in Governance Participation
S u p e r i n tendents
a
S B M s
b
Primary influence f % f %
Self-motivation 21 34 52 60
School board expectation 12 20 20 23
Encouraged by other board members 20 33 8 9
Other 2 3 3 3
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
their seeking training. From the school board responses, 52 of 83 participants ranked
self-motivation as the primary factor.
From the interview, when asked what would influence board members to partici-
pate in training, School Board Member Nadine from Mountain Ridge Unified replied:
Gosh, I don’t know. I can’t imagine being in a position like being school board
members and not wanting to have access to statewide information and experts,
many of who could actually say, “Been there, done that,” or “This is how we
solved this problem,” or “This is what our constituents expect us to be able to
do.”
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 65
Board Member Nadine connected the access to professionals and their wealth of knowl-
edge as a self-motivating factor for board members. During observations of MIG
module trainings, the research team strongly agreed with all observations reflecting the
emphasis placed on professional networking and vibrant dialogue around sharing best
practices.
Superintendent Thomas from Mountain Ridge Unified felt that board members
were self-motivated to participate in MIG training because it elevated their positions to
a professional level:
MIG training is important because it takes the board member position to a pro-
fessional level. Just as we expect our teachers and administrators to be profes-
sional and participate in professional development, board members should also
receive training to make it more professional.
Superintendent Thomas went on to say that the public would be surprised to learn that
board members are not required to attend formalized training. All board members have
to do to be eligible to run for office is live in the district boundaries, be 18 years of age,
a citizen of the state, a registered voter, and not disqualified by law from holding pubic
office (CSBA, 2007).
The second major motivating factor for school board member participation in
MIG was the encouragement to participate from colleagues. Question #7 on the super-
intendent and board member survey asked if they encouraged other board members to
participate in MIG training. Both groups of participants agreed that they encouraged
others to participate, with 57 of 61 superintendents agreeing and an overwhelming 83 of
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 66
84 board members in agreement. Question #19 asked participants if they strongly rec-
ommended participation in MIG training. Fifty-eight of 60 superintendents agreed that
they would, and all board members would strongly recommend the training to col-
leagues (see Table 2).
Table 2
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Identifying Strong
Recommendation for Masters in Governance (MIG) Participation
Strongly recommend MIG S u p e r i n t endents
a
S B M s
b
training f % f %
Strongly agree 41 67 65 76
Agree 17 28 18 21
Disagree 2 3 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
The Center for Public Education identified eight characteristics of effective
school boards (Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011). One characteristic was that effective
school boards take part in team and professional development, and create an environ-
ment that encourages participation (Waters & Marzano, 2006). When colleagues rec-
ommend specific training, board members tend to participate. When speaking of a new
school board member’s completion of the MIG training, Superintendent Michael of
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 67
Desertscape Unified said, “We encouraged him, and he did it.” Board Member Susan
from Mountain Ridge said that not only did colleague encouragement motivate her to
participate in the MIG training but there was a small amount of peer pressure as well:
And when you know that everybody else is taking this training, it makes you
look petulant not to. And so we all agreed once we started doing it, we would
do it to completion.
Participation in MIG Training
Although self-motivation and encouragement from colleagues were significant
factors for board members to participate in training, there were several factors that
limited participation. The second theme from research question revealed the impact
that MIG time requirements, proximity, and availability may have on a board members’
decision on whether or not to participate. Hess (2002) wrote that a substantial number
of board members spend over 20 hours a week performing board duties, especially in
larger districts.
The first factor consisted of time invested for training. School Board Member
Susan mentioned that most board members have full-time careers and/or families.
Finding time to complete MIG training can be a challenge because the certification
requires that participants complete 60 hours of coursework over the span of 2 years
(CSBA, 2010). Compared to states where school board training is mandated, none have
a higher participation time of over 16 hours in first 2 years of service (NSBA, 2012). In
addition to the 60 hours of MIG training, board members must factor in travel and
overnight lodging time. Superintendent Michael said one of his board members did not
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 68
attend training because “he just couldn’t find the time. He’s a businessman, and it’s not
easy to find the time to do that.”
During an observation of the Governance Integration module, board members
spent the day learning about CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards and
how to incorporate them into their practice. One board member flew in from Califor-
nia’s Central Valley for the weekend and noted that the time commitment was difficult
for her because she worked at the family restaurant and had two young children at
home. Although she valued the knowledge gained from training, she was a new board
member who was feeling somewhat overwhelmed with the demands of her position.
She would have preferred a condensed version of MIG training at the beginning of her
term and training that was closer in proximity.
The second factor, proximity, seemed to be a point of agreement among inter-
viewees. When asked what would make training for school board members more
accessible, Superintendent Michael said:
Well, maybe if it were offered locally instead of having to travel great distances,
but I understand that’s a problem because are you going to get enough people to
sign up to make it worthwhile to offer it locally? So, like all problems, there’s
no easy solution to this one.
Local offerings are appealing for several reasons. Proximity to where board
members live and work make the required travel distance manageable and takes less
time away from board members’ personal time. Expenses for transportation, lodging,
and meals are reduced because some board members will opt to commute to the
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 69
trainings rather than incur an additional expense to already tight school district budgets.
One concern that Superintendent Michael expressed was the possibility of smaller class
sizes, because less people would be traveling long distances, thus increasing the cost of
the program.
Susan from Desertscape Unified agreed that MIG offerings should be more
readily available locally:
We had trainings at Knott’s Berry Farm. Also Sacramento, but that was more
expensive to fly up there and stay overnight. It seems like they are all over the
state. Maybe they need to have more in the southern part than what they have.
Superintendent Thomas mirrored Susan’s sentiments, saying that the “CSBA should
regionalize trainings. I think more board members would participate if there were local
cohorts for training.” He also added that his board declined to participate in MIG
training this year due to monetary concerns.
Another thread impacting participation rates was online availability of the MIG
program. Superintendent Thomas not only advocated for localized course offerings but
also felt that online availability would increase participation rates. When asked if he
believed participation rates would increase with MIG online availability, he responded:
Yes, logistically yes. It would make it easier to complete the training, but I fear
that the message can be lost when presenting subject matter online. School
boards conduct much of their work in a public setting. Attending MIG training
allows them face-to-face contact with colleagues from around the state. They
learn professionalism and the opportunity to network.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 70
Superintendent Thomas agreed that online availability would make MIG training easier
to complete but feared that board members would miss out on the critical face-to-face
interaction and networking opportunities.
While Board Member Susan agreed that online availability might increase par-
ticipation, she, too, was concerned about the loss of in person interaction:
I do not think they should be getting the complete training online. As you said,
two of the nine, is it? Okay. Which is good. I think they should be compelled
to go interact with other people at the training.
The participant survey also revealed a similar pattern of overall support for
online training from both groups, but with a little less support from school board mem-
bers who wished for social interaction. Table 3 illustrates that 53 out of 61 superinten-
dents agreed with online training, with only 8 in disagreement. School board members
agreed, 58 of 81, with online training, with 23 in disagreement.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The results from research question 1 revealed that school board members partic-
ipated in MIG training because they were self-motivated or encouraged by colleagues to
attend and that attendance rates would increase if MIG training time requirements were
eased, more available locally, with increased course offerings online. Motivation to
participate in professional development directly correlated to the human resource frame,
as board members searched for professional growth and self-actualization through
training (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Board members wanted to learn the strategies and
characteristics of effective school boards and sought out professional development
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 71
Table 3
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Identifying That Full
Online Masters in Governance (MIG) Certification Would Increase Participation
Online MIG certification would S u p e r i n tendents S B Ms
increase participation f % f %
Strongly agree 21 34 19 22
Agree 32 52 39 45
Disagree 8 13 21 24
Strongly disagree 0 0 2 2
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
(Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Due to time constraints, board members had a difficult
time committing to professional development programs. Superintendents and board
members were highly motivated to attend training; however, time requirements pre-
cluded participation and could be mediated by online access and closer proximity to
training. The evidence suggested that MIG should be adjusted to be more flexible and
accommodating to fit the needs and busy schedules of targeted participants as a means
of increasing participation.
Results for Research Question 2
Does the MIG training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance? This question examined the impact that MIG
training had on board member leadership and governance practices. This study’s
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 72
theoretical frameworks outlined effective governance practices as following adopted
policies and procedures, operating with trust and integrity, focusing on student achieve-
ment, provision of and participation in professional development, self-evaluation,
collective responsibility, communicating a common vision, and connecting with the
community (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008).
CSBA’s (2010) MIG certification professional development program for school
board members teaches the best practices for effective governance. The MIG program
requires participants to complete nine modules, or 60 hours of professional develop-
ment, within a 2-year time frame. Participants who had completed MIG training were
asked to identify effective practices that they felt were the most pertinent to their suc-
cess. Three major themes regarding effective practices emerged from research question
2: (a) a focus on student achievement, (b) the importance of a unified board team, and
(c) clear understanding of roles and responsibilities.
Focus on Student Achievement
Student achievement is a high priority responsibility for any school board, espe-
cially in today’s educational climate of performance and accountability (USDOE, Office
of the Under Secretary, 2002; French et al., 2008). Part of the study selection criteria
focused on southern California school districts with high levels or significant growth in
student achievement scores. It was clear from the results that school board members
and superintendents placed high priority on student achievement.
In school districts with high levels of student achievement, school boards are
aligned with and supportive of adopted achievement and instructional goals (Waters &
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 73
Marzano, 2006; Geier, Smith, & Tornow, 2012). Survey participants were asked
whether board members who completed MIG training encouraged others to consistently
use data to make informed decisions regarding student achievement. Based on re-
sponses, there did appear to be a connection between training and board members ex-
hibiting effective governance characteristics. Of the 61 superintendents surveyed, 50
agreed and 75 of 83 school board members agreed that MIG training influenced their
practice by teaching them to use data analysis as strategy to improve student achieve-
ment (see Table 4).
Table 4
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Identifying Impact
That Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Had on Board Members’ Governance
Practice
MIG-trained board members
encourage others to focus S u p e r i n tendents
a
S B Ms
b
on student achievement f % f %
Strongly agree 10 16 36 42
Agree 40 66 39 45
Disagree 9 15 7 8
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 74
The influence of MIG training also emerged in school board meetings. Partici-
pants were asked whether, as a result of certification, board members increased their
focus on student achievement during board meetings. Both groups of participants
agreed with 58 of 61 superintendents and 71 of 81 board members indicating that board
member governance practices were impacted (see Table 5).
Table 5
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Identifying Impact
That Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Had on Increasing Focus on Student
Achievement During Board Meetings
Increased focus on student
achievement during board S u p e r i n tendents
a
S B Ms
b
meetings f % f %
Strongly agree 14 23 24 28
Agree 44 72 47 55
Disagree 3 5 9 10
Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
Board Member Nadine stated in her interview that MIG training provided her
board, which at one point had all five members trained, the guidance to create a consis-
tent message for themselves. The first question they asked themselves before making a
decision was, “Is it good for kids?” Board Member Susan mentioned that the greatest
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 75
impact that MIG training had on her governance practice was helping focus on her
constituency:
I did always try to remember that I was not representing me. I was representing
the people that voted me into office. And that it’s very important that you’re
always thinking about that and the bottom line, the student.
As a clarifying question, I asked Susan if student achievement was the #1 reason for
training. Her response was short and affirmative, “Correct.”
Survey participants were also asked to rank the nine MIG modules in order of
importance. School board members ranked student achievement as #1 in priority. On
their survey results, superintendents ranked student achievement as #3. It is apparent
that a focus on student achievement was important to study participants. Throughout
MIG training observations, the emphasis on students first was highly visible. In the
Setting Direction module, the presenter was quoted as saying, “Keep your focus on the
students,” “It’s for the kids,” and “Students first.”
Module participants engaged in an activity called “Three Words.” They were
asked to think of three words that described what they wanted for students in their
districts. The presenter reminded participants that we’re in it for the kids.” School
board members used words such as “challenged,” “loved,” “adaptation,” and “in-
formed.” This focus on students was also evident throughout the Governance Integra-
tion module.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 76
The Unified Board Team
Another characteristic that effective school boards exhibit is working as a
unified team or united board (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008; Dervarics, 2011). In
successful school districts, school boards lead with trust, integrity, respect, and collabo-
ration (Dervarics, 2011). These are the characteristics that define the behavior of a
unified board team. This theme was very important to survey participants. Question 5
on the survey asked whether MIG participants developed a more collaborative relation-
ship with fellow board members. Superintendents agreed, 52 out of 61; board members
agreed at a higher rate, 77 out of 83.
In addition to collaboration, this study’s frameworks identified trust and integ-
rity as a best practice for effective governance and leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008;
CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008). Survey participants had the opportunity to rank the
CSBA Effective Governance Characteristics in order of importance to their practice.
Table 6 illustrates the importance that superintendents and board members placed on
trust and integrity and communicating a common vision—both integral parts of a
unified team.
Interviewees expressed the importance of appearing as a unified team in public
and communicating with one voice. School Board Member Nadine had this to say
regarding the importance of speaking with one common voice:
It was important to make sound decisions for how we wanted our district to run;
and all of us gave the same message to the community, to the newspapers, in
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 77
Table 6
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Prioritizing the
Importance of Effective Governance Characteristics
Characteristics of effective
governance rankings Superintendents (n = 61) School board members (n = 86)
#1 Operate with trust and integrity Focus on student achievement
#2 Common vision Operate with trust and integrity
#3 Focus on student achievement Common vision
#4 Govern in a dignified manner Govern in a dignified manner
#5 Board policy Board policy
#6 Collective responsibility for board Collective responsibility for board
performance performance
#7 Evaluate its own effectiveness Opportunities for diverse community
views
#8 Opportunities for diverse com- Evaluate its own effectiveness
munity views
Note. Not all survey questions were completed by all participants. Characteristics of effective gover-
nance based on 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
everything that we were doing. If any of us were speaking, it was like we were
speaking with one voice. We had a great deal of trust with our superintendent.
She felt very comfortable in having any of us—if we were cornered in a grocery
store, if we were meeting with city or county officials—we were adequately
prepared to discuss any aspect of school-related governance.
Superintendent Thomas agreed with his Board Member Nadine. He said that
MIG-trained board members “conduct themselves in a professional manner. They
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 78
remind themselves of positive governance practices.” These behavioral characteristics
are indicative of unified teams (Newton & Sackney, 2005).
In Desertscape Unified, although both Board Member Susan and Superintendent
Michael agreed that trust, transparency, and a common voice were important, they dif-
fered on their opinion regarding the impact that MIG training had on influencing board
member behavior. Board Member Susan said,
I always remember her [the MIG trainer] saying that over 90% of what you do
will take place right in the board room and everything should be transparent.
Susan indicated on her survey that she agreed that MIG trained board members learned
to be more collaborative; however, Superintendent Michael disagreed. He said that
“the one board member that we sent on my watch—he’s the least collaborative and he
has a Masters in Governance.”
The message school that board members received during MIG training about
operating as part of a unified team was consistent. Presenters at the Setting Direction
and Governance Integration modules repeatedly mentioned the importance of being a
unified team, speaking with a common voice, and displaying unity of purpose. In one
observed activity, participants were given a sheet listing over 30 leadership and gover-
nance beliefs. They were asked to circle the 10 most important to them and then elimi-
nate five more. Finally, they had to select only three as their core values or beliefs.
These three beliefs were shared with the group, and the assignment was to come to
consensus and agree on only three as a group. The hope was that these activities would
help participants adopt these strategies for effective governance.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 79
Roles and Responsibilities, Protocols, and Procedures
In the structural frame, Bolman and Deal (2008) outlined how clearly defined
roles and responsibilities were central to effective leadership. In addition to defining
roles and responsibilities, it is essential that policies and procedures be in place to
ensure that roles and responsibilities are respected (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008).
No other effective practice resonated more strongly than roles and responsibilities with
study participants. Throughout surveys and interviews, participants reiterated the
importance of understanding and respecting roles and responsibilities and following
established protocols and procedures.
They were asked whether MIG-trained school board members exhibited a
clearer understanding of the difference between their roles and those of the superinten-
dent. Table 7 illustrates the strong agreement between both groups of participants: 48
of 61 superintendents agreed and all 83 school board members. One hundred percent of
school board members agreed that MIG training helped them differentiate between their
roles and those of the superintendents.
At Mountain Ridge Unified, both superintendent and the board member had the
same responses regarding the importance of following adopted policies and procedures
on roles and responsibilities. Superintendent Thomas felt that the most important MIG
module a board member should attend was boardsmanship (i.e., Foundations for Effec-
tive Governance), saying that “boardsmanship gets reiterated from board member to
board member. I recommend boardsmanship.” Board Member Nadine also echoed the
idea of reminding fellow board members of respecting roles and responsibilities:
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 80
Table 7
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Regarding Belief
That Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Provides a Clearer Understanding of
Board Members’ and Superintendent’s Roles and Responsibilities
MIG training provides clearer
understanding of roles and S u p e r i n t endents
a
S B M s
b
responsibilities f % f %
Strongly agree 23 37 57 66
Agree 25 41 26 43
Disagree 12 20 0 0
Strongly disagree 1 2 0 0
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
She [fellow board member] had gone to our CFO [chief financial officer] and
said, “I want this light fixed outside of the school,” and he was busy scurrying
around trying to take care of some light standard that actually was a county light
standard and he said, “Well, so and so told me it had to be done.” And I went to
her and I said, “You don’t individually—none of us individually go to anybody
in the district demanding that they fix something or do something right now.
You have to have consensus or at least the majority of other board members who
agree with you that this is the most important priority. You don’t have it; back
off.”
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 81
School board members reminding one another of best practices through the rein-
forcement of understanding their roles as board members was a powerful lesson learned
through MIG training. In Desertscape Unified, Superintendent Michael stressed the
importance of collaboration, roles and responsibilities, and following protocols and
procedures:
I think collaboration is important. Understanding the role difference between
what a board member does and a superintendent does, role identification, which
I know they talk about, and then probably just continued reminder of the Brown
Act and what can be discussed in closed session and the fact that it can’t be
discussed outside of closed session.
However, Superintendent Michael disagreed that MIG-trained board members actually
practiced what they learned at MIG training, saying that “you can lead a horse to water.”
Board Member Susan agreed with her superintendent on the importance of following
established roles and responsibilities, the difference being that she did feel that MIG
training directly impacted board member governance practices.
Survey participants were asked to write three topics that they felt their school
board would benefit from training in. This was an open-ended question with no
prompts, and both superintendents and school board members overwhelmingly an-
swered that roles and responsibilities was the most essential training topic (see Table 8).
One activity in the Governance Integration module gave participants a list of school
district roles, responsibilities, and duties. Participants were asked to work in teams to
decide whether each duty belonged to the superintendent or to board members. Once
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 82
roles and responsibilities were assigned, participants placed the phrases on a CSBA
Clock that not only delineated the roles and responsibilities of superintendents and
board member but also included a problem-solving, implementation, and evaluation
timeline. MIG module trainings emphasize the important of adherence to established
roles and responsibilities, which is what survey participants asked for.
Table 8
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Regarding Recom-
mendations for Board Training (Open-Ended Question)
Recommended training
areas Superintendents (n = 61) SBMs (n = 86)
#1 Roles and responsibilities Roles and responsibilities
#2 Data curriculum, student achievement Budget and finance
#3 Governance Setting direction, vision
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all partici-
pants.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
Research question 2 investigated the impact that MIG training had on partici-
pants’ governance behaviors—specifically, whether training helped them to exhibit ef-
fective governance practices. Based on the survey results, interviews, and MIG training
observations, it appeared that there was a direct connection between MIG training and
its effect on participants’ governance practices. Board members who completed train-
ing perceive that they were more effective administrators of school districts. Survey
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 83
participants consistently agreed that a focus on student achievement, working as a
unified board team, and having a clear understanding of and respect for roles and re-
sponsibilities were essential in daily board member practice. An analysis of research
question 2 data found that MIG certification was effective in providing participants with
a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of board members and superinten-
dents so as to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance. Effective governance
teams in successful school districts are those that understand and respect clearly defined
roles and responsibilities (CSBA, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Delagardelle, 2008).
Results for Research Question 3
In what ways could mandating the MIG program impact school board gover-
nance? Current research demonstrates that only 23 states mandate school board mem-
bers to participate in some form of professional development (NSBA, 2012). In Cali-
fornia, school board training is a voluntary process (Bianchi, 2003; NSBA 2012).
Research questions 1 and 2 found that study participants were willing to participate in
training under favorable conditions and that board members who completed MIG
training felt that it made them more effective in their governance practice. Research
question 3 explored the impact that mandating board training could have on school
board governance. Two major themes emerged from the analysis:
1. A majority of superintendents and school board members favored mandating
training; and
2. if mandated, the cost of MIG training could negatively impact district bud-
gets.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 84
MIG Training Mandate
Roberts and Sampson (2011) found that school board training is not mandated in
most states. The authors also found that states with mandated training received grades
of B and C for student achievement, compared to C and D for nonmandating states. In
addition to the potential positive impact on achievement, training can familiarize new
school board members with current education issues, trends, and policies. At any given
time, up to 51% of school board members are in their first 4 years of service, with 13%
of those in their 1st year (Nylander, 2007). In addition to newness, up to 75% of board
members do not have formal experience in the field of education (Nylander, 2007).
During an observation of the MIG module, Setting Direction, participants were asked to
introduce themselves by stating their name, school district, career background, and a
learning goal for the course. Of the 25 participants, only five had a background in
education.
Study participants were asked about their position on mandating school board
member training. Question 15 on the superintendent and school board survey asked
participants if MIG training should be a California mandate. Both groups of study
participants easily agreed that training should be a mandate, with 49 of 61 superinten-
dents and 59 of 86 school board members approving. It was interesting to note that the
approval rating was slightly lower among board members, as the mandate would apply
to them. However, the Strongly Agree option received the highest number of votes on
both superintendent and school board member surveys (see Table 9).
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 85
Table 9
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Regarding Making
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training a California Mandate
MIG training should be S u p e r i n t endents
a
S B M s
b
mandated f % f %
Strongly agree 26 43 34 40
Agree 23 39 25 29
Disagree 10 16 18 21
Strongly disagree 1 2 5 6
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
Survey results indicated that there was support for legislating school board
training. This support was evident throughout interview responses as well. When
asked if he thought school board training should be a California mandate, Superinten-
dent Thomas of Mountain Ridge Unified did not hesitate to say, “Yes, I would advocate
for it.” Superintendent Michael of Desertscape Unified was just as succinct as when he
answered, “I think it should be. I’m absolutely 100% in favor of it.” Both superinten-
dents expressed their support for mandated school board training. In fact, both superin-
tendents marked Strongly Agree on their surveys regarding a state mandate.
If superintendents strongly favored mandating training, how did their matched
paired board members feel about it? On the school board member survey, 59 out of 86
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 86
participants supported the training mandate. Of the 59 approving votes, 34 strongly
agreed with the recommendation. When answering the California mandate question
during her interview, Board Member Nadine from Mountain Ridge quipped, “Have you
ever heard the expression, ‘You can’t legislate morality?’” She went on to say:
I always hate mandates personally because I think you should do things for the
right reason and you should do them willingly without having somebody either
holding a carrot in front of your nose and having a sharp stick pointing at your
backside saying, “Okay, you gotta do this.” And in education here, we’ve had so
many unfunded mandates in terms of having to deal with special needs children,
transportation issues, all of the things that they have literally said, “You must do
this; you must take care of that.”
Although Board Member Nadine felt that school board training could help par-
ticipants improve their leadership skills and governance practice, she also felt that board
members should participate willingly and not be mandated to do so. She had reserva-
tions about legislating training as previous educational mandates have gone unfunded or
unsupported.
Board Member Susan of Desertcape Unified tool a differing stance from her
counterpart in Mountain Ridge. When asked if she felt that training should be man-
dated, Susan responded, “Mandating, hmmm. Well, I think it’s an excellent idea.” On
her survey, Susan indicated that she agreed with mandating school board training.
These two board members had differing opinions than their paired superintendents.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 87
Although they supported professional development, they had reservations about man-
dating training.
Deterrents to Mandating MIG
There was majority support for mandating MIG training among superintendents
and school board members. There was a perception among study participants that MIG
training teaches participants the critical understanding of roles and responsibilities for
superintendents and school board members. Given the positive perception that superin-
tendents and school board members had regarding the effectiveness of MIG training on
positively impacting board member governance practices and support for mandating
training, there were still reservations regarding the negative impacts that legislation
could have on school districts. Superintendent Thomas was concerned about the cost of
MIG registration fees and travel expenses if he had to send all of his board members to
training:
We have to not only factor in the cost of the training fees, but also transporta-
tion, meals, and housing. It’s expensive to travel in California. In fact, this year,
our board declined attending CSBA MIG training because of monetary con-
cerns.
But the cost is still of concern. I think CSBA needs to find a way to
provide the training for free or at a lower cost to new board members. Would
they be willing to work on a model for CSBA membership dues where they
increase them by a bit to provide the training for free? Pre-paid MIG training if
you will. The key is finding a fee structure that works to reduce cost of training.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 88
Although Superintendent Thomas strongly agreed with mandating training, he was con-
cerned about the budget amount that he would have to set aside to train his board mem-
bers. He felt that CSBA would have to provide support or develop a fee structure to
assist cash-strapped school districts as they dealt with covering costs of mandated
trainings. Superintendent Michael, however, was not as concerned with the cost,
saying, “Yeah, we have an 80 million dollar budget. We’re not going broke sending
school board members for training.” My follow-up question was whether he felt that
school board training was a worthwhile investment; his response was, “Absolutely.”
Table 10 illustrates the division between both groups regarding the cost of the
MIG as an impediment to attendance. In both surveyed groups, approximately half of
the superintendents and half of the school board members agreed that the cost of MIG
training was a deterrent; the other half disagreed.
School board members also supported mandated training but were concerned
about its impact on school districts. School Board Member Nadine said:
I think mandating something like that without being very careful of the cost that
it will incur to a district or the individual board members, should their districts
not be willing to pay for the training.
Board Member Nadine had indicated that she was not in favor of mandating training on
her survey. Board Member Susan was in favor of mandating training and had the fol-
lowing concern: “Well, I think it’s an excellent idea . . . Of course that one might be
one more deterrent against people running for school board, which they may not do.”
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 89
Table 10
Survey Results From Superintendents and School Board Members Regarding Cost of
Masters in Governance (MIG) Training Being an Impediment to Participation
Cost of MIG an impediment S u p e r i n t endents
a
S B M s
b
to participation f % f %
Strongly agree 8 13 8 9
Agree 21 34 29 34
Disagree 29 48 33 38
Strongly disagree 3 5 7 8
Note. SBMs = school board members. Not all survey questions were completed by all
participants.
a
n = 61.
b
n = 86.
For School Board Member Susan, the concern about mandating training was that it
would discourage citizens from running for school board office.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
Research question 3 investigated the impact that mandating school board train-
ing could impact school board governance. Study participants, especially school board
members, indicated that it could help school board members clearly understand their
roles and responsibilities and those of the superintendent. While there was widespread
support for mandating training among study participants, there were concerns that this
mandate could have negative budgetary impacts on school districts and could possibly
discourage people from running for school board positions. An analysis of the data for
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 90
research question 3 indicated that mandating MIG training should be funded or subsi-
dized from nondistrict sources.
Chapter Summary
There were three major findings in this study: First, MIG training should be
adjusted to be more flexible and accommodating to fit the needs and busy schedules of
school board members as a means to increase participation. School board members
were motivated to participate in MIG training, as they felt that it would make them more
effective in their governance practices. Motivation is part of the human resource frame
for effective leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Study participants also felt that easing
participation time requirements, increasing local course offerings, and having more
online availability would increase participation.
Second, MIG certification was effective in providing participants with a clear
understanding of the roles and responsibilities of board members and superintendents so
as to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance. MIG training directly influenced
board member governance practices by helping them to stay focused on student achieve-
ment, teaching them skills to work as a unified board team, and ensuring that they had a
clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities compared to those of the superin-
tendent. Respect for roles and responsibilities are key performance areas for effective
governance teams (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008).
Third, mandating MIG training should be funded or subsidized from nondistrict
sources. Superintendents and board members agreed that MIG training should be a
California mandate but worried about the negative financial impact that this mandate
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 91
could have on school districts. The CSBA (2007) and Delagardelle (2008) found that
effective school boards are those that participate in professional development.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 92
Chapter 5
Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations
School boards are elected governing bodies that oversee public education
systems and are responsible for creating an educational climate where educational ex-
cellence can be attained (Johnson, 2011). Board members are held accountable for their
management of educational policies, progress monitoring, and student achievement, and
they control approximately $600 billion nationwide (NCES, 2012). Citizens across the
country with little formal experience in education are regularly elected to school board
positions for little or no compensation (Hess, 2002; Nylander, 2007).
School board members should understand and implement good leadership and
effective governance practices, especially with federal student achievement perfor-
mance benchmarks at such a high level (NCLB, 2003). The Lighthouse Inquiry (Dela-
gardelle, 2008) and the CSBA (2007) have identified best practices for effective board
governance. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model explains effective leadership
practices. However, it appears that most school board members will not receive training
in these important areas. In the United States, only 23 states mandate some type of
professional development training for school board members (NSBA, 2012). In Cali-
fornia, training is a voluntary process.
Formal professional development can improve school board effectiveness
(Bianchi, 2003; Brewer & Smith, 2008; Dillon, 2010). As public scrutiny and account-
ability demands increase, school boards must demonstrate professionalism and make
well-informed policy decisions regarding student achievement, finance, human
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 93
resources, and facilities (CSBA, 2007; Johnson, 2011). Effective school boards are
those that collaborate, communicate, and engage in ongoing professional development
(Leithwood et al., 2008).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether MIG training impacted
school board member governing practices and behaviors by helping them to engage in
best practices for effective governance. The theoretical frameworks used as a lens to
examine best practices were Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model for effective
leadership (2008), the CSBA’s (2007) Professional Governance Standards, and The
Lighthouse Inquiry’s Key Areas of Board Performance (Delagardelle, 2008). These
theoretical frameworks were used to develop the following three research questions:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the
MIG training program?
2. Does the MIG training 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?
School districts throughout six southern California counties with high API
scores or significant API growth over the previous 3 years were targeted for participa-
tion. Using the three research questions as a foundation, a survey protocol, interview
guide, and a MIGOP were developed. These instruments were triangulated with the
theoretical frameworks and literature review. Several themes emerged from the data
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 94
analysis. This chapter provides a summary of the findings, limitations, implications for
practice, recommendations for future research, and conclusions.
Summary of Findings
In response to the research questions three significant findings emerged:
1. MIG training should be adjusted to be more flexible and accommodating to
fit the needs and busy schedules of school board members as a means to increase
participation;
2. MIG certification was effective in providing school board members with a
clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and those of the superintendent so
as to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance; and
3. Mandating MIG training should be funded or subsidized from nondistrict
sources.
The first finding indicates that MIG training should be adjusted to meet the
needs of school board members in order to increase participation. Increasing participa-
tion is important because California does not mandate school board training of any kind
(NSBA, 2012). There is literature that supports the idea of training to enhance board
member governance practices and to improve governance structures (BoardSource,
2008; Dervarics & O’Brien, 2011; Land, 2002). Land (2002) found that effective
school boards exhibit specific characteristics, one of them being participation in profes-
sional development. Dervarics and O’Brien (2011) also found that in effective school
districts, board members and superintendents participate together in professional devel-
opment that helps build improvement efforts around shared knowledge and values.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 95
This study found that participation in training would increase if the time requirement for
certification were eased. This fact is important as this study’s theoretical frameworks
emphasize the value of participation in professional development to increase effective-
ness (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008). Delagardelle (2008) also found that participa-
tion in quality professional development and a willingness to learn assists school boards
in their efforts to improve student achievement. An adjustment by CSBA to the MIG
certification model could result in higher participation rates by governance teams. The
60-hour MIG certification requirement is higher than any mandating state’s current
training time requirements.
The second finding indicates that MIG training equips school board members
with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and those of the superinten-
dent. This finding is supported by the this study’s theoretical frameworks which found
that effective school board governance depends on how well group members collabo-
rate, communicate, respect roles and responsibilities, and operate with trust and integ-
rity (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008). This is important since at any given moment in
time, up to fifty-percent of board members in the United States are in their first four
years of service, and approximately seventeen percent of board with elected or ap-
pointed political experience (Nylander, 2007; Grissom, 2007). For new and inexperi-
enced board members, training can provide a clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities (NCES, 2011). Participants who completed MIG certification claimed
that the training helped them become more effective in their governance practice
through an understanding of roles and responsibilities.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 96
Bolman and Deal (2008) indicated that respecting clearly outlined roles and
responsibilities is part of the structural frame. These structures are in place to assist in
diminishing micromanagement by board members and potentially diffusing politically
confrontational incidents. Survey participants and interviewees consistently indicated
that MIG training directly and positively impacted their behaviors with respect to their
governance practices.
The third finding indicated that the legislation of mandatory MIG training
should come with funding or subsidies from nonschool district monies. Currently, 23
states mandate some form of professional development for school board members
(NSBA, 2012). California does not currently mandate training, but there are voluntary
training opportunities available through several organizations. Research shows that
there is a connection between school board training and effective governance practices
(Allen & Mintrom, 2010; Delagardelle, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2008). Among this
study’s participants, mandating MIG training for California school board members had
broad support.
Superintendents and school board members agreed on their surveys and in the
interviews that they would support mandating training. They felt that training elevates
the board member position to a professional level and could help them increase their
effectiveness. Although there was agreement to mandate training, they did caution that
such legislation could negatively impact school districts with small or shrinking
budgets. Survey participants were concerned that mandating MIG training would be
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 97
another unfunded mandate and recommended that the state fund the mandate or that
CSBA increase membership dues to offer free training to new board members.
Limitations
After careful data analysis, new limitations related to this study were identified.
Some participants’ responses were limited and based on their recollection of MIG
training in which they participated many years ago. Additionally, observations of all
nine MIG modules was not possible due to researcher time constraints, training loca-
tion, and study period time constraints.
Implications for Practice
From this study, three implications for practice emerged. First, MIG training
requirements should be eased to increase participation. Second, school board members
should participate in training to improve effectiveness. Third, school board training
should be state mandated. These three recommendations will lead to improved gover-
nance and leadership effectiveness among school boards.
The first implication for practice is that the CSBA should ease MIG certification
requirements to take advantage of school board members’ motivation. Although many
board members want to participate, not all can do so due to time constraints, schedule
conflicts, and budgetary restraints. In order to increase participation, the CSBA should
consider providing more local course offerings, reduce the 60-hour certification time
requirement, offer more online courses, and lower registration costs. These strategies
could increase participation in MIG training. California school districts looking to
improve board governance may want to consider training their respective school board
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 98
members, and agencies that provide professional development should be sensitive to
board members’ time constraints and school district budgets.
The second implication for practice is that school board members should
participate in MIG training to improve their effectiveness. Participants in this study
agreed that completion of MIG training equipped them with the necessary skills to
govern effectively. Their perception was that MIG positively influenced their behaviors
to match those of established effective governance characteristics and practices such as
focusing on student achievement, working as a unified board team, and understanding
roles and responsibilities (CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle; 2008). MIG training plays an
important role in assisting governing boards to stay focused on the district’s vision and
mission goals and to avoid becoming mired in political confrontations that detract from
student achievement.
The third implication for practice is state mandated MIG training. School board
members agreed that MIG training helped them understand their roles and responsibili-
ties, to stay focused on student achievement, to work as a unified board, and altered
their behaviors to mirror those outlined as best practices for effective school board gov-
ernance. Simkins (2005) wrote that effective leadership and governance practices can
be generalized, thereby giving support to the idea of mandating training. Although
study participants would support MIG training legislation, they cautioned that support
should be in place to assist school districts in covering training costs and avoid deterring
future school board members from running for office.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 99
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study add to the current literature regarding the dispositions
that board members hold regarding training and their governance practices. Despite the
limitations of the study, important connections were made between training and effec-
tive governance. This study included only fully MIG trained board members. Follow-
up studies should include non-MIG trained school board members and compare their
responses to MIG-trained participant dispositions. This research was limited to superin-
tendents and school board members. Future studies cold include the viewpoints of
members of the community such as students, parents, and community members. This
type of research could provide support to superintendents and board members who want
to justify the expense of training to their constituents. Finally, geographical constraints
limited the study to southern California. Follow-up studies could include central and
northern California for more inclusive perspectives from California superintendents and
board members.
Conclusions
School board members’ responsibilities over student achievement and budget
are great. Given the relative newness to office by school board members and their lack
of formal experience in the education field (Nylander, 2007), professional development
for board members makes sense. Board members believe that their mission is to pre-
pare their students for future higher education, employment, and civic duties (Hess &
Meeks, 2010). They want to be effective in order to fulfill their mission and are moti-
vated to participate in professional development.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 100
Nevertheless, many school board members in southern California do not partici-
pate in MIG training, as training is a voluntary process in California (NSBA, 2012).
States that mandate training for board members tend to receive higher marks for student
achievement (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). While training does not guarantee effective-
ness, study participants agreed that MIG training directly impacted their own gover-
nance practices and helped them to become more effective. Superintendents and board
members in this study supported the idea of mandating training but worried about the
impact that costs could incur on districts as well as the effect it could have on the re-
cruitment of future board members. In states that mandate training, time requirements
are lower than the 60-hour California MIG program, and in some states the state govern-
ment pays for the training (Bianchi, 2003; NSBA, 2012). If politicians contemplate
legislating mandatory school board training, flexibility and support should be an impor-
tant consideration.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 101
References
Allen, A., & Mintrom, M. (2010). Responsibility and school governance. Educational
Policy, 24, 439–464.
Anderson, S., & Tongeri, W. (2005). School district-wide reform policies in education.
In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Dantlow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.),
International handbook of educational policy (pp. 173–194). Dordrecth, Nether-
lands: Springer.
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3),
1–4. Retrieved from http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/
forecast1003.pdf
Black, J. (2004). Defining enrollment management: The structural frame. College and
University Journal, 79(4), 37–39.
BoardSource. (2008). Exceptional board practices: The source in action. Washington,
DC: Author.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, D., & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the crazy quilt: Educational governance in
California. Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/
SUMMARIES/Brewer.pdf
Brewer, D. J., & Smith, J. (2008). A framework for understanding educational gover-
nance: The case of California. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 20–40.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 102
California Department of Education. (2011). 2010-11 Academic Performance Index
reports. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide11
.pdf
California Department of Education. (2012). Overview of California's 2011-2012
accountability progress reporting system. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and
function of California's school boards. Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/
media/Files/AboutCSBA2/SchBrdLeadershipBk.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2010). Masters in Governance. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceServices/MastersInGovernance
.aspx
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Couper, M. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. The Public Opin-
ion Quarterly, 64, 464–494.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2), 1–4.
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation's schools: The case for restructuring
local school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 367–373.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 103
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The
future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 191–224). Blue
Ridge, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Dervarics, C., & O’Brien, E. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards.
Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public
education/Eightcharacteristics-of-effective-school-boards
Dillon, N. (2010). The importance of school board training. American School Board
Journal, 197(7), 14– 19.
EdSource. (2012). California’s students. Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/
sys_students.html
Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A national perspective n the effects of high-
stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization.
Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114–130.
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 Adminsitration, 31, 211–243.
Fusarelli, L. D., Kowalski, T. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2011). Distributive leadership, civic
engagement, and deliberative democracy as vehicles for school improvement.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 43–62.
Gale, E. A. M. (2004). The Hawthorne studies—a fable for our times? QJM: An Inter-
national Journal of Medicine, 97, 439-449. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hch070
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 104
Geier, R., Smith, S., & Tornow, M. (2012). District data teams: A leadership structure
for improving student achievement. Retrieved from http://www
.publicconsultinggroupcom/education/library/white_papers/District_Data_Teams
.pdf
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., Villani, J. S. (2009). The key work of school boards
guidebook (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its mean-
ing, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Association, 37, 479—507.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California (Working Paper 2007-
04)? Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/publications/documents/wp_who_
sits_on_sch_in_ca.pdf
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public
organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administra-
tion Research and Theory, 20, 601–627.
Hatrick, E. B. (2010). Searching for excellence in a superintendent. The School Admin-
istrator, 67(9), 41–42.
Hess, F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and chal-
lenges of district governance. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Associa-
tion.
Hess, F. (2010). Weighing the case for school boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 15–20.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 105
Hess, F., & Meeks, O. (2010). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the account-
ability era. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/files/2011/02/03/HessFeb2011.pdf
Howell, W. G. (2005). Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Johnson, P. (2011). School board governance: The times they are a changin’. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(10), 1–20. doi:10.1177/1555458911413887
LaMonte, H., & Delagardelle, M. (2009). Seeing the light. American Board Journal,
August, 2009.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in
relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72,
229–278.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for
school board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40, 704–741.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics: 2010.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/index.asp
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). Fast
facts. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 106
National School Boards Association. (n.d.). Why school boards? Five reasons for local
control of public education. Retrieved from http://www.nvasb.org/Publications/
misc/Why%20School%20Boards.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2012). Mandated training for school board
members. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/
MandatedTraining.pdf
Newton, P. M., & Sackney, L. (2005). Group knowledge and group knowledge
processes in school board decision making. Canadian Journal of Education, 28,
434–457.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
Nylander, A. (2007). National School Board Survey 2007. Retrieved from http://www
.oldham.kyschools.us/files/reports/National_Surveys/National%20School%20Boar
d%20Survey%202007%20Final%20Results_pdf.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petersen, G. J. (2002). Singing the same tune: Principals’ and school board members’
perceptions of the superintendent’s role as instructional leader. Journal of Educa-
tional Adminsitration, 40, 158–171.
Quality counts: 2009 state report cards. (2009, January 8). Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2009/17src.h28.html?r=1014374166
Quality counts: 2012 state report cards. (2012, January 12). Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2012/16src.h31.html?intc=EW-QC12-TOC
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 107
Rice, R., Delagardelle, M. L., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., & Vens, M. J. (2001,
April). The Lighthouse Inquiry: School board an superintendent behaviors in
school districts with extreme differences in student achievement. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle,
WA.
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.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seiler, M. F., Chilton, K. C., White, K. W., Alexander, A., Landy, B., Nelson, D., . . .
Young, P. (2010). Leadership training for superintendents, school board members,
principals, and school-based decision making council members. Frankfort, KY:
Legislative Research Commission.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasiexper-
imental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Wadsworth.
Simkins, T. (2005). Leadership in education: What works or what makes sense. Edu-
cational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(9), 9-26.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. (2002). No Child Left
Behind: A desktop reference. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/
account/nclbreference/reference.pdf
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 108
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1974). The Belmont report. Retrieved
from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Usdan, M. D. (2010). School boards: A neglected institution in an era of school reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 8–11.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement—a working paper. Denver,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education.
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd
ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 109
Appendix A
School Board Member Survey
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 110
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 111
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 112
Appendix B
Superintendent Survey
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 113
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 114
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 115
Appendix C
Interview Guide: Superintendent
* NOTATES QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IF APPLICABLE
1. Is receiving Masters in Governance (MIG) training a cultural expectation in your
school district?
2. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school
board training program?
3. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members—
that is, what would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?
4. Have you recommended MIG training to nontrained board members? What was
their response?
5. Did you feel any pressure to complete the MIG training?
6. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative
process (teamwork) in your district?
7. Has the MIG training impacted the decision-making and governance practices in
your district?
8. Has the MIG training affected the way your board members govern? If so, please
explain.
9. What indicators suggest that the MIG training was effective or ineffective?
10. Have you been training in all nine modules of the MIG?
11. How could the MIG be improved in order to enable school board members to
govern more effectively? *
12. What was the most beneficial aspect of MIG training? *
13. Which of the nine MIG modules was the most effective and why? *
14. Which MIG module failed to meet your expectations, if any? Why? *
15. Should school board training be a California mandate? Why or why not?
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 116
16. What potential conflicts, if any, would you anticipate with such a mandate?
17. What potential fiscal impact would mandating training have on your district?
Would this expenditure be supported by stakeholders?
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 117
Appendix D
Interview Guide: School Board Member
* NOTATES QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IF APPLICABLE
1. Is receiving Masters in Governance (MIG) training a cultural expectation in your
school district?
2. What factors impact the decision of school board members to complete a school
board training program?
3. What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members—
that is, what would it take to make all school board members want to be trained?
4. Have you recommended MIG training to nontrained board members? What was
their response?
5. Did you feel any pressure to complete the MIG training?
6. What role, if any, did the MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative
process (teamwork) in your district?
7. Has the MIG training impacted the decision-making and governance practices in
your district?
8. Has the MIG training affected the way your board members govern? If so, please
explain.
9. What indicators suggest that the MIG training was effective or ineffective?
10. How could the MIG be improved in order to enable school board members to
govern more effectively? *
11. What was the most beneficial aspect of MIG training? *
12. Which of the nine MIG modules was the most effective and why? *
13. Which MIG module failed to meet your expectations, if any? Why? *
14. Should school board training be a California mandate? Why or why not?
15. What potential conflicts, if any, would you anticipate with such a mandate?
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 118
16. What potential fiscal impact would mandating training have on your district?
Would this expenditure be supported by stakeholders?
(Source: Prepared by USC dissertation study cohort, July, 2012.)
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 119
Appendix E
MIG Observation Protocol
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 120
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 121
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 122
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 123
Appendix F
Alignment of Survey/Interview Questions and MIG Observation Protocol
Survey Questions and Research Question Alignment
Research Question Survey Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members
to complete the Masters In Governance training program?
7, 9, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23
2. Does Masters in Governance training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 17, 18, 20
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
10, 11, 14, 15
Interview Questions and Research Question Alignment
Research Question Interview Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members
to complete the Masters In Governance training program?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2. Does Masters in Governance training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance?
6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
3, 15, 16, 17
MIG Observation Protocol and Research Question Alignment
Research Question
MIG Observation
Protocol Items
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members
to complete the Masters In Governance training program?
2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13
2. Does Masters in Governance training encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective
governance?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
3. In what ways could mandating the Masters In Governance
program impact school board governance?
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 124
Appendix G
Research Questions/Survey/Interview/MIGOP Protocol Grid
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 125
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 126
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 127
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 128
Appendix H
Superintendent Recruitment Letter
Date ____________________
Dear Superintendent __________________________,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the impact of the
California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training has on school
board members’ ability to govern effectively. This study may serve as a source for best practices for
superintendents who strive to strengthen the professional development and growth of their school board
members. Enclosed you will find an information sheet outlining the purpose of the study, as well as
additional information related to the research.
My name is Marco Nava, and I am part of a thematic research team under the direction 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 program. 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 identified board members in completing the
enclosed School Board Member Survey. An additional copy of the School Board Member Survey is
enclosed for your review.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your
participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any
time. Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will
ensure that no individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact me or
Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you, in advance, for your time
and assistance.
Sincerely,
Marco A. Nava Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (818) 802-4769
I have read this recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent
to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 129
Appendix I
School Board Member Recruitment Letter
Date ____________________
Dear School Board Member _______________________________,
I would like to congratulate your school district for being identified as a successful district in which at
least one board member has completed the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in
Governance (MIG) training program. My name is Marco Nava, and I am a doctoral student from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California conducting a research study under
the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante.
As a graduate of the Masters in Governance training program, you have been invited to participate in this
study that may shed light on the impact of the Masters in Governance training program on school board
members’ ability to govern effectively. It is our hope that this study will serve as a resource of best
practices for school board members who strive to grow and develop as educational leaders. Thank you, in
advance, for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review and complete the information enclosed in
this packet.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your
participation, although appreciated, is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time. Informa-
tion obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher
and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no
individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact me or
Dr. Michael F. Escalante. Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Marco A. Nava Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
[email address] mescalan@usc.edu
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (818) 802-4769
I have read this recruitment letter and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent
to my participation in the research described above.
( ) I am willing to participate in a brief interview as my schedule permits.
Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 130
Appendix J
Information Letter: Superintendent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NONMEDICAL RESEARCH
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE
ON SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at
the University of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one
of the six southern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for
a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is com-
pletely voluntary. It is recommended that you read the information below prior to con-
senting to participate in this study.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association
(CSBA)-Masters In Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to
best practices for effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands
of accountability, and advancements in technology, school board members need to
understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an effective district environ-
ment. School board members must demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable
to make informed policy decisions regarding student achievement, finance, litigation,
human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of school board leadership are so
diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board professional growth
are vital characteristics for success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that
consists of 21 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective gov-
ernance.
You may be asked to participate in a 30-60 minute interview at a time and place conve-
nient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 131
and include questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the
interview without audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.
POTENTIAL RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts
that you may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the
question.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participa-
tion may add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG
training on effective governance practices. These findings will benefit school board
members who strive to improve conditions that lead to effective governance.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your par-
ticipation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and
confidentiality. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only
the researcher and the dissertation committee members will have access to the data
associated with this study. The data will be stored in a secure location in the investiga-
tor’s office and a password protected computer.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences,
no information will be included that would reveal your identity.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of re-
search subjects.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any
time without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions
you do not want to answer and still remain in the study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your par-
ticipation in this research study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 132
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research
Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272
or uprib@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Marco Nava at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at
mescalan@usc.edu.
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 133
Appendix K
Information Letter: School Board Member
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NONMEDICAL RESEARCH
SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING: IMPACT OF THE MASTERS IN GOVERNANCE
ON SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Michael Escalante at
the University of Southern California because you are a school board member in the one
of the six southern California counties being studied. This research will be the basis for
a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is com-
pletely voluntary. It is recommended that you read the information below prior to con-
senting to participate in this study.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine if the California School Boards Association
(CSBA)-Masters In Governance (MIG) training impacts the board’s ability to adhere to
best practices for effective governance. With increased public scrutiny, rising demands
of accountability, and advancements in technology, school board members need to
understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an effective district environ-
ment. School board members must demonstrate professionalism and be knowledgeable
to make informed policy decisions regarding student achievement, finance, litigation,
human resources, and facilities. Since the duties of school board leadership are so
diverse, collaboration, communication, and ongoing school board professional growth
are vital characteristics for success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that
consists of 21 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training on effective gov-
ernance.
You may be asked to participate in a 30-60 minute interview at a time and place conve-
nient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio taped with your permission
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 134
and include questions about effective governance. You may elect to continue with the
interview without audio recording; hand written notes will be taken.
POTENTIAL RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts
that you may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the
question.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. However, your participa-
tion may add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the impact of MIG
training on effective governance practices. These findings will benefit school board
members who strive to improve conditions that lead to effective governance.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You will not be paid for your par-
ticipation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Names of participants and district identifiers will be changed to ensure privacy and con-
fidentiality. Links to identify respondents to their answers will be eliminated. Only the
researcher and the dissertation committee members will have access to the data associ-
ated with this study. The data will be stored in a secure location in the investigator’s
office and a password protected computer.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences,
no information will be included that would reveal your identity.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of re-
search subjects.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You may choose to volunteer to participate in this study and you may withdraw at any
time without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions
you do not want to answer and still remain in the study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your par-
ticipation in this research study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a
IMPACT OF MIG TRAINING 135
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research
Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272
or uprib@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Marco Nava at [email address] or Dr. Michael Escalante, Faculty Supervisor, at
mescalan@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study used best practices identified in the relevant literature as a means to understand effective school board governance. The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine whether Masters in Governance (MIG) training provided by the California School Boards Association (CSBA) impacted school board member governance practices. With increased public scrutiny and accountability, school board members need to understand their roles and responsibilities in order to create an effective learning environment. Three research questions guided this work: (a) what factors impacted the decision of school board members to complete the MIG training program, (b) whether the MIG training encouraged and equipped school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance, and (c) in what ways mandating the MIG training could impact school board governance. The research team surveyed and interviewed school board members and superintendents across 6 southern California counties and included observations of MIG training modules. Targeted for participation were school districts with a student enrollment between 2,000 and 50,000, an API score of 800 or higher or an increase of 21 API points in previous 3 years, and having at least 1 fully MIG trained school board member. General findings included MIG adjustments to increase participation

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

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

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Nava, Marco (author)

Core Title Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/17/2013

Defense Date 02/22/2013

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

Tag CSBA,Masters in governance,MIG,OAI-PMH Harvest,School boards

Format application/pdf (imt)

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 mistermnava@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-237989

Unique identifier UC11294745

Identifier etd-NavaMarco-1560.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-237989 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NavaMarco-1560.pdf

Dmrecord 237989

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Nava, Marco

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