University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Local governance teams: how effective superintendents and school boards work together

(USC Thesis Other)

Local governance teams: how effective superintendents and school boards work together

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

1

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS: HOW EFFECTIVE SUPERINTENDENTS
AND SCHOOL BOARDS WORK TOGETHER

by

Matthew J. Russo

_______________________________________________________________________

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 2015

Copyright 2015 Matthew J. Russo

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful wife Marjorie Russo who has been my rock,
my relentless supporter, my advisor, my confidant, and my motivator. This is as much for her as
it is for me.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
When one embarks on a journey such as this it is with great trepidation of the unknown
and self-consciousness and the path seems impassable without the help from lifelines. It is with
indescribable gratitude and respect that I thank the following individuals for the anchors they
have been in my life through this process.
First and foremost I thank my Heavenly Father for the gifts he has given me for without
them I am nothing. Above all other earthly beings I want to thank my beautiful wife for her
unwavering support and fierce determination. I want to thank my children Matt, John, Zachary,
Marjorie, Joshua, Jessica, Elizabeth, and Gideon for being the joy of my life and the reason I do
just about all I do. I want to thank my parents Matthew and Kathleen Russo for raising me and
giving me a strong work ethic and determination to succeed. I utilize the lessons they taught to
guide my life. I would also like to thank my parents-in-law Bill and Sharon Thompson for their
undying support. I would like to give a special thanks to by dear friend Dr. Joseph D. Hyde for
following me into this endeavor and giving me encouragement and prodding to get done. I
would like to thank two wonderful superintendents and bosses Dr. Barry Kayrell and Dr.
Maureen Latham for allowing me to enter the program and take the time to attend classes and
work on my dissertation. I would like to thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, and Dr. Eric Vreeman for
participating on my committee and providing great insights and life lessons. Last of all but
certainly not least a very special appreciation to Dr. Pedro Garcia for taking me on and
encouraging me to finish this monumental project, I couldn’t have done it without you; Fight on!

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 10
Significance of the Study 11
Effectiveness 12
Research Questions 13
Limitations of the Study 14
Delimitations of the Study 14
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
Introduction 15
History of the Superintendency 15
The Board of Education 23
Figure 1. Models of decision making in a political system 25
Board and Superintendent Relations 26
Governance 30
Training 31
Leadership and Trust 33
Chapter Summary 35
Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design 37
Introduction 37
Purpose for the Study 38
Research Questions 38
Research Design 38
Participants in the Study 39
Process of Conducting Interviews 39
Processing Qualitative Data 41
Survey Protocols 41
Quantitative Data Processing and Analysis 42
Ethical Considerations 42
Other Considerations 42
Conclusion 43

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

5
Chapter 4: Findings 44
Background 44
Purpose 47
Coding the Data 47
Research Questions 48
Research Question 1 49
Research Question 2 55
Research Question 3 58
Research Question 4 61
Conclusion 62
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations 64
Introduction 64
Statement of the Problem 64
A Review of the Literature 65
Methodology 66
Research Questions 66
Interpretation of Research Data 67
Superintendents 67
Board and Superintendent Relations 68
Recommendations for Further Research 69
Conclusion 70
References 72
Appendices 78
Appendix A: Informed Consent Form 78
Appendix B: Interview Questions 80
Appendix C: Survey Questions 82

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Interview Participants 45
Table 2. Survey Participants 46
Table 3. Indications of Board Member Trust in the Superintendent 60

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

7
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationships between superintendents and
board members as they work together as effective governance teams, education, and experience
between boards and superintendents, by analyzing the perceptions, thoughts, and interactions
between the board members and superintendents. More specifically this study set out to
determine: (1) what strategies superintendents and board members use to work together as
effective governance teams, (2) in what ways do local governance teams work effectively in the
face of diminishing powers and authority imposed by state and federal governments, (3) the key
elements to building trust and communicating effectively between superintendents and board
members, and (4) the role that superintendents play in providing learning opportunities for
elected board members and the role to the elected board members play in seeking professional or
personal learning opportunities related to governance and policy. This study employed a mixed-
methods approach in which 35 board members and 35 superintendents participated in a survey
and an additional three board presidents and three superintendents participated in semi-structured
personal interviews. Through the process of coding and survey analysis the study’s findings
indicate that clear, timely, and equitable communication from the superintendent to the board
members is essential to effectiveness, boards work effectively within the parameters set by state
and federal governments, superintendents build trust through transparency, effective
communication, and through providing relevant training, and superintendents take the role of
providing training very seriously and board members have a strong desire for appropriate
training. Overall this study provides insight into how trusting relationships lead to effective
governance teams.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

8
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
According to Wirt and Kirst (2005) the local school board is an endangered species.
Although the public perception is that the power over local schools lies heavily with the school
board the reality is that increasingly over the past several decades that power has been pirated
away by state and federal governments as well as other entities (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). There have
always been serious considerations over who should be in control of public education between
the federal government, state government, and local districts. As the state takes more control by
developing policies that districts must adhere to local school governance teams are losing power.
The superintendents and school boards of today’s public schools in California are faced
with a variety of issues that have serious implications for students and families. School boards
are made up of citizens elected from the populous of the district’s boundaries. Although elected
school board members may be educated in a variety of academic or technical fields it is likely
that they have no training in governance or policy development and implementation. Because
federal and state governments financially support schools in the US they have always worked to
assume more control of schools over the history of education in this country (Berlak, 2005). As
the local districts lose power and have board members that may not be adept at generating
policies or even have an understanding of the process of developing policies. In the face of
losing even more power to the state districts have diminishing power.
Superintendents are faced with the challenge of developing board member capacity while
still proceeding with the business of educating children. This study will attempt to gain an
understanding of how superintendents and board presidents view their respective roles in
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

9
providing or participating in professional development as a governance team to better meet the
needs of the students in the district. The study will consist of interviews of superintendents and
board members in local districts in the Inland Empire of Southern California.
Background of the Problem
Since the inception of public education through the common school there has been a
struggle with the governance. In the beginning local communities had complete control of the
schools that taught their children. Over the past century the ongoing battle between the federal
government and the states over the power has had a see-saw effect on the power of local
governance of schools. In the past several decades the state of California has increasingly taken
tighter control over the funding and regulation of public schools leaving local boards with little
power to really effect change within their respective jurisdictions.
The structure of school governance has changed from the original conception of the one-
room schoolhouse to the current unified school districts with multiple levels of education ranging
from Transitional Kindergarten through elementary school to middle and high schools. Each of
these local agencies have elected officials charged with ensuring that the district follows policies
that not only meet the requirements of state education code but also meet the needs of the local
children and their families. School boards are made up of elected officials from various
backgrounds that theoretically represent the population living within the boundaries of the school
districts. These board members are made up of all ethnic, economic, religious, and gender
differences.
The role of the superintendent has changed over the past decades as well.
Superintendents are charged with the organization and management of the school districts as
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

10
well as providing leadership for learning organizations that adapt to the changing environment
and grow through interconnectedness (Senge, 1990).
Statement of the Problem
Local school boards are elected by the populous to represent the interests of the citizens
of their respective districts by making decisions related to the education of the children within
the boundaries of their respective jurisdictions. Decisions facing local governance teams include
policies on instruction, curriculum, student achievement, personnel, and budgets, and to develop
and implement administrative regulations that allow district administration to act on the policies.
Many of the board members when elected have no education or training in teaching and learning
and yet are supposed to make decisions related to the complicated issues of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment and accountability. Upon entering office board members are not
required to have any knowledge or training nor are they required to receive any before charged to
make those weighty decisions. As a matter of fact the very night members are sworn into office
they generally begin making decisions immediately with little preparation other than receipt of
agendas with back-up materials and possible discussions with the superintendent.
Boards are extremely dependent upon the superintendents to provide background
knowledge, data, information, and explanation of them all to the respective members.
Superintendents act as filters of information that reaches the board with the ability to manipulate
information to meet their personal or professional agendas. It is possible that superintendents
can dictate policy through the way that they disseminate information to the board allowing only
information that solidifies or strengthens their position on particular issues. It is also possible for
the superintendent to remain untarnished by decisions made by the board because they can
implicate the board for making decisions. If the superintendent has personal or professional
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

11
motives the decision-making process of the local governance team can be tainted whether the
intentions of the superintendent are justified or not.
To confound the issues further in recent decades the power struggles between the federal
government and the state governments including California have lessened the power of local
boards to control and govern the schools within their stewardships. Essentially school boards
and administrative teams have been allowed the minimal power to develop and implement
school policies tightly aligned with state and federal mandates and laws related to education. If a
local school board finds themselves in intellectual opposition with state and federal directives
they can fear the retribution of these formidable behemoth institutions through sanctions and
possible loss of funding.
Although superintendents are charged with leading education reform within their districts
the board of educations cannot play the passive role of simply approving recommendations from
the superintendent. School boards must work with superintendents as active participants in the
discussions and debates around school policy and reform. The apparent disconnect between
school boards and superintendents or the assumption that they work as separate actors in the
process is a real problem in education today.
Significance of the Study
This study will provide an understanding of the workings between superintendents and
board members in decision-making through the process of school reform. The intent is to shine a
light on the thought processes of board members and superintendents as they enter into
discussions about what policies need to be in place, how those policies are derived, and how
those policies ultimately produce positive outcomes for the stakeholders. Through this study it is
hoped that school board members and superintendents will be able to engage in rich discussions
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

12
about policies and regulations rather than play passive roles in the process. The study also hopes
to root out situations through which local school governance teams can affect reform on a scale
larger than their jurisdictions by really being involved in larger organizations that have a stake in
state education governance.
Can local governance teams really work effectively together to develop and implement
local policies given the impediments of lack of knowledge or training, the Brown Act, and state
and federal law? Do local elected school officials have the capacity to understand the intricacies
of public education policy? What role does the superintendent play in providing learning
opportunities for elected board members and what role do the individual board members play in
seeking out personal development in these areas? If provided with meaningful learning in these
areas can school boards and superintendents work together real governance teams to affect
relevant reforms in their districts and beyond? What form of communication do the board and
superintendent to get this job done utilize? These are some questions that this study attempts to
answer.
Effectiveness
The term effectiveness is widely used and sometimes overused. What does effectiveness
really mean? There are many works defining effectiveness in general and some for education
specifically. It is important to define this term for this study in order to frame the results.
Dr. Stephen R. Covey defines effectiveness in the form of seven habits based upon
principles that bring about the maximum long-term beneficial results possible. These habits
become the foundation for a person’s character, creating an empowering center of correct maps
from which an individual can effectively solve problems, maximize opportunities, and
continually learn and integrate other principles in an upward spiral of growth (Shahhussain,
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

13
2012). For the purposes of this study governance team effectiveness will be framed through the
perspective of board members and superintendents and their respective views on board and
superintendent relations.
In his pivotal work Good to Great, Jim Collins discusses 15 American companies and
their journey from the realm of good or prosperous to great or demonstrating a perpetual growth
over the course of years. In the study conducted by his team they discovered that each company
that made the leap to greatness had at the helm a leader of unique qualities. These special
leaders are labeled as level five leaders. Leaders in this category exhibit a combination of “fierce
professional resolve and personal humility” (Collins, 2001). The key factor in the rise of the
companies in the longitudinal study was these level five leaders underscoring the idea that any
organization with the proper leadership can make a leap from being average to being
phenomenal.
Research Questions
1. What strategies to superintendents and school boards use to work together as
governance teams?
2. In what ways do local governance teams work effectively in the face of diminishing
powers and authority imposed by state and federal governments?
3. What are the key elements to building trust and communicating effectively between
the superintendent and the board members?
4. What role if any does the superintendent play in providing learning opportunities for
elected board members and what role do the elected board members play in seeking
professional or personal learning opportunities related to governance and policy?
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

14
Limitations of the Study
For this study the limitations may be evident in the fact that the research currently serves
as an elected board member in addition to working as an administrator in public education.
Particularly the position as board member may contribute to bias when interpreting data. Further
limitations may include: (1) the results of the study are strictly limited to the responses of the
participants of the study; (2) the participants of the study are located in a close geographical
region of Southern California because of the constraints of the researcher; (3) the ability to
contact and meet with respondents will depend upon availability of participants; (4) the
participants for the interview protocol were identified by specific criteria.
Delimitations of the Study
The participants for this study were selected through criteria based for inclusion such as
position either as superintendent or board president, geographical location, and district size. Any
data gathered through interview or observation is strictly within the confines of the selected
districts for the study.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to understand how school boards and superintendents of
schools can work together as effective governance teams. A look at the literature surrounding
this topic reveals the importance of the position of the superintendent and how it is viewed in our
society. Given the unique nature of the organization of school systems in America today in that
generally local governance teams are made up of a highly trained and experienced
superintendent working with an inexperienced, untrained board elected from the public at large it
is important to understand the nature of each of these positions.
At its core the purpose of this study is to examine the complex, precarious, and unique
relationship between the superintendent and the school board. The nature of the relationship at
its core is that the superintendent of schools serves at the pleasure of the board (Kowalski, 2003).
This being the case it is also equally important to understand that the most important of decisions
made by any board of education is the selection of the superintendent (Cox & Malone, 2003).
History of the Superintendency
The Superintendent of Schools
The position of superintendent today is the result of a long history of ever changing roles,
responsibilities, and skills. In order to understand the current position of superintendent of
schools a brief history of the superintendency will be presented.
In New England townships and villages would meet annually in town meetings to discuss
the aspects of city government including development and approval of budgets and laws. The
daily operations were left to men selected from the community. The men elected were called
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

16
selectmen and with the passing of the Massachusetts School Ordinance in 1642 enabling
townships to choose men to manage all aspects of educating the community’s children including
setting taxes, setting wages, hiring teachers, and determining the length of the school year
(Campbell, Cunnningham, Nystrand, & Usdan, 1990; Reeves, 1954). These selectmen were
responsible for educational as well as non-educational aspects of the public schools. As time
progressed and school enrollment increased the educational duties of these elected officials grew
until they necessitated the separation of school duties from the operations of the cities. In
citizens of Boston voted that the selectmen and others they may choose to become the first
school official group to take under their charge the inspection of schools under the town’s
jurisdiction. In 1789 the General Court granted authority to appoint “School Committees for the
control of schools” and the first School Committee for Boston was chosen in October of that
which consisted of 21 members nine of which were town Selectmen the remaining members
made up from representatives of each of the twelve wards of the town. The School Committee
was elected annually (Boston Municipal Research Bureau, 1996). This School Committee was
the first of such organizations created in American history and the soon spread to other states that
in turn developed their own School Committees or School Boards (Campbell et al., 1990).
The emergence of the idea of a single person to be fully in charge of schools developed
as the duties and responsibilities of the School Committees or School Boards became difficult to
handle on a part-time basis and so these organizations began to set a person apart from the board
members to take on the responsibilities (Knezevich, 1969; Sharp & Walter, 2003). In 1837 the
first superintendents were appointed in Buffalo New York and Louisville Kentucky (Konnert &
Augenstein, 1990). Other states again followed suit and 13 local school systems appointed
superintendents between 1837 and 1850. California’s first superintendent was appointed in San
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

17
Francisco in 1852 with a student enrollment and 1854 Los Angeles selected its superintendent
with responsibility for 127 students (Griffiths, 1966).
The first superintendents were selected from the best teachers. Uniformity in
requirements for the job was non-existent and various titles were employed to the position such
as manager or headmaster. Eventually the title superintendent emerged as the best title a word
long in previous use deriving from the Latin super meaning over and intendere signifying direct
attention to (Townley, 1992). The job was rife with difficulties and direct challenges sounding
the earliest cries of no need for that type of administrative oversight and unwillingness to expend
the funds on such a position. Teachers and principals in the early days also utilized political
tactics to undermine the position when they disagreed with directives from the superintendent of
schools (Wilson, 1960).
Although the teachers of the past tended to not want a superintendent in charge of the
school systems today even the most militant unions recognize the need for the position (Wirt &
Kirst, 1990). The superintendent of today can identify with many of the struggles of the first
superintendents in many ways. Today’s Chief Education Officer is also faced with multiple
areas of responsibility related to instructional programs but not directly involved in the day-to-
day management of school sites or individual teachers. According to Griffiths (1966) the
changing role of the superintendent has had three developmental periods in American History.
First, from 1837 to 1910 the position of superintendent was mostly instructional based with little
to no business functions. The superintendents of this era considered themselves scholars but as
the end of this time period came around so too did the emergence of the idea of this position as
the Chief Executive Officer. Although superintendents were indeed trained teachers with an
understanding of academics they were mostly relegated to menial tasks assigned by school
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

18
boards or influential community members (Kowalski, 2013). The elites of this time period had
two main reasons for maintaining their power over superintendents. First they desired that the
school board should be the ultimate authority over the superintendent and not vice versa.
Second, they frankly held very little confidence in the teachers appointed to the superintendency
as managers because of their lack of experience and training in directing and managing material
and human resources (Knezevich, 1984).
The second stage, from 1910 to 1945 the superintendent’s major responsibilities
consisted of being the executive officer of the board dealing with business functions and
efficiency of operation. During this time period was the inception of formal training for
administrators through universities such as Columbia University, University of Chicago,
Stanford, and Harvard specifically for superintendents to which thousands of aspiring
superintendents flocked (Townley, 1992). The reign of the businessman superintendent found its
end around 1930 as the public’s view of the business leader melted into disillusionment because
of the great depression.
The third stage of this development of the position of superintendent from 1945 to the
present is represented by a paradigm shift from absolute control to that of shared leadership. As
will be presented later in this analysis there are multiple areas of responsibility for public K-12
education institutions that a single person cannot possibly take charge of them all. As the role of
the superintendent continues to change during this time period the focus of university training
has evolved to developing understanding of politics and the ability to share authority with
competing groups (Townley, 1992). According to the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) (2014), the school superintendents association, among other
demographics 60% of superintendents hold a doctoral degree and the mean age of
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

19
superintendents is between 54 and 55 years of age showing that today’s superintendent has years
of experience and extensive educational background. The superintendency of today is a
balancing act between the duties and responsibilities of managing a school district including all
aspects of business, human resources, instruction, leadership, and understanding the political
landscape.
The Contemporary Superintendent
As the office of superintendent has evolved over the history of education in the United
States so have the duties and responsibilities of that office to meet the needs of the current day.
Today the demographics of the superintendent are moving more toward a diversity that is
relevant to our day. Today over 14,000 men and women are superintendents (Townley, 1992)
and according to the AASA (2014) the number of minority superintendents is around 6% and the
number of women in the office is 21.7%. In California there are 1,043 school districts
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2013) represented by both men and women of
various ethnicities. Although the duties and responsibilities of the superintendent may vary from
state to state this study will focus on those of the California school superintendent. Unlike most
states the responsibilities of the California school superintendent are outlined in the Education
Code of California. The local school boards through board policies and administrative
regulations designate the duties.
Duties and Responsibilities
The governing board of each school district may appoint a secretary and bookkeeper for
the board. This person is not a member of the board and is generally the superintendent of the
district. The duties of this position are to: (a) Certify or attest to actions taken by the governing
board whenever such certification or attestation is required for any purpose; (b) Keep an accurate
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

20
account of the receipts and expenditures of school moneys; (c) Make an annual report, on or
before the first day of July, to the county superintendent of schools in the manner and form and
on the blanks prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction; (d) Make or maintain such
other records or reports as are required by law (California EC § 35250). Further responsibilities
of the superintendent are outlined in California law (California EC § 35035) as follows: be the
chief executive officer of the governing board, prepare and submit a budget to the governing
board, prepare and submit the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) to the governing
board, ensure implementation of the LCAP, assign all certificated employees to their positions,
transfer teachers according to board policies, verify that all certificated employees indeed hold
and maintain certificates required by positions held, enter into contracts on behalf of the board,
submit financial and related reports to the governing board.
Some of the responsibilities not specified in education code but implied by the LCAP
include the overall instructional program of the district, student achievement, maintenance of
district facilities, and student discipline. The LCAP specifies eight state priorities including
student achievement, student engagement, other student outcomes, school climate, parental
involvement, basic services, implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and
course access (Taylor, 2013). Along with all of these duties and responsibilities designated by
the state each governing board has the right to develop and assign any duties and responsibilities
to their respective superintendents (California EC § 35250). Given the above information it is
clear that superintendents must have extensive knowledge and experience in order to perform
well in their offices.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

21
Superintendent Preparation
Many states require specific training or education for those who wish to become a
superintendent. In fact, as late as 2003, 41 states required specific preparation and licensing for
superintendents (Kowalski, 2013). Although many states do require some kind of school
administrative training there are several instances where non-educators have been hired to direct
large urban school districts. As recent as 2010 San Diego Unified School District, the second
largest in California, hired William A. Kowba, a retired Navy admiral as their leader (Blume,
2010). Four years previous to this the Los Angeles Unified School District also hired a retired
Navy admiral but when a new board was elected a short time after this hire the new board voted
to pay out the remaining two years of the four-year contract. In fact the question of
superintendent preparation has been in existence as long as the position itself (Kowalski, 2013).
The debate is fueled by the idea that schools need qualified leaders. The definition of qualified is
at the root of the debate. The current establishment educators make several arguments for
various foci for revising policies regard superintendent preparation anywhere from the desire to
completely eliminate programs that have weak components to developing a national curriculum
for preparation and increasing the emphasis on instructional leadership (Kowalski, 2013;
Murphy, 1994). On the other hand groups such as the Broad Foundation and the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute are proponents of complete deregulation of preparation and licensure of
superintendents going as far as stating the belief that superintendents need nothing more than a
college education and a clean background check (Kowalski, 2006).
Given the evolution of the roles of the contemporary superintendent Kowalski (2004)
explains that the current need for strong political leaders as well as instructional leaders is more
than apparent in today’s evolving world of public education. Superintendents receive training
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

22
both through university administrator preparation programs and through the experience they gain
by having a long career in education affording them the experience requisite to be instructional
leaders taking a path through the ranks from teacher to assistant principal or principal to central
office administrator to superintendent (Björk, Glass, & Brunner, 2005). This progressive road to
the superintendency equips the office holder to deal with all of the demands of the job from
understanding instruction in the classroom to dealing with education policy reform to
communicating effectively with the public and guiding the board of trustees through the political
landscape of public education.
The Superintendent as a Communicator
Much of the literature on superintendents mentions the fact that one of the most important
roles of the modern superintendent is the role of communicator (Kowalski, 2013). The style of
communication dictates the effectiveness of the superintendent. Some empirical evidence
(Richmond, McCroskey, Davis, & Koontz, 1980; Snavely & Walters, 1983) suggests that
perceptions of administrator effectiveness are closely related their respective styles of
communication. Although the corporate world considers the traditional management style of a
top-down approach with a need-to-know attitude to be the most effective this generally reflects a
perception of ineffective communication in a school administrator (Kowalski, 2013). It is
imperative that superintendents have knowledge and skills that lead them to the high position of
leadership. They must possess knowledge of instruction and the data related to instruction.
More important than the knowledge is the ability to communicate that knowledge to their
stakeholders (Moore, Dexter, Berube, & Beck, 2005).
According to Kowalski (2013) the most significant skill that the modern superintendent
can possess is the ability to utilize relational communication. According to Littlejohn (1992) this
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

23
communicative behavior has to do with both the manner in which information is exchanged and
interpersonal perceptions of the exchange (as cited by Kowalski, 2013). The need for this style
of communication comes as a result of current reform initiatives that require input from various
stakeholders within the community at large (Kowalski, 2013). Kowalski (2005) posits that in
order to be effective relational communicators superintendents must understand relational
communication, believe that it is a positive method, and apply the skills consistently.
Although the literature does not explicitly state that good communication skills always
lead to success or that poor skills always lead to failure but it is clear that most often when
superintendents possess greater capacity to communicate effectively they are able to move
school districts in the right direction with a high level of support from the stakeholders. When
superintendents communicate poorly the negative impacts are drastic and can lead to mistrust
and eventually the dismissal of the superintendent (Davis, 1998).
The Board of Education
History of The Board of Education
As stated above the history of the Board of Education follows precedes the history of the
superintendent. Early in American public education as the leaders of communities saw the need
to educate children and began to establish school districts they also saw a need to provide
leadership from the community members called selectmen appointed by local municipality
governance (Campbell et al., 1990; Reeves, 1954). These selectmen were a part of the city
government in the beginning but as the responsibilities of public education grew these
committees began to split off from the local governments and form as school boards (Land,
2002). In 1837 Massachusetts formed the first state board of education to provide greater state
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

24
influence in public education but local boards retained most of their power at that time
(Danzberger, 1994).
Separate school districts were formed and then funded by local taxes and schools were
built to keep up with increasing enrollment. In the 1800s, boards of education were elected by
citizens of wards or neighborhoods of the community creating a mixture of local politics and
governance of school districts (Land, 2002). The boards began as administrative entities where
members would undertake specific school responsibilities. As enrollment increased over the
years the boards shifted to a legislative body with the primary function being to set board policy
and ensure its implementation (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Today, boards have evolved into small
political systems made up of members of the community that must mitigate the needs of the
constituents and the requirements of public education dictated by the state within which they
reside. Board members hold precarious positions that can change based upon the desires of the
citizenry of their respective districts (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
Boards as Decision-Making Bodies
Currently boards are burdened with the changing demands of education and the
community. The literature discusses various models of decision-making that are typically
employed by school boards. Wirt and Kirst (2005) discusses several of these models but that
most boards engage in multiple currents of decision-making outlined in Figure 1 below. One
method is the null response in which the agency simply ignores the need to make a decision and
the issue dies. The next method is the negotiated response in which competing demands into the
political system arise over an emerging issue upon which the board must make a decision and as
alternatives are presented and debated the competing demands are filtered until the board makes
a decision in the form of a board policy this being the outcome of that process. Then the prompt
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

25
response model is enacted under two specific types of circumstances in which the board responds
quickly to the impending issue and community demands. The first of these circumstances occurs
during a crisis that is some kind of threat either to the community or the school system. The
crisis might arise from natural calamities or from social causes that create conflict over values
and resources. The one critical determiner of a crisis is that most political actors must agree that
the crisis does indeed exist. The second instance in which the prompt response model is enacted
is entirely different from crisis because it occurs as a matter of routine. Such decisions are made
as a matter of course in the function of the creation of board policies and procedures.

Figure 1. Models of decision making in a political system. Source: Wirt and Kirst (2005)

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

26
Qualifications and Responsibilities of Board Members
According to the California School Boards Association (CSBA) the qualifications to
become a school board member are as follows: 18 years of age or older; a citizen of the state; a
resident of the school district; a registered voter; and not disqualified by the constitution or laws
of the state from holding a civil office (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2007).
The CSBA has published various documents outlining the roles and duties of board members in
the state of California. According to the CSBA boards govern their schools by setting the
direction for the community’s schools, by establishing an effective and efficient structure for the
school district, creating a supportive environment, ensuring accountability to the public and
demonstrating community leadership (CSBA, 2013). In reality because board members are
elected from the community at large and although the majority of board members are middle
class white males of varying professional backgrounds the education level varies and generally
very few have extensive backgrounds in policy development and implementation (Land, 2002).
Board and Superintendent Relations
Board Member Interrelationships
Boards and superintendent tenure depends heavily on the types of relations they can
create and maintain. In order to work together as governance teams it is imperative that the
board and the superintendents first develop and maintain good relationships with each other.
Although it is clear in the literature that the key to board effectiveness is a relentless focus on
student achievement in order to continue as a body boards must also develop relationships with
community, business, and other governmental agencies (Land, 2002).
But perhaps the most important relationships are those among the board members. Early
in the history of the United States citizens have always held distrust of distant governing bodies
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

27
making decisions that affected the local community. The boards were formed in the local areas
allow those municipalities to maintain control over the education of the children (Land, 2002).
This public distrust lends itself to most governing bodies and for this purpose it is important for
boards to maintain good relationships. There are some studies that confirm the fact that boards
regardless of demographics struggle with working together as a united governance team
(Danzberger, Kirst, & Usdan, 1992).
Board Relationships with Community and Business
In order to function as an entity in a community in which other organizations exist it is
important to foster positive relationships with those organizations giving them an opportunity to
share interest in the education of children in the community. Positive and lasting inter agency
relations provide effective outcomes for all parties involved including child welfare outside the
school setting (Danzberger et al., 1992). The National School Boards Association (NSBA)
president (Shannon, 1994) stated that if the comprehensive needs of all children are to be met,
the schools are a natural place in which to deliver the services, and educators are natural partners
for those responsible for providing the services. The NSBA unambiguously endorses this
approach to serving all the needs of children (p. 398). The board of education should develop and
nurture relationships with other community leaders and businesses as it seeks the best means to
meet the ever changing and diverse needs of the communities in which they serve. These
relationships meet the board priorities outlined by the CSBA previously mentioned that the board
creating a supportive environment and providing community leadership (CSBA, 2013).
Superintendent Relations
The superintendent is the primary representative of the board of trustees in any district.
Just as it is important for the board to develop and maintain various forms of relations so it goes
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

28
with the superintendent. If the board’s primary function is to develop policy it is the
superintendent’s primary function to implement those policies (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). In order to
have the ability to implement policy and initiatives from the board superintendents have to
develop strong relationships of trust with all the people and groups that have an interest in the
school district. These groups include local bargaining units, community and business partners,
and parents (Kowalski, 2013).
The most important relationships that can be formed by the superintendent are those with
the board as a whole and with individual board members. Difficult relationships of board
members and superintendents are often a result of misunderstanding of the individual roles of
each of the actors in this political stage (Kowalski, 2013). Superintendents tend to seek support
of individual board members to strengthen their influence on the board because their continued
good reputation and job survival depend at least in part on his or her ability to gain approval for
pivotal recommendations (Kowalski, 2013).
Developing Positive Relationships
Kowalski (2013) further explains that in order for a superintendent to build and maintain
positive relationships with board members for main factors are considered: thoughtful planning,
effective human relations skills, communication competence and philosophical compatibility.
Thoughtful planning is a process through which the superintendent develops a vision as well as
goals and tactics. A vision is an image that the superintendent has in his or her mind of the
symmetrical relationship with the board members. A symmetrical relationship is defined as
power being equal and benefit being proportional in the relationship (Kowalski, Peterson, &
Fusarelli, 2007). This vision is shared with board members to perpetuate an understanding of the
types of relationships the superintendent intends to have with the board members and enlist their
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

29
reciprocal involvement in the relationships. Relationship difficulties can be attributed to failure
to discuss perceptions of roles and relationships (McCurdy, 1992).
Effective human relations skills include the ability to interact with others in appropriate
ways through interpersonal relations and positive communication skills. Superintendents can
have depth of knowledge of institutional workings and instructional programs but unless they
communicate that knowledge in appropriate and positive ways the image of the superintendent
may be diminished. Highly effective superintendents are watchful and intentional in positive
communications and constantly seek to improve their ability to improve their communicative
behaviors (Eadie & Houston, 2003). One of the most important skills of effective human
relations is good communications. In the past administrators generally learned how to
communicate efficiently rather than effectively utilizing a classical communication model
through which communications followed the direct chain of command from top to bottom
(Kowalski, 2013).
Communication Competence as outlined previously in this chapter, although competent
communicators are not always successful and incompetent communicators are not always
failures but the general rule is that high competency in communication leads to successful
interpersonal interactions and help leaders to influence others to strive for and reach common
goals (Kowalski, 2013).
Philosophical compatibility is all about common beliefs and values regarding crucial
issues such as how to govern or who to govern. Katz (1993) studied board and superintendent
compatibility by utilizing two continua by which to plot board and superintendent behaviors.
For boards the continuum ranged from corporate board style noted by the characteristics of
relying on the superintendent for data and recommendations, procedural formality, and a
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

30
commitment to standards; and familial board style identified by extreme loyalty to the
community, informal communications, and procedural informality. The one for superintendents
ranged from task orientation to relationship orientation. Katz (1993) concluded the best
relationships between boards and superintendents occurred when relationship-oriented
superintendents were matched with familial-type boards or when task-oriented superintendents
were matched with corporate-style boards. Superintendent relationships with factional boards
are more complicated because superintendents tend to align themselves with a faction in these
situations (Newman & Brown, 1992). The literature almost always points to the fact that the best
relationships between boards and superintendents occur when they share parallel philosophies
(Kowalski, 2013).
Governance
The structure for the governance of education in the United States is interesting in the
fact that the U.S. Constitution does not include mention of education and as a matter of fact the
federal government takes a back seat to the states on the subject of education. State constitutions
outline the governance of the education system in their respective states. In order to maintain
relative control of education in the states each state delegates authority to the local school boards.
At the turn of the 20
th
century there was a strong movement toward a local control as the
governance of schools was shifted from corrupt municipal power to localized education
governments (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). At that time the system of ward politics was so inter-twined
with the school committees that even teacher’s positions were gained through political alliances.
Because of the corruption reformers sought to place the power for governance of schools more
into the education community. The populace of the communities made decisions about schools
through a maze of agencies such as the city council, school boards, ward school committees, and
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

31
boards of public works (Education Commission of the States [ECS], 1999). Reformers charged
that because of all of these subcommittees the authority of the school boards was splintered and
this coupled with the fact that members elected by wards tended to advance their own political
interests above the interests of the district and many times at the expense of the district as a
whole (Wirt & Kirst, 2005).
As reform occurred boards became separated from city agencies and took on a more
corporate look with a board of trustees to make decisions and a superintendent with a cabinet to
manage the day-to-day operations of the district as reformers believed that the best model
consisted of centralized and expert administration (ECS, 1999). Currently California school
boards generally consist of three to seven members or trustees elected either at-large or in wards
or geographic areas of each school district (Timar, 2003). Carver (2000) defines governance as:
the process by which a small group, usually on behalf of others, exercises authority over an
organization and goes on to state that most boards do it incorrectly while outlining his model for
governance by detailing seven characteristics of his model which largely consist of the manner in
which board members must take over the lion’s share of the responsibility for governance of
local school districts.
Training
Based on the literature there is a compelling need for training for board members that
clearly defines roles and responsibilities as well as developing appropriate relationships and
understanding crucial issues such as instruction, school finance, human resources and collective
bargaining, policy and governance (CSBA, 2007; Danzberger et al., 1987; Hess, 2002). The
California School Boards Association has developed a Masters in Governance program for
California school board members to gain knowledge of such areas as effective governance,
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

32
policy, law, student achievement, school finance, human resources and collective bargaining, and
community relations (CSBA, 2012). The Master’s in Governance program offers a course of
study that provides pivotal information for board members to gain specific training in targeted
areas. Each course of study is made up of five full-day courses. Each course requires pre-course
assignments to be completed before the day of the course. The courses are offered throughout
the state to give maximum flexibility for board members to attend and access the high-level
training. The menu of courses includes: 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting
Direction, 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning and Achievement, 3: School Finance,
4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining, and 5:Community Relations and Advocacy |
Governance Integration (CSBA, 2012). The program is also offered to superintendents and as of
the most recent posting on the CSBA (2012) website over 2000 board members and
superintendents have participated in the program. According to the CSBA (2012) website over
80% of the participants reported that the program gave them the knowledge needed to perform
their governance duties.
With all of the previously discussed topics there is one final subject that has a major
impact on the boards and superintendents as they work together as governance teams that is The
Brown Act (The Act). The Ralph M. Brown Act (The Act) is a California Legislature Act
passed in 1953 written by Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown. The intent of The Act was to
guarantee the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies
including school boards. The act strictly applies to local governmental agencies and was
developed in response to growing concern that meetings of local legislative agencies being held
in private or even in secret without proper publication of meeting times or dates. The concern
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

33
was that these secret “workshops” or “study sessions” were being held and the boards were
making decisions without the opportunity for the public to be involved.
The Act specifies the parameters of meetings and the conditions that may arise when
dealing with local public legislative entities. The procedures of how meetings are to be
conducted and what meetings consist of are clearly defined in The Act as well as documentation
required for meetings. In the 2003 publication of The Act Scope and Purpose it states, “The Act
represents the legislatures determination of how the balance should be struck between public
access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential
candor, debate, and information gathering on the other” (California Attorney General’s Office,
2003). The Act includes guidelines on all types of meetings such as face-to-face meetings
including, conferences and retreats, other public meetings, meetings of other legislative bodies,
and social or ceremonial occasions. The topic of serial meetings is defined as meetings when
there is the occurrence of a series of communication’s including less than a quorum of the board
or legislative body but when taken as a whole accounts for a majority of the body. Also included
are guidelines for individual contacts between members of the public and board members,
teleconference meetings, and writings as meetings. The important impact of The Act is the
desire for any decisions to be made regarding public domain are discussed, debated, informed,
and deliberated in front of the public.
Leadership and Trust
According to the works of the late Stephen R. Covey there is pedagogy to developing
strong relationships that engender a high level of trust in organizations. In his works The Seven
Habits of Highly Effective People (1989) and his follow up work The Eighth Habit: From
Effectiveness to Greatness (2004) Dr. Covey outlines several techniques that people, not
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

34
necessarily formal leaders, engage in to become more effective. He describes the idea that each
person regardless of their position in the hierarchy of an organization can increase their
respective spheres of influence by engaging in these activities consistently over a period of time
they become the habits that lead to a high level of personal and professional effectiveness.
Covey asserts that individuals that develop these habits begin to expand their spheres of
influence until they have a great deal of influence no matter their position. These habits are
divided into a sequence leading from Independence to Interdependence and on into Continuous
Improvement.
Independence. This journey begins as Covey counsels that an individual engage in a
paradigm shift to the first habit Be Proactive in all aspects of one’s life. Continuing from
independence to interdependence is the second habit Begin With the End in Mind or envisioning
what one wants to accomplish and developing a concrete picture of what that will look like when
it is completed. The third habit Put First Things First if habit two is a mental creation then habit
three is the physical creation or the action putting the plan into place.
Interdependence. Moving from independence to interdependence the fourth habit Think
Win Win is fully implemented when the person works to implement solutions that are mutually
beneficial to all parties involved with the understanding that a win for all is a better long-term
solution. The fifth habit Seek First to Understand then to be Understood discusses the idea that
by providing a sympathetic and open approach to listening to others they will reciprocate by
being open to listening to you thereby developing an environment of caring and positive problem
solving. The sixth habit Synergize is the ability to take information, ideas, and solutions from
multiple people and perspectives and put them together to combine the strengths of the
individual team members to accomplish something that no one of them could have done alone.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

35
Continuous Improvement. Finally working through the previous six habits leads to the
seventh habit Sharpen the Saw. This means that once one has developed the six habits the ability
to first continue them and then to expand them helps one to maintain them and increase
effectiveness through continual practice and improvement of the six habits.
Effectiveness to Greatness. As a follow up to The Seven Habits of Highly Effective
People (1989), The Eighth Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (2004) Dr. Covey continues
the idea of continuous improvement of the whole person paradigm by outlining what he reveals
as the four intelligences including physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual. The eighth
habit Find your voice and inspire others to find theirs is a result of a person discovering and
utilizing their four intelligences to the best possible extent.
Chapter Summary
Through the history of public education as the roles of boards and superintendents have
evolved there have always been critical issues that need specialized perspectives to tackle.
Given the current state of public education and all the change in accountability measurements
and public demand for high quality outcomes boards especially need to understand their capacity
as well as their responsibility to the community. Superintendents have the precarious position of
providing significant information for a board that may or may not have requisite skills and/or
knowledge while also managing the day-to-day operations of dynamic educational institutions.
There is a distinct need for training for board members and that superintendents must do their
best to provide those opportunities for their respective boards.
Leadership of a district is a balance between a highly educated and trained individual that
is appointed by a board with limited training and education. The superintendent is in reality the
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

36
leader of the district and can exhibit the leadership qualities of a level five leader and implement
habits of effectiveness that in theory will lead to effective governance teams.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Introduction
School governance is a tricky situation by itself but adding the nature of todays ever-
changing educational environment with moving achievement targets and the battle between local
and centralized control makes it a monumental task (Wirt & Kirst, 1990). The superintendent
has received years of education and training in school management and governance by the time
he or she reaches this pinnacle position but finds him or her self yoked with a diverse group of
individuals who may or may not have education or training of any kind and many times pulling
in different direction (Kowalski, 2013). Together they have to navigate this complicated
landscape avoiding pitfalls and climbing treacherous inclines to hopefully reach the pinnacles of
success. The superintendent has to use the education, training, and experience to provide
positive leadership for the board as he or she influences the board toward effective governance.
The literature clearly outlines the divergent paths of training and education of superintendents
and board members and the convergent nature of their roles and responsibilities as well as the
need to bring philosophy and understanding to a united direction in order to move forward as
effective governance teams.
In light of these significant issues this study seeks to find how superintendents and boards
work as governance teams given the lack of training and skills of the elected school board. The
majority of the literature deals with large urban school districts and their boards and
superintendents so this study focuses on suburban school districts of varying sizes in the inland
empire of southern California.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

38
Purpose for the Study
This study aims to gain an understanding of how highly trained, educated, and
experienced professional superintendents of schools work to develop positive relationships with
elected board members to move forward as effective governance teams. Many times board
members elected from the community at large come into office ill equipped to enter into the
decision making process. The study attempts to discover the methods of communication
typically utilized by superintendents and board members in engaging in the policies and
procedures of governance of schools.
Research Questions
1. What strategies to superintendents and school boards use to work together as
governance teams?
2. In what ways do local governance teams work effectively in the face of diminishing
powers and authority imposed by state and federal governments?
3. What are the key elements to building trust and communicating effectively between
the superintendent and the board members?
4. What role if any does the superintendent play in providing learning opportunities for
elected board members and what role do the elected board members play in seeking
professional or personal learning opportunities related to governance and policy?
Research Design
For the purposes of this study and based on the research questions it has been determined
that the use of mixed methodology utilizing qualitative data derived from interviews with board
presidents and superintendents and quantitative data extracted from online surveys to
superintendents and board members is best for this research project. This mixed methodology
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

39
includes a widely distributed online survey that includes questions using a 1-5 Likert Scale rating
system, classification questions, an open-ended comment section and an invitation to be involved
in further research project. The researcher utilized Google Forms to develop the survey and
collect the data. The survey was divided into the classification questions, Likert Ranking, and
open-ended sections and the Likert Ranking section was designed to randomize the questions to
help improve respondent objectivity. Upon completion of the survey the researcher completed
an initial analysis of the results and refined the initial interview questions as appropriate. This
process allowed for a broader sampling of boards and superintendents that participated in the
study.
Participants in the Study
As the study pertains specifically board members and superintendents the participants
were as such. For the interview protocol there were three current superintendents, one in a small
suburban school district, one in a medium sized district, and one in a large urban school district
in the inland empire of Southern California be interviewed along with their respective board
presidents. Superintendents were chosen based on a minimum of two years in their current
position. The intent to use this population is to help keep the data focused on similar issues as
these players are faced with similar backgrounds, knowledge, and have possibly been exposed to
similar training. Fictitious names were utilized in place of the superintendents, their respective
board presidents and the districts that they represent.
Process of Conducting Interviews
Access and Preparation for Interviews
In order to gain access to superintendents the researcher utilized a network of
superintendent connections to solicit targeted candidates for the interviews. The identified
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

40
superintendents were approached in person, by phone or by email detailing the nature and intent
of the study and requesting the opportunity to include them in the pool of interviewees as well as
enlisting their board presidents to do the same. If a board president is unwilling to participate in
the study the superintendent was thanked for interest and another candidate was chosen in order
to maintain the intent of the data to be collected for the study. All participants were given written
details of the intent of the study (Appendix A). In each interview the researcher again explained
the anonymity and confidentiality associated with the data derived from the interview protocol
and set the tone for the interview putting the respondent at ease. The interviews lasted about 30
minutes with possible follow-up interviews to clarify findings and glean further data as
appropriate. The interview questions were open-ended and given in a semi-structured process
allowing for maximum flexibility for the answers to be given. The desire was to gain an
understanding of the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of each interviewee in an authentic and
appropriate way.
Superintendents
Superintendents were interviewed utilizing a semi-constructed interview protocol, which
consists of questions developed ahead of time in a specific order and with the intent to glean
specific information (Merriam, 2009). All of the questions were open-ended allowing for the
greatest flexibility and probing questions were utilized to follow trails of information that may
have proven important to the study. In order to avoid interviewer bias because of the structured
interview protocol the questions were reviewed with peers to root out any bias that may be
present and the questions were refined for the purposes of extracting meaningful data and stay on
track for the interview protocol. The questions for this part of this process were focused on
superintendent roles and responsibilities.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

41
Board Presidents
Each superintendent has a corresponding board president and the intent of this study was
to interview both counterparts to collect data from the two vantage-points and coupling this with
the survey protocol get a triangulation of data (Merriam, 2009). The questions for this part of the
study underwent the same process as those asked of the superintendents in that peers reviewed
them and they were discussed and refined to focus the data on the specific roles and
responsibilities of board members.
Processing Qualitative Data
For each of the interviews field notes were taken along with audio tape recording of the
interview. The audio tape recordings were transcribed and the transcriptions were coded for
emerging themes. Themes were organized and evaluated to determine the significance of each
bit of information from the interviews. The data were interpreted and summarized in findings
through which the most significant or prevalent data as relates to the research questions were
outlined. Other significant findings were discussed as possible topics for future research.
Survey Protocols
The survey was created through Google Forms online and sent to superintendents and
board members in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties regardless of
district size in order to gain enough respondents to the survey. Email addresses and email
protocols will be derived from county email lists and district websites of in the respective
counties in order to get the request out to as many participants as possible. The email detailed the
intent of the study and asking for participation. After a three-week period a reminder email was
sent to the group re-iterating the importance of their participation in the study with a consequent
reminder at the six-week period. After a period of eight total weeks the survey was closed and
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

42
the data was processed at which time an email was sent to respondents thanking them for their
participation in the study. The goal of the survey was to get at least 40 responses and as close to
equal responses of superintendents and board members as possible.
Quantitative Data Processing and Analysis
As surveys were returned the researcher began the process for analyzing by checking all
of the surveys for completeness and discard any incomplete surveys. Data from the surveys was
tabulated and summarized in Chapter 4. The data from the surveys was used to verify data
derived from the interview process and root out any additional themes that may arise as a result
of the surveys.
Ethical Considerations
All aspects of the proposal were submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the
University of Southern California. Any and all participants in the study were asked to grant
permission to use the data obtained by the researcher in writing the dissertation. Participants all
agreed to take part in the study without coercion of any kind. All of the interviews were
recorded unless the participant insisted that it not be recorded then the researcher took field notes
of the interview. At the beginning of each recorded interview the participants were asked once
again if they are willing to participate in the study and the researcher briefly explained the study
for the participant. No real names were used in the study but rather titles such as Superintendent
1 or Board President 1 to differentiate between participants in Chapters 4 and 5.
Other Considerations
It is important to note that the researcher in this study has close ties to the topic of study.
The researcher currently works in a school district as a site-level administrator but also was an
elected board member in a neighboring school district. Because the researcher was a board
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

43
member and a school site administrator there could be bias and/or preconceived notions entering
into the study. The researcher attempted to remain objective through using the guiding questions
for each interview and through constant review with other researchers to ensure appropriate data
were collected through the study.
Conclusion
The researcher used a qualitative methodology to conduct this study with a minor use of
quantitative research to add to the efficacy of the study. The methodology consisted of a survey
that included Likert Scale questions as well as qualitative interviews with semi-constructed
questions. The survey was offered to a wide range of superintendents and board members in an
online survey form. Interviews were scheduled with the eligible sampling chosen from
volunteers. The data collected was codified into themes that were utilized for descriptive
outcomes for the study. The researcher summarized the findings in Chapter 4 of this study and
drew conclusions and further implications as described in Chapter 5.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

44
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Background
In order to best understand the topic Local Governance Teams: How Effective
Superintendents and School Boards Work Together Effectively this chapter outlines the findings
from the study which consisted of interviews of three superintendents and their corresponding
school board presidents as well as a survey sent to board members and superintendents. Each
superintendent interviewed had been in office for a minimum of two years and the board member
interviewed from each districts was the board president. The interview questions for board
presidents and superintendents and the interviews lasted from 20 to 50 minutes. Although there
was a list of questions for the interviews they were conducted in an open-ended fashion with
follow-up questions and interjections in order to grain a true sense of the participant’s feelings
and views of the topic. The interviews were conducted in three different school districts in the
Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Interviews were conducted to gain rich qualitative data
in which six leaders participated including the superintendent and the board president from three
school districts in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The six participants were interviewed
in a location of their choice in order to make the situation as comfortable as possible and they
gave freely of their information. The school districts utilized in the interview part of the study
range in student population from 5,000 to 410,000. The interviews were conducted to gain an
understanding of the guiding questions for the study through the eyes of the players in the roles
researched. Of the participants in the interviews three were superintendents, two of which were
female and one male. The board presidents were two males and one female. The terms of each
participant varied from two years to five years in their current positions for superintendents and
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

45
from one to two terms for board presidents. Table 1 outlines the demographic information of the
interview participants.

Table 1
Interview Participants
Title Gender Years in Position Term
Superintendent 1 Male 5 1
Superintendent 2 Female 3 1
Superintendent 3 Female 2 2
Board President 1 Male 4 2
Board President 2 Male 4 1
Board President 3 Female 1 1

All participants were in current positions at districts of varying sizes within Riverside,
San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego counties of Southern California at the time of their
participation in the study. Participants were given a survey of 27 questions related to board and
superintendent relations and training. The survey was sent by email to over 300 potential
participants and there was a response from 70 participants, which happened to be 35
superintendents and 35 board members in total. The response was so overwhelming that the
decision was made to close the window at 50 responses and by the time the researcher was able
to shut it down there had been another 20 responses. This tremendous response may have been
the result of emails having been sent to each prospective participant individually, addressed by
name with a note soliciting their help on the survey. As a result of this process the researcher
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

46
also received many emails and some phone calls from participants asking about the study and
interjecting more data for the researcher. Table 2 shares some demographic information for
participants in the survey.

Table 2
Survey Participants
Years/Education Board Member Superintendent
Position: 0-3 11 15
Position: 4-6 7 9
Position: 7-10 5 6
Position: 10+ 12 5
Education: High School Diploma 1 0
Education Some College 2 0
Education: Associate’s Degree 5 0
Education: Bachelor’s Degree 12 0
Education: Graduate Degree 11 15
Education: Doctoral Degree 4 20

It is interesting to note the years of experience in the position compared to the education
levels of superintendents compared to those of board members. For this study it is clear that the
majority of board members have more years experience, meaning over four years, as compared
to superintendents where the majority have less than four years of experience. On the other hand
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

47
superintendents in the survey all have graduate degrees and 20 of the 35 have doctorates whereas
board members have 11 participants with graduate degrees and only four with doctorates.
Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is first to present and analyze all data collected during the
study and then to report the findings for each of the guiding questions in the study. Qualitative
research through interviews provide insights that quantitative research cannot such as how the
participant views their world based on the complexities of their perceptions and experiences
(Patton, 2002). The insights gained through qualitative research design also give nuances such
as terminologies, judgments, or unwritten practices of the specific categories in which each
participant fits. A set of interview protocols was constructed in a semi-structured format to help
guide the interviews of participants in the study. The interview method was a “Standardized
Open-Ended Interview” in order to help maintain consistency among each interview in terms of
the main questions asked yet allowing for flexibility through the addition of probing questions.
Interview questions focused on participant views of education, training, communication, and
procedures for the positions of board member and superintendent.
Coding the Data
Once the information from the interviews was collected through the field notes and tape
recordings the data were derived through a coding process. The tape recordings were transcribed
verbatim in order to obtain every aspect of the conversations to gain the most accurate data. The
raw information from the interviews was coded into major topics as well as sub-topics. The
information was analyzed and categorized to identify relation to the major themes intimated by
the four guiding questions of the study. The interview questions were designed through specific
categories laid forth by the guiding questions of the study making for a more efficient coding
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

48
process once the interviews were complete. Once the preliminary coding of interview
information was complete the data were entered into an online qualitative coding program called
Dedoose to further extrapolate and correlate the data.
The information gathered from the survey questions was first analyzed through Google
form Summary of Responses tool within the Google drive tools in order to gain an understanding
of the data from the survey responses. The spreadsheet data were also uploaded to the Dedoose
program to explore patterns and crossover data that appear in both the interview data and the
survey responses. This chapter will show the findings in a narrative form by taking each of the
guiding questions and summarizing the results of the analysis of the interviews along with the
survey results.
Research Questions
The following four questions served as a guide for survey questions and interview
process:
1. What strategies to superintendents and school boards use to work together as
governance teams?
2. In what ways do local governance teams work effectively in the face of diminishing
powers and authority imposed by state and federal governments?
3. What are the key elements to building trust and communicating effectively between
the superintendent and the board members?
4. What role if any does the superintendent play in providing learning opportunities for
elected board members and what role do the elected board members play in seeking
professional or personal learning opportunities related to governance and policy?

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

49
Research Question 1
What strategies to superintendents and school boards use to work together as governance
teams? The principal guiding question for this study opens the discussion up and sets the tone
for all other questions. The interview design was intended to gain deep data related to the
thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and perceptions of board members and superintendents
respectively. All of the interview questions focused on strategies of these respondents. The
survey questions were intended to root out intent on each guiding question. Through question
the researcher found that the superintendent plays the key role in the success of the board.
Interviews with board members showed that they depend heavily on the superintendent for
information and that communication is a major factor in board members feeling effective.
Multiple methods of communication emerged from the data both from superintendents and board
members.
In superintendent communication it is clear from the data that superintendents spend the
majority of their time communicating with board members. Each superintendent interview
revealed that the majority of the focus of the superintendent is giving any information to the
board members. Each superintendent expressed the idea that it is of the extreme importance to
share information equally to all board members. Board members also expressed that information
from the superintendent is the most influential aspect of decision making in developing and
finally approving policy. Superintendent 3 stated, “…so how do I lead them…it’s really all
about communication” in regards to providing leadership for the board through effective
communication.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

50
Superintendents also expressed that providing information is the key to developing and
maintaining strong board and superintendent relationships. These strong relationships lead to
greater effectiveness in teamwork when it comes to developing policy. Superintendent 1 said:
I don’t think we do enough of relationship building. You know any time you have team,
the more that team knows their stories, the stronger the team becomes and I think there’s
always been this mindset out there and I know I’ve held it strongly.
expressing the importance of team building through sharing information.
Each superintendent talked about how they used unique strategies and techniques to
impart information to board members to keep significant relationships. In the interviews out of
173 coded exerpts 67 or 38.7% were related to superintendent communications to the board
indicating the high level of importance place on this topic by both board members and
superintendents. In an interview with Superintendent 1, the statement was made that
“information is like oxygen, without it you hallucinate so it’s important to keep the oxygen flow
to the board” relating communication of information to the essential function of the position of
the superintendent.
One of the strategies utilized by superintendents to provide information to board
members is the personal meeting. Each superintendent interviewed explicitly discussed the fact
that they meet on a regular basis with each board member in person. Some of these meetings are
held in the superintendent’s office, some in the work places of the board members, and some in
the form of meetings over meals including breakfast, lunch, or dinner, “we have regular, what I
would call routine, breakfast meetings or lunch meetings” (Superintendent 2). All of the
personal meetings are held with board members on a one-on-one basis. The superintendents
interviewed all talked about the importance of meeting in this manner with each board member.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

51
It was clear in the data that the superintendents shared the feeling that personal connections with
board members made for stronger governance teams. The personal meetings helped each
superintendent forge strong relationships with individual board members through sharing not
only information but also personal information to gain a better understanding of each other. For
example, Superintendent 1 shared:
We had a little dinner at my house. Uh, you know the board and cabinet just socialized
time to come together and good to know each other a little bit is just team building and
storytelling. I don’t think we do enough of relationship building. You know any time you
have team, the more that team knows their stories, the stronger the team becomes.
Personal meetings take up a great amount of time for each superintendent meeting on an average
of two hours with each board member per meeting and a minimum of one time per month but
many times more than once a month as stated by Superintendent 1 “I meet face-to-face very
regularly, some more infrequently, depending on their style, their approach.” The personal
meeting accounts for only a part of the superintendent strategy for working effectively with
board members.
Each superintendent also talked about the board workshop meeting. Each district has a
different way of working on this strategy but all utilize some form of the meeting type. Not only
did superintendents discuss this topic in the interviews but board members did as well. The
workshop described in the interview process takes generally the same form for each district
consisting of meetings of the board outside the regularly scheduled meetings in which board
members receive information on specific topics or training in specific areas.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

52
Informational Workshops
The informational workshops presented to board members are scheduled at the
convenience of the board. Board members and superintendents bring up the need for workshops
equally based weather or not there is a feeling for the need for additional information on a
specific topic. Board members may request such a meeting based on the bylaws and board
protocols for that specific board. Superintendents may suggest holding the workshop either
before they present an issue to the board and they want to present all information and get input
from the board or when an item is on the agenda for a regular board meeting and there is a sense
that the board may need additional information or a forum for questions and answers outside the
regular board meeting and they may suggest the meeting or request that the board schedule the
meeting for clarification of the issue. Superintendent 2 commented:
One of the things that we use here is the study session method. So we will conduct a
study session to just provide information first, especially if it’s something that I’m seeing
that there’s going to be a significant decision. That could be a significant amount of
money, a significant change in board policy… a significant philosophical issue that they
may be presented with.
Training Workshops
Like informational board workshops board members and superintendents alike can
request the training workshop. In the interview process the topic of training was strongly
commented on by both board presidents and superintendents and the importance was stressed.
Each superintendent gave multiple examples of training that board members can receive but the
one topic that was brought up by all interviewees was the internal training, or training done
through the district, for board members. Board presidents also expressed the idea that in internal
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

53
trainings they felt more comfortable working as a team with other board members and including
the superintendent and that the trainings brought them together as a team. One board president
expressed that training in the intimate setting of the board and superintendent on professional
workshop days when the superintendent invited a special guest to present the training allowed
the whole governance team including the board to come together. That Board President 3 went
on to say, “when just your board, the five of you and your superintendent are sitting there you
can get better communication and answers” during the professional workshop setting. The
sentiment most often expressed in the interviews is that this type of intimate training helped the
governance teams to forge trusting relationships that helped the governance teams work more
effectively.
Including the Superintendent’s Cabinet
One of the themes that emerged in the interviews is the idea that involvement of the
superintendent’s cabinet members in any process helps to lead to more effective outcomes for the
governance team. Superintendent 2 said, “…it’s my job, and the cabinet’s to say, OK, how are
we going to disseminate that information to the board?” while talking of the importance of
involving the cabinet. In the focus districts the cabinet is made up of the assistants to the
superintendent including the chief business officer or the assistant superintendent of business
services, the chief instructional officer or assistant superintendent of instruction, and the chief
personnel officer, or assistant superintendent of personnel or human resources. In the focus
districts there is also the idea of extended cabinet, which comprises the cabinet and additional
district level administrators including directors in each department including instruction,
business, personnel services, child nutrition services, technology and maintenance and
operations. Inclusion of all of these people in extended cabinet offers information specific to
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

54
each department area in the process of decision making. All interviewees expressed the notion
that the more information provided to the team gives rise to a feeling of power through
knowledge as well as the sentiment of true transparency and honesty again forging strong
relationships of trust.
Methods of Communication
An interesting theme that emerged from the study is the methods of communication
preferred by superintendents and board members such as, “Texting, emails, meetings, and formal
reports…” (Superintendent 3). In the 21st century there are many means of communication
available to us and most superintendents and board members utilize these. The most preferred
method arising that was mentioned in the interview process was texting. Many superintendents
and board members feel that the instantaneous communication through texting allows for
valuable information to be communicated in a real-time fashion. Although some board members
feel that texting is impersonal and prefer the face-to-face meetings they admit that it does
provide for receipt of information in an equitable manner. Other methods described were phone
calls and emails. Some board members prefer a phone call from the superintendent for the
communication of information because they feel more comfortable with the ability to ask
questions and get answers.
Although all superintendents and board members are exceedingly aware of the existence
and use of social media none considered this a good means of communication for governance
teams. Social media is considered a medium for communicating important information to the
community at large but not to a confined group like a school board. Most districts in the study
either have a dedicated person to keep information up-to-date on district social media presence or
are in the process of employing someone for those specific duties.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

55
No Surprises
Board members should never be surprised with information. Superintendent 3 believes in
“over communicating” especially when information changes letting the board members know
“Hey, I made a mistake, um, I told you this…this isn’t true. I got more information. Or at the
time it was the right thing but now it’s shifted.” When confronted with serious issues for
decision-making the board members should be the experts and have all of the information before
the time to make the decision. Superintendent 1 involves the board in sub committees and
quarterly strategic meetings to keep the board informed and that, “when the board has agreed that
there’s a topic or two they need to go real deep on, they’ll take one or two topics and spend
anywhere up to six hours, going deep on that topic with staff.” This researcher came to
understand that when the board is informed and not surprised in any way they gain a greater trust
of the superintendent and the team can move forward to work as a governance team.
Research Question 2
In what ways do local governance teams work effectively in the face of diminishing
powers and authority imposed by state and federal governments? This question has specific
reference to the laws that are in place that limit the powers of school districts. Specifically The
Brown Act limits the ways a board can work together to get things done. This act prohibits
boards from meeting in any place other than public with established and published dates and
agendas. Any time a majority of the board is together they cannot discuss board business unless
the meeting is properly scheduled an agenized for the public. The research questions in the
interviews and survey intentionally left out reference to The Brown Act to determine if the issue
would be discussed without any direct question either through the interviews or from the survey
in the study. Without specific reference to The Act it repeatedly appeared in each interview.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

56
Not only did it appear in the interviews but also as a result of the survey the researcher received
multiple phone calls from participants to discuss the implications of the Brown Act in regards to
some of the questions in the survey. It is apparent that the subject of this act has a profound
effect on school boards and superintendents as they work together as governance teams.
The Brown Act
The Act was passed in 1953 and has been added to since that time. The Act is
commented on by the California School Boards Association in several of their trainings and the
parameters of The Act should be presented to each newly elected board member as they take
office (CSBA, 2013).
Superintendents and the Brown Act
Each superintendent touched on the implications of proper meetings and communications
in regards to the Brown Act. Every superintendent interviewed made reference to training the
board specifically on The Act after each new election. Superintendents seemed to place a high
degree of emphasis on this particular piece of information framing answers to ensure that the
implications of The Act were strictly met and that board members adhere to them. As a routine
question in the study superintendents were asked what kind of training they believed that board
members need in order to be effective governance team members and each superintendent listed
first among all aspects of training the need for training specifically on The Act.
The superintendents interviewed in the study seemed to place emphasis on
communication to the board and that the information be shared equally to all board members.
Superintendents also take great care to ensure that the nature of the information shared to board
members does not in any way take on the appearance of serial meetings. One of the main
reasons expressed by one superintendent for the study sessions or workshop meetings is to make
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

57
it perfectly clear that important information for critical decisions is shared with the board in a
public setting to meet the requirements of The Act.
Board Members and the Brown Act
The most powerful sentiments on The Act arose in the survey and interview of board
members. One survey respondent said “…considering the Brown Act and public meeting
regulations. When discussing the decision-making process is it important to remember that most
business done must be conducted in public.” Board presidents that were interviewed in the study
each shared explicitly the first training they received even before they took office was a meeting
with their superintendent sharing with them the key information of The Act and its implications
to their new position as board members. Board members were so concerned about the
implications of The Act during the study that a few of the survey participants sent emails to the
researcher inquiring if The Act was a consideration based on some of the questions in the survey.
The researcher explained to all inquirers that although The Brown Act was not explicitly
communicated in the survey that the intent of the nature of the questions was to identify each
participant’s own consideration of The Act. Along with the emails there were a few phone calls
to the researcher of the same nature of the emails. Each inquiry was answered and the concerned
parties expressed gratitude for the clarifications as well as an interest in the results of the study.
One outlier to the dominant response to the implications of state laws that impede the
function of the board actually expressed disdain for The Act. During an interview with one
board president there was an expression of the desire to work as a local team without any
restrictions, requirements, or mandates from state or federal governments. The Board President
2 expressed “we know better what to do for our students locally than do the state and federal
governments.” This particular opinion was further expressed as the interview continued and the
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

58
board president intimated that the penalty for violating The Act was that the board was forced to
repeat any meetings, discussions, or information in a public meeting so in the case of this board
president there was not a fear of the law in this case and that boards should proceed as they
please in order to get the important work completed without hindrance or impediment.
Research Question 3
What are the key elements to building trust and communicating effectively between the
superintendent and the board members? The researcher found through the study that one of the
most significant acts that the superintendent can perform is the communication of essential
information to the board. Each superintendent interviewed expressed the high priority they put
on equity in transmitting appropriate information to the board members. The board presidents
that were interviewed also discussed the high importance they place on the efficient and timely
dissemination of information is to the process of decision-making and governance. One board
member expressed that the sharing of information including personal information between the
board members and the superintendent as a team building activity made more of a profound
effect on the trust between the governance team members. The board president shared that
because the superintendent engaged an outside facilitator to come in and work with the board on
team building activities in which they were to answer personal questions about themselves it
gave the board a better understanding of each other as well as the superintendent. The board
president went on to state, “it does [make a better team] because we’ve gotten to
know…personal stuff where some of were ready to cry,” (Board President 3) giving the
impression that because each member of the team not only shared intimate details of their lives
but also learned those of others it brought them together as a stronger team.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

59
One superintendent shared a systematic approach to developing a strong governance team
through development of a strategic plan based on core principles and values. The superintendent
brought in an expert to work with the team on a quarterly basis to develop strong practices in
policy development and governance. The board works together as a team because they are all on
the same page with regards to their role and responsibilities. This superintendent also engaged
that same trainer/coach to work personally with himself to develop stronger skills related to
board relations, governance, and policy.
Each board president interviewed in this process expressed a deep trust for his or her
superintendent. In these particular cases each board president played a key role in the hiring of
the superintendent and also discussed the fact that they shared philosophies regarding public
education, governance, and policy. Board President 1 stated:
The superintendent is the expert person, in my opinion, and on school philosophies and
things that need to be done for, for school districts. So I think the overriding thing in that
process is, you have to have trust, you have to have respect for the knowledge of…the
superintendent and then you have to have trust.
In the survey respondents indicated that they felt that information flowing from the
superintendent had the highest significance of any information coming to the board through other
sources including other board members or even the community. It is interesting to note that
board members in their positions for ten years or more assign higher significance to the
information coming from the superintendent than do board members with lesser experience.
This researcher finds that as a result of the study that board members with more experience also
tend to have a higher level of education and also place the highest significance on the leadership
of the superintendent. Since these board members have ten years or more of experience on the
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

60
board and the majority of superintendents have been in their current positions for less than five
years it follows that the majority of these board members had a role in appointing their respective
superintendents to their positions. Because of these data it seems apparent that board members
who have a stake in the appointment of their superintendent they hold a higher level of trust in
the superintendent and expect them to provide essential information to the governance team. It
also seems that in the majority of the cases including all respondents and interviewees that the
superintendents that are considered part of the governance team have build a great deal of trust
with the board members. Table 3 shows an indication of the trust that board members place in
the superintendent based on the survey taking into account the board members responses only.
The indications of trust are based on the significance the board members place in superintendent
transparency, communication from the superintendent, and information coming from the
superintendent when the board is faced with difficult decisions.

Table 3
Indications of Board Member Trust in the Superintendent
Significance
Superintendent
Transparency
Information from
Superintendent
Communication with
superintendent
High 77% 77% 80%
Some 23% 23% 20%
None 0% 0% 0%

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

61
According to the data board members who have longer tenure in their positions have a
greater trust of superintendents but also that there is a correlation between superintendent tenure
and trust of the board. In the survey and during the interviews superintendents expressed the
necessity to provide information with equity to all board members. The driving reason expressed
during the interviews was not fear but rather a desire to develop and implement a strong
governance team including equal input from each board member. Superintendents also
discussed the fact that there is a great power in the multiple perspectives of the individual board
members. One superintendent commented, “never having one of the components of the
leadership team out of the loop…board members are an important part of that loop”
(Superintendent Interview) to reiterate the extreme importance of all viewpoints participating in
the leadership of the district.
Research Question 4
What role if any does the superintendent play in providing learning opportunities for
elected board members and what role do the elected board members play in seeking professional
or personal learning opportunities related to governance and policy? The theme of training has
emerged as the key theme of this study through interviews and surveys. From the onset of the
idea set forth in the review of the literature that the role of the superintendent and the board
member has so greatly evolved since the inception of public school entities the necessity of
training has been evident. The necessity for training is not limited to the role of board member
but also is imperative for superintendents, their cabinets, and by extension, the entire
organization. Board President 3 stated, “ the more we are trained…the better we understand
each other and we become more effective…including [the superintendent].”
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

62
Superintendent Training
Of the superintendents interviewed all had a graduate degree; two with doctorates, and
one with a master’s degree. All had multiple professional credentials including teaching and
administrative credentials for the state of California. Each of the superintendents had a variety of
experiences including teacher, assistant principal, principal, program coordinator, director,
assistant superintendent, and superintendent. Of the survey respondents all superintendents had
advanced degrees and multiple credentials as outlined in Table 2. Each superintendent in the
study has a minimum of three years experience and the average being approximately five years.
With all of these data it is clear that the superintendents in this study have a firm foundation in
education, training, and experience. Even with all of these data superintendents in this study
reiterated the continuing need for ongoing training for themselves.
Of the three participants in the interviews each discussed the need for personal
professional development. Superintendent 2 shared that in their organization the idea of
professional development was so important that there was a common language with respect to a
learning organization the superintendent went on to state, “I would like to see all of us getting the
same training all of the time.” Superintendents seek training from such resources as professional
conferences, professional networking, county meetings, personal study, and professional
coaches.
Conclusion
There are a variety of practices that superintendents and board members implement to
work together as effective governance teams. Superintendents are highly aware and focused on
the need for training for board members as well as themselves but the sentiment gained from the
interviews was that each superintendent also felt that their whole organization needed to be
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

63
trained and that all of the trainings should compliment each other. Superintendents also believe
that the need for training begins when new board members take office specifically in the area of
the Brown Act in order to maintain a high standard of governance practices for their districts.
There is urgency apparent when talking with both superintendents and board members relating to
the proper conduct of members of governance teams specifically related to rules and procedures
outlined in The Act. Most participants in the study did not express negative feelings or thoughts
on the implications of The Act but rather that it provided strong guidelines for conducting the
business of their respective districts and it appeared to this researcher that The Act provided an
standard by which the work of governance teams could proceed.
As governance teams come together to work effectively there are several key elements to
building relationships in which members can trust each other as well as the superintendent.
Chief among the key elements is communication. Honest, timely, and equitable communication
is the cornerstone of strong relationships of trust. Superintendents in this study also showed a
strong desire to provide current and relevant training for board members related to all aspects of
governance as well as the business of the district such as instruction, assessment, human
resources, and finances. This study provides insights into these aspects of the interrelations of
local governance teams.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

64
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The role of local governance teams is increasingly complex and is a considerable
responsibility for all the involved members (Kowalski, 2013). Board member and
superintendent roles have evolved over the past two centuries to what they are today and will
continue to evolve over the course of time as the needs and requirements of society change
(Griffiths, 1966). In California training and education play a large role in the preparation for
superintendents and although there is no required certification for superintendents in California
the majority of superintendents have multiple professional certifications (Kowalski, 2013; Wirt
& Kirst, 1990). Board members have minimal requirements to qualify them for their positions
and are chosen from the public at large yet are entrusted to develop policy and oversee the
functions of local school districts (Wirt & Kirst, 1990). Local governance teams: How
superintendents and school boards work together is a study on the implications of
superintendents and school board members working as governance teams in Southern California
based on interviews and surveys of local superintendents and board members. This chapter
provides a summary of the study, including the statement of the problem, a review of existing
literature pertinent to the topic, the methodology employed, and the findings related to the four
research questions utilized in the study, and implications and recommendations for future
studies.
Statement of the Problem
Local governance teams are by nature unbalanced because of the discrepancy in
requirements for the respective members. Superintendents have high levels of education and
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

65
extensive experience in the function and practice of local public school entities while board
members generally have neither the education nor the experience in governance and policy.
Given the additional restraints of state control of the schools and laws of such as the Brown Act
it can be difficult for these teams to work effectively together to develop policy and govern local
schools.
A Review of the Literature
The roles of the superintendent and the board have changed over the past two centuries
from simple teacher leaders to guide instruction in home town schools to the CEO of large urban
school districts with elected boards to oversee the governance of schools locally (Danzberger et
al, 1987; Griffiths, 1966; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The responsibilities of the superintendent have
grown to include being an instructional leader, having an understanding of school finance
especially in the era of Local Control and Accountability Plans, to knowing the current practices
and laws regarding employee relations, building and maintaining strong and effective leadership
teams, strategic planning, and finally understanding the statutes and policies regarding
appropriately educating all children (Griffiths, 1966; Knezevich, 1984; Kowalski, 2004).
Studies in leadership and effectiveness demonstrate multiple perspectives and skills that
when utilized can lead to personal and team effectiveness. Collins (2001) describes the highest
level of leader as a level five leader having the attributes of fierce professional will and deep
personal humility. If a level five leader can harness the power of the Seven Habits of Highly
Effective People they will be able to increase their spheres of influence to their whole districts
and beyond. If they can find the power of their own voice and empower others to the same they
will truly lead those around them to greatness (Collins, 2001; Covey, 1989; Covey, 2004).
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

66
Methodology
This study was qualitative in nature utilizing the data collected from interviews with
board presidents and superintendents in three school districts in Riverside and San Bernardino
counties. The study also included a survey of 70 participants to collect data from a wider area of
Southern California. All survey participants were anonymous but they were enlisted from
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. The interviews were recorded and
transcribed and the researcher used field notes of observations during the interview process. The
interviews were then coded for concurrent themes and ideas as well as quotes. The survey data
were analyzed for pertinent information related to first all participants then for board members
and final for superintendents to gain knowledge from each different perspective.
Research Questions
To frame this study for better understanding of how these governance teams work
together effectively four questions were developed as a guide. The study attempts to gain a
perspective of the techniques, skills, and practices utilized by both board members and
superintendents who are yoked together in this important work. The following questions served
as the guide for this study:
1. What strategies to superintendents and school boards use to work together as
governance teams?
2. In what ways do local governance teams work effectively in the face of diminishing
powers and authority imposed by state and federal governments?
3. What are the key elements to building trust and communicating effectively between
the superintendent and the board members?
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

67
4. What role if any does the superintendent play in providing learning opportunities for
elected board members and what role do the elected board members play in seeking
professional or personal learning opportunities related to governance and policy?
Interpretation of Research Data
According to the data collected and analyzed in this study the researcher has drawn
several conclusions. These conclusions are based on the observations and impressions of the
researcher during the course of the study through the interviews as well as phone conversations
and direct observations of the participants (Merriam, 2009).
Superintendents
Leadership
In this study the superintendents were each very unique in their approaches to their
positions. One of the superintendents takes a research-based approach to their position providing
articles, books, videos, trainings, and workshops or study sessions for the board in order to help
them understand the purpose of the district. One takes a more leadership structured approach
providing development through committees, teams, coaches, and targeted training on teamwork.
The third takes an approach based on strong personal relationships to help define a culture of the
district that considers all of the stakeholders. Each of these approaches is effective for these
leaders. It is apparent that each of these leaders has found their voice and attempts to inspire
others to find theirs (Covey, 2004).
Training
According to the survey data 80% of surveyed superintendents believe that board
members should be trained for their positions. It is interesting to note that 60% of the surveyed
superintendents also believe that superintendents should receive more training for their positions.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

68
87% of board members surveyed believe that board members need more training for their
positions and 45% of board members believe that superintendents should be required to have
more training for their positions. It is clear that training and professional develop is of the
utmost importance to board members and superintendents alike and the largest majority believe
that board members need that training.
Superintendents in the study attempt to train board members in a variety of ways. A
common theme among interviewees was the trainings offered through the California School
Boards Association on governance and boardsmanship. Training through other leadership
organizations or consulting firms was also mentioned during the interview process. Although
board presidents and superintendents alike discussed the attributes of training through these
entities the most emphasis was placed on training provided in-house through team building
activities or topic-specific training such as instruction, human resources, business serviced,
governance, and leadership. Board members especially expressed appreciation for the time that
their superintendents took to provide appropriate and necessary training to help them understand
their positions and the function of public schools.
Board and Superintendent Relations
Perhaps the most poignant conclusion of this study is the high level of importance that
both board members and superintendents place on relationships of trust. Trust in the
superintendent from the board members is of high import to board members and plays a role in
the longevity of the superintendent. The desire for board members to trust each other is another
key to effective governance because when boards lose trust within their ranks they tend to
become oppositional and confrontational when tough issues face them. A high level of trust in
board members is imperative for a superintendent to be able to function in a happy and healthy
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

69
manner. Taking the above statements into account it is the main role of the superintendent to
develop and maintain these relationships. It is expected of board members that the
superintendent, with their training and experience, will lead and guide the board through all
aspects of governance. This burden on the superintendent is understood by all of the
superintendents interviewed in the study and they expressed their desire to always have strong,
positive relationships with all of their board members and that their board members maintain the
same with each other.
Effective communication is the key to the relationships described above. Superintendents
communicate with board members in diverse ways including face-to-face meetings, phone calls,
written communications such as Friday letters, emails, and texting. The manner of the
communication is not as important as the equity. When superintendents communicate all of the
important information to all board members irrespective of their position or feelings on certain
matters they can build strong relationships of trust with all members of their team.
Recommendations for Further Research
As a result of the findings of this study this researcher would like to recommend the
following two topics for further research:
1. A qualitative study on the types and effectiveness of professional coaches for
superintendents.
2. A qualitative study on professional networks and their influence on superintendent
focus and decision-making
Both board members and superintendents mentioned the use of professional coaches
during the interviews. A study on the use of these consultants may lead to increased professional
practices in this area as well as demonstrate their effectiveness and timeliness.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

70
Each of the superintendents interviewed in the study made mention of professional
networks to which they turn when they have difficulty with knowledge of policies or procedures.
A study demonstrating the types and functions of such networks may lead to improvement in
superintendent effectiveness as well as that of the networks themselves.
Conclusion
One of the most important civil services of today is that of public education. It is true
that without educators there would be no doctors, lawyers, or engineers. Those entrusted with
carrying out this important work be ready to do so and enter the vocation with that idea in mind.
Superintendents should have education, training, and experience but also the ability to build and
maintain strong personal and professional relationships. Board members should be provided
with appropriate, relevant, and continuous training experiences.
The superintendent of today has a rough road ahead of them. There are the implications
not only of education but also those of evolving societal norms and expectations. In this age of
choice it becomes necessary for school districts to become valuable assets to the community to
which people turn for a high quality product or they risk becoming extinct. The leader of the
district must have a firm grasp of all of the findings of this study but that is not all. With
emerging technologies that educators are just beginning to understand and the era of social media
there is no way to avoid the coming changes and evolution. Superintendents must evolve with
the times.
One of the largest responsibilities of the superintendents is the training and care for the
board. Ensuring the board has all information to make decisions without any surprises is a key to
developing a strong relationship of trust on the governance team. Board members come in many
different shapes and sizes. Training for boards should become the norm for all districts. There is
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

71
no way in these times that board members will be able to function effectively as governance
team members without a strong understanding of all aspects of education. When superintendents
take it upon themselves to ensure that the board is trained and functioning as a team they can
spend more time tackling the tough issues that face education in their local districts.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

72
REFERENCES
AASA, The School Superintendents Association. (2014). Superintendent and district data.
Alexandria, VA: Author: Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=740
Berlak, H. (2005). From local control to government and corporate takeover of school
curriculum: The No Child Left Behind Act and the Reading First program. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Björk, L. G., Glass, T. E., & Brunner, C. C. (2005). Characteristics of American school
superintendents. In L. G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary
superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 19-44). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Blume, H. (2010, June 22). San Diego Unified chooses Kowba, a retired Navy admiral and
insider as superintendent. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/san-diego-unified-chooses-kowba-a-
retired-navy-admiral-and-insider-as-superintendent.html
Boston Municipal Research Bureau. (1996, September 6). Bureau brief: History of the Boston
school committee structure. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://bmrb.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/BB962.pdf
California Attorney General’s Office. (2003). The Brown Act: Open meetings for legal
legislative bodies. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Intro_BrownAct.pdf
California Department of Education. (2013). Fingertip facts on education in California —
CalEdFacts. Sacrameno, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

73
CAL Educ Code § 35035. Additional powers and duties of the superintendent of schools.
Retrieved from http://law.onecle.com/california/education/35035.html
CAL Educ Code § 35250. Duties of the governing board. Retrieved from
http://law.onecle.com/california/education/35250.html
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/~/media/CS
BA/Files/GovernanceResources/ProfessionalGovernanceStandards/2013_02_SchoolBoar
dLeadership_Brochure.ashx
California School Boards Association. (2012). MIG course descriptions. Sacramento, CA:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/TrainingAndEvents/MastersInGovernance/
MIGProgramModules.aspx
California School Boards Association. (2013). The role of the board. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/
EffectiveGovernance/~/media/CSBA/Files/GovernanceResources/EffectiveGovernance/2
013_02_GovAndPolicyResources_TheRoleOfTheBoard.ashx
Campbell, R. F., Cunnningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1990). The
organization and control of American schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Carver, J. (2000). Remaking governance. American School Board Journal, 187(3), 26-30.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap — and others don’t.
New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal
change. New York, NY: Free Press.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

74
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cox, E. P., & Malone, B. (2003). New superintendents’ perceptions of their jobs: Is the
honeymoon over? Educational Research Services Spectrum, 21(1), 8-11.
Danzberger, J. P. (1994). Governing the nation’s schools: The case for restructuring local school
boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 367-373.
Danzberger, J. P., Carol, N. L., Cunningham, L. L., Kirst, W. M., McCloud, A. B., & Usdan, D.
M. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69, 53-59.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools: New times,
new requirements. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Davis, S. H. (1998). Why do principals get fired? Principal, 28(2), 34-39.
Eadie, D., & Houston, P. (2003). Ingredients for a board-savvy superintendent. School
Administrator, 60(2), 56-57.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). The invisible hand of ideology: Perspectives from
the history of school governance. Denver, CO: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/55/1355.htm
Griffiths, D. E. (1966). The school superintendent. New York, NY: Center for Applied Research
in Education.
Hess, M. F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of
district governance. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED469432
Katz, M. (1993). Matching school board and superintendent styles. School Administrator, 50(2),
16-17, 19-20, 22-23.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

75
Knezevich, S. J. (1969). Administration of public education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education: A sourcebook for the leadership
and management of educational institutions (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Konnert, M. W., & Augenstein, J. J. (1990). The superintendency in the Nineties: What
superintendents and board members need to know. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Kowalski, T. J. (2003). Contemporary school administration (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Kowalski, T. J. (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public
relations in schools (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-29). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the superintendent as communicator. Communication
Education, 54(2), 101-117.
Kowalski, T. J. (2006). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk &
T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and
development (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kowalski, T. J. (2013). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kowalski, T. J., Peterson, G. J., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2007). Effective communication for school
administrators: An imperative in an information age. Lenham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement (Report No. 56). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University. Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/CRESPAR/techReports/report56.pdf
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

76
Littlejohn, S. W. (1992). Theories of human communication (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McCurdy, J. (1992). Building better board-administrator relations. Alexandria, VA: American
Association of School Administrators.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, A. D., Dexter, R. R., Berube, W. G., & Beck, C. H. (2005). Student assessment: What do
superintendents need to know? Planning and Changing, 36(1&2), 68-89.
Murphy, J. (1994). The changing role of the superintendency in restructuring districts in
Kentucky. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(4), 349-375.
Newman, D. L., & Brown, R. D. (1992). Patterns of school board decision making: Variations in
behavior and perceptions. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(1), 1-
6.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Reeves, C. E. (1954). School boards, their status, functions, and activities. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Davis, L. M., & Koontz, K. A. (1980). Perceived power as a
mediator of management communication style and employee satisfaction: A preliminary
investigation. Communication Quarterly, 28(41), 37-46.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The art and practice of the learning organization. In M. Ray & A. Rinzler
(Eds.), The new paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and
organizational change (pp. 126-138). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

77
Shahhussain. (2012, February 25). Effectiveness Defined by Stephen Covey [Web log
comment]. Retrieved from https://iexxplore.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/effectiveness-
defined-by-stephen-covey/
Shannon, T. A. (1994). The changing local community school board. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5),
387-390.
Sharp, W. L., & Walter, J. K. (2003). The principal as the school manager (2nd ed.). Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Press.
Snavely, W. B., & Walters, E. V. (1983). Differences in communication competence among
administrative social styles. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 11(2), 120-
135.
Taylor, M. (2013). An overview of the local control funding formula. Sacramento, CA:
Legislative Analyst’s Office of California. Retrieved from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.pdf
Timar, B. T. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78, 177-200.
Townley, A. J. (1992). The school superintendent. In S. L. Swartz (Ed.), An introduction to
California school administration. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Wilson, R. (1960). The modern school superintendent. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Wirt, F. W., & Kirst, M. W. (1990). The politics of education: Schools in conflict (2nd ed.).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Wirt, F. W., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education. Richmond,
CA: McCutchan.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

78
APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS: HOW EFFECTIVE SUPERINTENDENTS AND SCHOOL
BOARDS WORK TOGETHER

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to determine how superintendents and board members work together
as effective governance teams. How they communicate and come to agreement on issues facing
school districts.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study you will be asked to complete an online survey, anticipated
to take 10 – 15 minutes to complete. The survey involves questions that are related to your
involvement in the governance and communication processes as a board member or
superintendent, demographic information is also collected.

You may also be asked to take part in an interview process. The interview is anticipated to last
no more than 30 minutes, will be conducted at a time and place convenient to you and the
researcher and will be audio-taped with your permission. The interview will involve questions
about how you communicate as a member of the governance team of your district and how this
you and the rest of the governance team come to agreement on issues facing your district.

You can discontinue your participation at any time; you do not have to answer any questions you
do not want to.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Unless you volunteer for the follow-up interview, there will be no identifiable information
obtained in connection with the survey. If you include identifiable information in the survey, the
information will remain confidential; responses will be coded using a false name (pseudonym)
and maintained on a password-protected, secure computer. The audiotapes will be destroyed
after transcription. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

79
The members of the research team 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 research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Matt Russo via email at matthejr@usc.edu or phone at (909) 648-3876 or
my Faculty Advisor Pedro Garcia at pegarcia@usc.edu or phone at 213 740 1208

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

80
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Guiding Questions for Board Member Interviews

Before beginning the interview the researcher will state his name, the reason for the interview,
and the location of the interview.

The following questions will all be asked but the researcher is free to ask further probing
questions to clarify or pursue a relevant topic brought up by the interviewee.

1. What is your position?
2. How long have you been a member of the board?
3. What was your reason for running for the school board?
4. What do you know about the idea that board members should receive some kind of
training in developing policy?
5. Describe the type of training you have received related to development of policy.
6. Describe the type of training opportunities your superintendent has provided or informed
your board about.
7. What do you feel are the strengths of your current board in regards to governance?
8. What strategies do you utilize as the board in decision making?
9. Describe the process your superintendent utilizes to disseminate information to you and
the board.
10. Take me through the process from the nexus of an issue or when it becomes something
that you are interested in to the final approval by the board. Please describe that process.
11. If you had a potentially controversial issue that you believe the rest of the board and or
the superintendent would not support but that you believe in passionately how would you
go about promoting that to the board and superintendent?
12. In what ways do you share information with other board members or the superintendent
or what process do you use to do so?
13. What kind if any training or professional development you would like to receive as a
board member?

Guiding Questions for Superintendent Interviews

1. What is your position?
2. How long have you been a superintendent?
3. How long have you been a superintendent in this district?
4. Describe the process you took to become a superintendent.
5. What do you know about the idea that board members should receive some kind of
training in developing policy?
6. Describe the type of training you have received related to development of policy.
7. Describe the type of training opportunities you have provided or informed your board
about.
LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

81
8. If you could provide professional development for board members what would that look
like?
9. What do you feel are the strengths of your current board in regards to governance?
10. What strategies do you utilize to guide the board in decision making?
11. What do you feel are your responsibilities related to disseminating information to the
board?
12. Take me through the process from the nexus of an issue or when it becomes something
that you are interested in to the final approval by the board. Please describe that process.
13. If you had a potentially controversial issue that you believe the board would not support
but that you believe in passionately how would you go about promoting that to the board?
14. In what ways do you provide information to the board or what process do you use to do
so?

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

82
APPENDIX C
SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. What is your current position?
a. Superintendent
b. Board Member

2. How long have you been in your position?
a. 0 – 3 years
b. 4 – 6 years
c. 7 – 10 years
d. +10 years

3. What is your level of education?
a. High School Diploma
b. Some College
c. Associate’s Degree
d. Bachelor’s Degree
e. Graduate Degree
f. Doctorate

4. How would you rate the significance of education for your current position?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

5. When considering important issues for approval, how significant is communication
between the board members and the superintendent?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

6. When considering important issues for approval, how significant is communication
between the board members?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

83

7. How significant is the role of the superintendent in disseminating appropriate information
to the board when confronted with important issues?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

8. How significant is transparency of the superintendent to the board?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

9. How significant is transparency of the board members to the superintendent?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

10. How significant is training in governance and policy for board members?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

11. When confronted with important issues for approval how significant is community input?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

12. When confronted with important issues for approval how significant is background
information related to the topic?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

84

13. When confronted with important issues for approval how significant is input from other
board members?
a. Not significant
b. Somewhat significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely significant

14. When making decisions the board and superintendent meet individually to discuss the
issues?
a. Never
b. Almost Never
c. Sometimes
d. Often
e. Always

15. When making decisions I discuss the issues with more than one other board member?
a. Never
b. Almost Never
c. Sometimes
d. Often
e. Always

16. The board and superintendent agree on how decisions should be made in our district.
a. Never
b. Almost Never
c. Sometimes
d. Often
e. Always

17. When the superintendent makes a recommendation the board agrees without serious
discussion?
a. Never
b. Almost Never
c. Sometimes
d. Often
e. Always

18. The superintendent has the most significant information for any issues facing the board?
a. Never
b. Almost Never
c. Sometimes
d. Often
e. Always

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

85

19. The superintendent and board communicate on all issues facing the board?
a. Never
b. Almost Never
c. Sometimes
d. Often
e. Always

20. The superintendent has a specific agenda when presenting information to the board
a. Never
b. Almost Never
c. Sometimes
d. Often
e. Always

21. Board members have a specific agenda when items are presented to the board
a. I Completely Disagree
b. I Disagree
c. I Neither Agree Nor Disagree
d. I Agree
e. I Completely Agree

22. The superintendent should have more power in approving policies relating to schools
a. I Completely Disagree
b. I Disagree
c. I Neither Agree Nor Disagree
d. I Agree
e. I Completely Agree

23. The board should have more power in the day-to-day operations of schools
a. I Completely Disagree
b. I Disagree
c. I Neither Agree Nor Disagree
d. I Agree
e. I Completely Agree

24. The current system of local school governance is perfect
a. I Completely Disagree
b. I Disagree
c. I Neither Agree Nor Disagree
d. I Agree
e. I Completely Agree

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TEAMS

86

25. The current system of local school governance needs to be completely restructured
a. I Completely Disagree
b. I Disagree
c. I Neither Agree Nor Disagree
d. I Agree
e. I Completely Agree

26. Board members should be required to attend training for their positions
a. I Completely Disagree
b. I Disagree
c. I Neither Agree Nor Disagree
d. I Agree
e. I Completely Agree

27. Superintendents should be required to have more training for their position
a. I Completely Disagree
b. I Disagree
c. I Neither Agree Nor Disagree
d. I Agree
e. I Completely Agree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationships between superintendents and board members as they work together as effective governance teams, education, and experience between boards and superintendents, by analyzing the perceptions, thoughts, and interactions between the board members and superintendents. More specifically this study set out to determine: (1) what strategies superintendents and board members use to work together as effective governance teams, (2) in what ways do local governance teams work effectively in the face of diminishing powers and authority imposed by state and federal governments, (3) the key elements to building trust and communicating effectively between superintendents and board members, and (4) the role that superintendents play in providing learning opportunities for elected board members and the role to the elected board members play in seeking professional or personal learning opportunities related to governance and policy. This study employed a mixed-methods approach in which 35 board members and 35 superintendents participated in a survey and an additional three board presidents and three superintendents participated in semi-structured personal interviews. Through the process of coding and survey analysis the study’s findings indicate that clear, timely, and equitable communication from the superintendent to the board members is essential to effectiveness, boards work effectively within the parameters set by state and federal governments, superintendents build trust through transparency, effective communication, and through providing relevant training, and superintendents take the role of providing training very seriously and board members have a strong desire for appropriate training. Overall this study provides insight into how trusting relationships lead to effective governance teams.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

PDF

What key characteristics are seen as essential by board of education members that lead to a successful superintendency

PDF

School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

Influence of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school superintendents: a case study

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

Asset Metadata

Creator Russo, Matthew J. (author)

Core Title Local governance teams: how effective superintendents and school boards work together

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 03/20/2015

Defense Date 02/23/2015

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

Tag board and superintendent effectiveness,board and superintendent relations,board communications,board member,boards,history of school boards,history of superintendent,OAI-PMH Harvest,relations,school board,superintendent,superintendent communications

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member), Vreeman, Eric (committee member)

Creator Email bigrusso@gmail.com,matthejr@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-539715

Unique identifier UC11298436

Identifier etd-RussoMatth-3234.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-539715 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RussoMatth-3234.pdf

Dmrecord 539715

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Russo, Matthew J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA