Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
(USC Thesis Other)
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Masters in Governance Training: Its Impact on California School Board Member
Effectiveness
by
Jennifer Ann Garcia
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2021
© Copyright by Jennifer Ann Garcia 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Jennifer Ann Garcia certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gordon Amerson
Kathy Stowe
David Cash, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This study examines the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters
in Governance (MIG) pre-service training program had on effective school board governance
practices and behaviors. This was a qualitative study evaluating data collected through surveys
and interviews with school board members and superintendents who have participated in the
MIG training program. As a theoretical framework, this study utilized the professional
governance standards provided by CSBA and the seminal leadership examination of the
Lighthouse Inquiry. The three research questions this study sought to answer were: First, what
factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the MIG training program?
Second, does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to exhibit
the behaviors of effective governance? Third, in what ways could mandating the MIG training
program impact student achievement? Findings from this study indicate the MIG provides school
board members with the necessary foundation skills and clarification of roles and responsibilities
to make well informed decisions. The study also indicates the importance the MIG training has
on school board member effectiveness within a school district. Implications for practice include
CSBA modifications to make the MIG more accessible to school board members so they have
the opportunity to participate in the training. Additionally, it is highly recommended that the
CSBA mandate the MIG for all school board members in California. The results of this study
add to the cannon by informing the effect of the MIG training on the leadership and governance
of the school boards.
v
Dedication
To my mom, dad, and brother. In loving memory of my Grandma Maria and Tio Raul.
vi
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge my committee chair, Dr. Cash, for always believing and
encouraging me, and the other committee members, Dr. Amerson and Dr. Stowe, for their help
and guidance. In addition, Dr. Mucerino inspired and mentored me throughout my time at USC,
and Dr. Kho supported me with his knowledge, kindness, and empathy. I also want to
acknowledge my students—former, present, and future—who inspire, encourage and motivate
me every day.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 4
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 5
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 5
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
History of School Boards .................................................................................................... 9
School Board Member History ......................................................................................... 11
Superintendent History ..................................................................................................... 12
School Board Member Attributes ..................................................................................... 13
School Board Member Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................... 14
Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 16
Governance Board Relationship ....................................................................................... 17
Accountability of School Board Members ....................................................................... 20
viii
School Board Member Training ....................................................................................... 21
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards ................................................................... 24
Student Achievement ........................................................................................................ 24
Conceptual Frameworks ................................................................................................... 25
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 28
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 30
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 30
Research Design................................................................................................................ 31
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 31
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 32
Data Collection & Analysis .............................................................................................. 34
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 35
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 36
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 37
Demographics of Participants ........................................................................................... 37
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 40
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 41
Findings............................................................................................................................. 41
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 60
Findings............................................................................................................................. 61
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 63
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 64
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 65
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 66
ix
References ..................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails ...................................................................... 73
School Board Member Recruitment Email ....................................................................... 73
Superintendent Recruitment Email ................................................................................... 74
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey ................................................................................ 75
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey ............................................................................................ 78
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol ............................................................. 81
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ......................................................................... 82
Appendix F: Informed Consent .................................................................................................... 83
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................... 84
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participation 38
Table 2: District, Superintendent, and School Board Member Labels 39
Table 3: Primary Factors That Influenced School Board Members to Participate
in Masters in Governance Training
43
Table 4: What Platform(s) of the MIG Training Program Would Increase the
Chances of Participation?
46
Table 5: Board Members’ Ranking of the Five MIG Modules in Order of
Importance to Their Role as a Member of the Governance Team
48
Table 6: The MIG Training Clarified the Differences Between My Roles and
Responsibilities as a School Board Member and Those of the
Superintendent
49
Table 7: School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained Exhibit a Clearer
Understanding of the Difference Between Their Roles and
Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent
51
Table 8: As a Result of the MIG Training, My Focus Is on Achievement 53
Table 9: The MIG Training Should Be Mandated in California 56
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames 26
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Democratic and local governance is the foundation of the nation’s public education
system (National School Boards Association, 2012b). A school board member is a locally
elected public official entrusted with governing a community’s public school and is a part of a
school board consisting of other members (CSBA, 2018; Land, 2002). Nationally, there are over
90,000 school boards that are responsible for the academic and social well-being of more than 50
million public school students (National School Boards Association, 2012a). The enactment of
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which mandates annual achievement testing, shifted the
nation’s focus to school improvement (Dahlkemper, 2005; Land, 20002). With an increase in
pressures and accountability to close the achievement gap in K-12 public school districts, the
pressure to be an effective member of governance is more important than ever.
School board members are responsible for overseeing school systems by ensuring
accountability to the public and making direct decisions that impact a multitude of stakeholders
including students, parents, and teachers (CSBA, 2007; Hess, 2002). Even though they possess
positions of high authority in the school district, school board members are not required to have
any educational experience or training in school governance. Anyone can become a school board
member in California as long as they are at least 18 years old, 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 (CSBA, 2007, p. 8). Even though there are minimal requirements to
qualify to serve as a board member in California, a school board member is not mandated to
participate in any type of professional development or training during their term (CSBA, 2007).
School board members face challenges such as learning about multimillion-dollar
budgets, curriculum, and instructional programs while promoting student achievement and
2
progress (Dahlkemper, 2005). For these reasons, training programs such as the Masters in
Governance Program (MIG) have been created. The MIG equips board members and
superintendents with the knowledge and skills to build and support effective governance (CSBA,
2007). This training program contains the following five courses: (a) Foundations of Effective
Governance, (b) Policy & Judicial Review; Student Learning and Achievement, (c) School
Finance, (d) Human Resources & Collective Bargaining, and (e) Community Relations and
Advocacy; Governance Integration. These training modules will prepare school board members
to learn about their specific roles and responsibilities as it pertains to being part of effective
governance that works in collaboration with the school district’s superintendent.
The increase in accountability and pressures to exhibit characteristics of an effective
governance requires that school board members have extensive knowledge in their roles and
responsibilities because their decisions will impact all stakeholders within a school district
(Land, 2002). It is difficult to state whether MIG training has increased productivity,
accountability, and overall effectiveness in school board members. This study analyzed factors
that impact a school board member’s decision to participate in MIG training and participants’
perspectives on the impact the training has on student achievement.
Background of the Problem
Local school boards composed of individuals from the community have governed public
education in the United States since 1837 when the Massachusetts Education Laws were
established (Danzberger, 1994; Goldhammer, 1964; Land, 2002). School board members have an
increase in roles and responsibilities ranging from school finance to ensuring teacher quality, but
the qualifications still remain the same. Although the overall success of a school district depends
largely on school board member practices including the relationship between the school board
3
and superintendent, training is not mandated in California (CSBA, 2007, Land, 2002; Resnick &
Bryant, 2010). Allowing five or seven members to hold a position of authority without
appropriate training and qualifications to make decisions where student achievement is at stake is
egregious and illogical.
There is a major concern about the effectiveness of school districts to generate higher
levels of student achievement in the classroom and on standardized assessments such as the
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (Rice et al., 2000). School board
members have faced criticism over their lack of capability of leading educational reforms to
improve students' academic achievement (Land, 2002). With this higher level of security and
pressure to make well informed and effective decisions, it is imperative that school board
members are well versed in their roles and responsibilities.
Statement of the Problem
The rapidly changing global demands on the educational system require school board
members to be knowledgeable about how their leadership plays a role in the complexities of
informed decision making that influence the quality of public education. In order to improve the
public perception of school districts and to leverage external resources, superintendents and
boards of education should be allied and commit to ongoing training to enhance shared and
distinct responsibilities to students through trusting and collaborative relationships. School board
members and superintendents must have expertise in the foundations of effective governance
policy and judicial review, school finance, human resources, and community relations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on performance
4
indicators for school districts. In this study, the researchers examined the benefit of the Masters
in Governance (MIG) training and its implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit
the characteristics of effective governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine
the perceptions of school board members and superintendents regarding the MIG training and its
impact on school governance and student achievement (CSBA, 2007).
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed by the research team to guide this study
to determine whether school board training improves the relationship between school boards and
superintendents and affects the impact on performance indicators for school districts:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study was to indicate whether MIG training had an impact on
school board member effectiveness in a school district. Current research studies and literature
state a need for school board members to work in unison with superintendents, but it is unclear
whether MIG training helps school board members' to be effective through their practices. This
study will provide evidence through data collected from 62 school districts in the southern and
northern California counties of Alameda, Alpine, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino,
Santa Clara, Sonoma, San Diego, Ventura, and Riverside. It will highlight whether MIG training
may have an influence on school governance and student achievement. Although several school
5
board members have not received MIG training, the findings from this study may change their
perspective. Finally, this study may be used by local and federal legislators to mandate that all
school board members in California receive training and professional development to better
prepare them to make well-informed decisions.
Limitations
The limitations of this study were mainly due to time constraints. The research team had
specific time frames that only allowed time to ask school board members and superintendents in
southern California whether they were open to participating in this study. The number of
participants were limited because not all school board members in the six southern California
counties received MIG training.
Delimitations
Participants of this research study were based on a set of criteria. The research team
selected school boards that had a superintendent and three school board members who
participated in at least three modules of the CSBA’s MIG training program. The school district’s
socioeconomic status or size of the school district was not considered. In addition to these
delimitations, all questions that were answered by superintendents and school board members
were subjective and asked for personal opinions.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined:
Accountability: The concept that schools and school districts will be held responsible for
performance or producing documents and records, creating and following plans, and reporting
student performance on assessments.
6
California School Boards Association (CSBA): An organization entrusted with the
responsibility to provide guidance, resources, and training for school board members throughout
California (CSBA, 2007)
Governance: The systematic process of setting the direction of a district through the
development of student-centered policies and subsequent implementation (CSBA, 2007;
Gemberling et al., 2000).
Four-Frames: Lee Bolman and Terry Deal outlined their Four-Frame model in their
book, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (2008). Bolman and Deal stated
that leaders should look at and approach organizational issues from four perspectives, which they
called Frames. The Four Frames outlined by Bolman and Deal are: Structural, Human Resource,
Political, and Symbolic.
Mandate: an official order or commission to do something.
Masters in Governance (MIG): A training program sponsored by the CSBA consisting of
five modules designed to define roles and responsibilities, improve governance and leadership
through increased knowledge and skills to support an effective governance structure, and
maintain a focus on student learning.
National School Board Association (NSBA): a federation of 49 state associations and the
U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands, representing their more than 90,000 school board officials.
School board member or trustee: Locally elected public official entrusted with governing
a community’s public schools (CSBA, 2018c).
School board president: The official and sometimes rotating role of presiding over the
public meetings of school boards.
7
School district: Synonym for Local Education Agency (LEA); a public organization
tasked with operating public schools and serving students within a designated geographic area.
Student achievement: The performance by students on the annual summative assessment
given by the state of California.
Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district with
oversight by the school board (CSBA, 2007).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. The first chapter contains an overview of
the study, the background of the problem, statement of purpose, and purpose of the study. It also
consists of three guiding research questions, limitations, delimitations, theoretical frameworks,
and definition of key terms. Chapter Two is a review of the current literature pertaining to this
study. Chapter Three presents the research methodology, research design, participants,
instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations. Chapter Four discusses
the findings of the research and analysis of data. Chapter Five includes a summary of the
research study, implications, and recommendations.
8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a review of the literature regarding school board members’ roles,
responsibilities, and leadership qualities. It also reviews the necessity and effectiveness of school
board member training and professional development in creating united school governance with
the superintendent. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the timeline of the school board and
how it has evolved into the 21st century. There will also be an in-depth review of how school
board member accountability is more important than ever because of the intense scrutiny by the
public to make effective decisions that directly impact student achievement (Campbell & Green,
1994; Rice et al., 2000; Wirt & Krist, 2005). The need for strong leadership skills and high
accountability is more evident than ever, yet the CSBA does not mandate that governing
members obtain professional development or training (CSBA, 2007; Timar, 2003).
The roles and responsibilities of school board members across the last few centuries have
drastically changed. There are now a multitude of responsibilities that California school boards
have that greatly impact students. Although school board governance has such a powerful role,
individual board members are not mandated to participate in professional development such as
the MIG (CSBA, 2007). The review of the literature provides evidence there is a relationship
between student achievement, measured by accountability assessments such as the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and school board member training
(CSBA, 2007; Delagardelle, 2008).
Finally, this chapter will also discuss the literature pertaining to the superintendent and
school board member governance relationship and how it may impact the ability of a governing
team to be effective. The conceptual framework that is necessary to be an effective leader will be
reviewed, which includes the following: Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008),
9
The Lighthouse Inquiry by Delagardelle (2008), and the California School Board Association’s
Framework (2007).
History of School Boards
School boards across the United States have the duty of providing public schools with the
framework for establishing an effective and efficient structure for school districts so students,
teachers, parents, and other stakeholders can succeed (CSBA, 2007). For centuries, the school
board has made vital decisions that directly impact the public school system (Goldhammer,
1964). This ever-evolving school governance has transformed from a local government
representative system to a highly political role (Land, 2002). The governance system for the
nation’s schools evolved over more than 200 years, starting in Massachusetts when local
selectmen were elected to run the towns and schools. When the task became too large, a board of
education committee was formed (Campbell & Green, 1990; Danzberger, 1994). It was not until
1837 that the first state board of education and the office of state superintendent was established
in Massachusetts (Danzberger, 1994; Campbell & Green, 1990).
Although school boards were initially given authority over the school district’s
administration and finances, the extreme changes over the years resulted in city-wide
government oversight rather than town hall elections, which became ineffective due to the
increase in population and tasks that became too large for selectmen to manage (Campbell &
Green, 1990). In 1891 Massachusetts enacted legislation that gave each district financial and
administrative authority of its schools (Land, 2002). The Massachusetts system of separate
educational governance became the prototype all colonies wanted to follow, and it is still the
type of governance used (Danzberger,1994; Land, 2002). By the late 1800s, the roles of the
board members were not explicit, causing them to take on more political responsibilities. This
10
increase in responsibilities led to the need for a superintendent. Although the superintendent
position was initially clerical to help the board members with excessive responsibilities, it later
became an important role that would focus on business and education (Land, 2002;
Schmitz,2007).
By the 19th century, the number of school boards drastically increased across the
country and so did the controversy that school boards had an agenda of their own. Critics agreed
that school boards all too commonly fail to provide leadership for reform, often micromanage
districts, and do not spend enough time educating themselves about education policymaking
(Danzberger, 1994). This caused the need for reform which led to the reconfigured role of the
school board member to focus on educational policy, less on the day-to-day administrative role,
and refocus on student needs (Campbell & Green, 1990; Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002, Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). According to Callahan (1975), schools were largely removed from partisan politics,
school boards were reduced in size, and superintendents were gradually given the power to hire
teachers, select textbooks, and control the educational program generally. By the 1920s, boards
across the country had adopted the model utilized in the 2000s: small, independent boards with
both district and at-large representation, and a mandate to create school policies to be
implemented by the superintendent (Campbell & Green, 1994).
In the 1950s, prior school boards mostly mediated policy conflict rather than taking an
active role. Shifting of power from local school boards to federal and state governments occurred
(Callahan, 1975; Campbell & Green, 1994). A pivotal point in the school board’s history is the
1954 Supreme Court case, Brown v Board of Education (Tushnet & Lezin, 1991). This court
decision mandated desegregation of public schools and led to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), which allowed federal funds to be used for the integration of schools.
11
Local school boards lost some of their control as the ESEA required school boards to develop
integration plans (McGuinn, 2015). The changes in school board control led to the ESEA which
eventually caused the policy, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), to be signed in 2001. The NCLB
reforms led to boards shifting to centralized policy-making units working with a superintendent.
This tied more funds to national and state goals, not school boards, allowing for the state and
federal involvement in public education with accountability mandates (Land, 2002; Lashway,
2002; Timar 2003). The role of the federal and state governments in education increased due to
the ESEA and NCLB and caused a shift in the power of school boards.
The role of the school board has gone through a multitude of changes in the past two
centuries and has shifted to a focus on education rather than control or power. School boards of
the 21st century have placed an emphasis on student achievement and accountability
(Gemberling et al., 2000; Hess, 2002; Land, 2002; Wirt & Kirst, 2005). The changes and
transformation of the school board have caused a concentration on increasing student
achievement rather than focusing on other areas. Educational reform has led to the increase of
federal and state governments in education.
School Board Member History
Although the structure and purpose of the school board have evolved, the demographics
of the school board members have not changed. California school board members are mostly
wealthier, better educated, 55-year-old males, constituted 61% of California’s adult population in
2005, and 77% of school board members (CSBA, 2007). Latinos constitute 35.5% of California's
adult population but only embody only 12% of school board members. There is also a disparity
between the demographics of school board members and the students they serve. School boards
with larger numbers of minority members may govern systems that are more likely to hire
12
minority administrators and teachers, which may in turn increase achievement among minority
students (Dee, 2001). The representation can also have implications for the kinds of decisions
districts make, particularly with respect to racial representation. Further work should be done to
investigate whether relationships between representation and decision-making hold for present-
day California.
Superintendent History
The superintendent position was not created until the first free, public elementary schools
were established in the 1830s (Callahan, 1966). This position was in high need after the
population in America began to boom and there was a lack of infrastructure for schools. Class
sizes were large and the appointed school boards did not have any control of the issues
(Callahan, 1966). The primary focus of the district superintendents was implementing a state
curriculum and supervising teachers in the classroom (Kowalski, 2005). The original role of the
superintendent was that of a schoolmaster, headteacher, and clerk—which evolved into master
teacher and educator (Björk et al., 2014; Glass et al., 2000).
Between the 1900s and 1930s, a more corporate model of management and governance
was used. The school board became more of a policy-making body that met periodically, while
day-to-day decisions were made by the superintendent (Glass et al., 2000). Business-dominated
school boards assigned superintendents several management responsibilities including budget
development and administration, standardization of operation, personnel management, and
facility management (Björk et al., 2014). In the 1930s, a need emerged for district
superintendents to serve as lobbyists and political strategists to secure financial support and
emerge communities and parents (Bjö rk et al., 2014). Fiscal resources were scarce and forced
school officials to engage more directly in political activity, especially in relation to lobbying
13
state legislatures. Previously, the behavior of highly political superintendents was regarded as
unprofessional, but this conviction faded when it became apparent that public schools had to
compete with other governmental services to acquire state funding (Bjork & Lindle, 2001;
Kowalski, 2005).
Superintendents were coined “superintendent scientists” and were portrayed as applied
social scientists and leaders in the educational field during the 1950s until 1970. They were
expected to have the expertise necessary to research deficiencies and to recommend policy to
solve the issues (Kowalski, 2005, p. 11-12). They attempted to solve what they saw as
educational issues by developing or altering theoretical models, testing them, and through
training, discussing them with practitioners (Bjö rk et al., 2014; Glass et al., 2000).
The superintendent role continues to be important in the educational realm. With the
myriad of demands that superintendents have, it is important that they are extremely skilled at
communicating because they will need to use this skill with multiple stakeholders. The role of
the effective communicator is framed by relatively new expectations that have become apparent
since the early 1980s (Kowalski, 2005). Superintendents' communicator role is shaped by two
conditions: the need to restructure school cultures and the need to access and use information in a
timely manner to identify and solve problems of practice (Bjö rk et al., 2014).
School Board Member Attributes
School board members are impactful in any school district because they directly affect all
stakeholders. There are more than 5,000 school board members that serve on thousands of local
public-school boards in the United States that impact about 6 million students (CBSA, 2007).
According to the California School Boards Association (CSBA, 2007), a school board member
must be at least 18 years of age and, depending on the state, they must also have a high school
14
diploma or equivalent. A member of a school board must also be a citizen of the state, resident of
the school district, a registered voter, and not disqualified by the Constitution or laws of the state
from holding a civil office (CBSA, 2007).
School Board Member Roles and Responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities of school boards have drastically changed over the past 10
years. School boards were run by selectmen or elected officials who made decisions through
town meetings (Goldhammer, 1964). These members had a different focus that did not include
student achievement but instead focused on local issues such as busses and buildings
(Dahlkemper, 2005). All members did not necessarily share the same goals focused on equity,
equality, and achievement.
From the beginning, the school board was designed as the policy and decision-maker for
the school district (Campbell & Green, 1994). School board members have the pressures of
keeping all stakeholders content while also focusing on student achievement. In the 21st century,
school board member responsibilities have more complex school governance roles than when the
first school board was created. The Tenth Amendment, passed by Congress on September 25,
1789, states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This means that the
responsibility of education is reserved to the states, which includes the local school boards.
School board members have a great deal of responsibility to all stakeholders including
students, parents, and the community. These local school boards provide the means by which
segments in each community have a representative voice in how schools will educate their
children (Delagardelle, 2008). They are responsible for the beliefs, values, and priorities of its
community and are considered political figures overseeing the duty of education for students
15
which includes the hiring of the superintendent, developing policies and programs,
demonstrating improvements, and high academic achievement (CSBA, 2007; Land, 2002).
Although the primary duties and responsibilities of current school boards are policymaking, they
are just as responsible for overseeing district employment, financial accountability, public
relations, and hiring of the superintendent (Brenner et al., 2002; Land, 2002).
The structured set of guidelines and responsibilities of school board members is crucial to
helping all members stay focused on the same district goals. Unclear responsibilities within the
school governance structure cause an increase in the likelihood of board member behaviors that
are uncharacteristic of effective school governance and does not focus on student achievement
(Land, 2002). However, these specific roles and responsibilities have yet to be clearly defined,
leading to ineffective school governance (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002; Campbell & Green,
1994; Kirst, 1994; Schmitz, 2007; Thomas, 2001; Ziebarth, 2002). For these reasons, school
board members must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities to help all students succeed
within a school district.
The CSBA provides guidance for the changing function and roles of school board
members, but the challenge has been to clearly define their responsibilities in the governance
process. The five major responsibilities of school board members that are characteristic of
effective school governance are: (a) setting the direction of schools in the community, (b)
establishing an effective and efficient structure for the school district, (c) providing support
through behavior and actions, (d) ensuring accountability to the public, and (e) acting as
community leaders (CSBA, 2007). Clear definitions of the school governance’s responsibilities
are critical for the success of any school district (Campbell & Green, 1994).
16
Leadership
The evolution of leadership developed from emphasizing control in the 1900s to currently
working towards including all stakeholders in making a decision in the 2000s (Northouse, 2015).
Leadership has been defined as having a skill or being able to process multiple forms of
information effectively while maintaining positive relationships with others (Bono & Judge,
2004). For the purpose of this study, Northouse’s (2015) definition of leadership as “a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6) will be
utilized to discuss the leadership qualities and necessary skills to be an effective superintendent
and school board member. Defining leadership as a process suggests that it is not a personality
trait, but instead, it is a transactional event that occurs between the leader and the followers. It
involves influence, especially in group settings such as in a school district (Northouse, 2015).
Strong and effective leadership is of the utmost importance in a school district because it
can directly impact student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). School leaders such as school
board members and superintendents have the power and authority to influence, motivate, and
improve conditions at a school site (Leithwood et al., 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). There is
research indicating that there are four sets of leadership qualities and practices used by district
leaders that exhibit effectiveness. These four core sets of leadership qualities and practices are
the following: (a) building vision and setting directions, (b) understanding and developing
people, (c) redesigning the organization, and (d) managing the teaching and learning program
(Leithwood et al., 2008). These four categories of leadership practices are evidence of what
successful leaders do. Also, leaders should have the ability to work collaboratively with a team
rather than working alone because research has indicated that school leadership has a greater
17
influence when multiple team members such as teachers, administrators, and school board
members work together rather than alone (Leithwood et al., 2008).
Governance Board Relationship
Effective school board governance is key in providing school districts with the necessary
support to help students achieve. The relationship between the school board members and the
superintendent is an important aspect of effective school governance, and the success of a school
district is dependent on the strength of the relationship (Brenner et al., 2002). It is necessary to
focus on the school district’s mission and vision statement. This may include striving for student
achievement, obtaining community support, and focusing on what is best for stakeholders to help
students reach their educational goals (Brenner et al., 2002).
Although the governance board relationship is crucial in a school district, it can often be
dysfunctional and negative. Qualitative studies have discussed that school board conflict can lead
to negative outcomes for the school district (Grissom, 2010). Board factionalism, the inability to
manage differences among members, poor communication, and micromanagement of
superintendents hinders the ability for school boards to be effective. (Campbell & Green, 1994;
Grissom, 2007; Wallace Foundation, 2003).
Various research states that the most commonly cited reason for difficult or strained
relationships with board members and superintendents is confusion and lack of effective
communication. The reason for difficult relationships is sometimes due to a personal agenda that
board members may have regarding power (Grissom, 2010; Mountford, 2004). Ineffective
boards of education are identified by their school system results: large numbers of students
failing basic skills tests; high absenteeism of students and staff; extremely high failure rates,
particularly at grade 9; a revolving door for school administration; and few students participating
18
in rigorous high-level instructional programs (Bainbridge & Thomas, 2002). Many school boards
are ineffective and create conditions that impair the ability of schools to provide quality
education for students. Effective board relationships that work with the superintendent create
more collaborative governance allowing for student achievement to be at the forefront of
discussions.
Negative relationships between the superintendent and school board members do not
allow school team governance to make effective decisions regarding quality instruction and
allowing students to achieve (Thomas, 2001). There are obstacles that have been identified in
building successful partnerships between school boards and superintendents. Poor
communication, lack of clarity in roles and expectations, and lack of knowledge are all reasons
why the relationship of the superintendent and school board governance team may not work. The
lack of knowledge is crucial because superintendents are educationally professional and board
members are not necessarily trained as educators or have participated in the MIG training
(Thomas, 2001).
Effective School Board Governance
The importance of effective school governance has been outlined in this chapter. It is
extremely pivotal in helping a school district succeed. Successful and effective school
governance is possible through the use of collaboration, effective leadership skills, and
communication skills. Land (2002) suggests that school board experts frequently identified as
important include good relations with the superintendent and between board members. Many
school boards do not quite embody the characteristics that have been described as critical for
school board effectiveness, but it is not impossible to create a positive school board governance.
19
An effective school board governance consists of a positive relationship amongst the
superintendent and school board members. Research has indicated that effective school boards
are a part of successful districts and have an emphasis on managing the district rather than
changing or improving it. Board members in the successful district also knew more about school
reform initiatives and the board’s role in supporting them (Wallace Foundation, 2003).
An effective school board member knows how to communicate forcefully, clearly, and
directly with the superintendent (Banbridge & Thomas, 2002). The CSBA (2007) has identified a
set of professional standards for effective school board governance and has been used by
hundreds of school districts in California. Leithwood et al. (2008) stated seven conditions that
are used by effective school governance: shared leadership, continuous improvement, sustained
initiatives, supportive workplace for staff, utilization of data, staff development, and community
involvement.
Collaboration and teamwork amongst the superintendent and school board members will
equate to success in any school district regardless of whether it is low or high achieving
(Banbridge & Thomas, 2002; Leithwood et al., 2008). Usually, a strained relationship amongst a
board member and superintendent is due to the lack of communication and misalignment of
values and goals (Fusarelli et al., 2011; Grissom, 2010). According to the literature, effective
school board governance works when there are shared goals, beliefs, and values. There also
needs to be a collaborative and trusting relationship amongst board members as well as with the
superintendent. This relationship is extremely significant and can greatly impact the board’s
ability to govern effectively (Thomas, 2001). Delgardelle (2008) also discusses seven additional
traits of effective governance: (a) emphasis on building a human organizational system, (b)
ability to create and sustain initiatives, (c) Supportive workplace for staff, (d) staff development,
20
(e) support for school sites through data and information, (f) community involvement, and (g)
integrated leadership. This indicates the need for professional development in helping build
strong and effective school governance.
Accountability of School Board Members
In the educational setting, accountability is the concept that schools and school districts
will be held responsible for the performance or producing documents and records, creating, and
following plans, and reporting student performance on assessments. In the mid-1980s, there was
a major shift in educational policy to focus on massive school reform. The National Commission
on Excellence published the study, A Nation at Risk, which identified several flaws in the
educational system and predicted the downfall of the United States as an international industrial
leader if it did not make the necessary changes in its system (Timar, 2003). This caused
accountability to become the focus in K-12 school districts.
Accountability is defined as an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to
account for one’s actions (Burke, 2004). It is a contractual relationship between the provider of a
good or service and the director with the power to reward or punish the provider (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). Different stakeholders including students, teachers, administrators, and
parents each have different roles and responsibilities (Tongeri & Anderson, 2003). School board
members are held accountable for educational achievement, professionalism, fiscal
responsibility, and education legislation (Gemberling et al., 2000; Schedler et al., 1999, Wallace
Report, 2013). When systemwide accountability systems are put into place for these
stakeholders, student achievement increases (Tongeri & Anderson, 2003).
In their exercise of school board governance, the superintendent and school board
members make decisions that negatively or positively impact students and teachers. For this
21
reason, school board members are a part of the accountability system to ensure they are
following their specific set of principles (CSBA, 2007; Resnick, 1999). Research indicates that
accountability for school board members is high, causing pressures and demands on the job (Hill
et al., 2002). They are not only held accountable for student achievement, but multiple
stakeholders hold them accountable for the school district’s financial state, policymaking, and
evaluating the superintendent (Thomas, 2001; Wallace Foundation, 2003). The school board has
a commitment to serve as a trustee to help students succeed (CSBA, 2007, Hill et al., 2002).
School Board Member Training
As previously stated, California school board members only need to meet certain
requirements to earn a sitting position on a school board; this does not include obtaining any type
of professional development or academic certification. It is important that school board members
are prepared to engage in multiple leadership approaches and behaviors that are regulated by
knowledge, skill, and circumstances (Elmore, 2000; Northouse, 2010). Guiding and leading
change requires board members to be aware of educational innovations and best practices;
knowledge that can only be gained through training, networking, and professional development
opportunities. High achieving school districts have school boards that set expectations, oversee
progress, build public will, and commit themselves to learn.
With the pressure of school districts to maintain a high performing status, school board
members are held accountable for effective leadership more than before (Bianchi, 2003;
Danzberger, 1994; Land, 2002; Loeb et al., 2007; Roberts & Sampson, 2011; Ziebarth, 2002).
Increasing accountability for academic achievement has included policy setting, monitoring of
academic achievement, and formulating the organization’s vision (CSBA, 2007). Newly elected
school board members are not prepared to effectively make decisions regarding school finances,
22
academic standards, district facilities, and maintaining compliance with state and federal
mandates (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Providing school board members with appropriate
training is key to increasing and maintaining student achievement (Brenner et al., 2002).
Training and professional development are crucial to increase the effectiveness of school
board governance. Previously school board members may have been able to participate and help
students, but now that the focus has shifted to student achievement, school board members must
be knowledgeable regarding legislative procedures, fiscal budget knowledge, and effective
communication skills (Dahlkemper, 2005). Board member training must focus on multiple areas
including the focus on the content of the school board’s various roles but also on how to be an
effective board that will help stakeholders.
Resnick (1999) proposes that states should provide support for school boards to seek
development in various areas of knowledge and provide school board members with a broad
array of technical assistance options to assist them in solving specific school district problems.
Professional development for school boards is crucial to the success of the school district.
Policies and operations of school boards have a major impact on the effectiveness of improving
school district initiatives and the overall success of a school district, which is one reason why
school board training should be mandatory (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Petronis et al.,
1996). Research shows that school board members are the key component to the success of a
school district due to their role in making decisions that directly impact students. For this reason,
school board members should be required to become trained in how to successfully govern a
school district (Roberts & Sampson, 2011). A more prepared school board will greatly help
school districts. With the increase in scrutiny comes an increase in accountability. It is important
that school boards are knowledgeable about their roles. Unprepared and untrained school boards
23
may cause the effectiveness of the school governance to decrease which can cause a disruption to
the main goal and focus on school districts which is student achievement (Bianchi, 2003;
Morehouse, 2001). Unprepared board members can be paralyzed by any number of factors
including state and federal laws that may not necessarily make sense to members who are not
trained (Morehouse, 2001).
Training for board members appears to be key because it helps members in obtaining
knowledge regarding policies. Developing written policies regarding orientation and training,
especially for new board members, can improve school board leadership (Brenner et al., 2002).
Both intended and actual school board governance practices may improve with training
and professional development (Brenner et al., 2002). McAdams (2003) suggests that school
board training is essential to effective district leadership. Even though school board training may
still not guarantee a competent board member, they will be better equipped to address a
multitude of issues than if they were not trained (Bianchi, 2003; McAdams, 2003; Morehouse,
2001).
Only 21 states mandate that school boards attend training and professional development.
Nearly all these states stipulate the number of training hours and topics that must be included.
However, California is not mandating training for school board members. Although research
indicates a need for training, some school board members do not attend professional
development to help them better understand their role and policies. There are a variety of training
programs that are available in the United States to help school board members better understand
their roles in the school district (Petronis et al., 1996). The members who choose to attend the
school board training are better prepared to serve the school district they govern (Morehouse,
2001).
24
CSBA’s Professional Governance Standards
The CSBA has recommended a set of roles and responsibilities as core functions that are
fundamental to a school system’s accountability to the public. These roles and responsibilities
are: (a) setting direction, (b) establishing an effective and efficient structure, (c) providing
support (d) ensuring accountability, and (e) providing community leadership as advocates for
children, the school district, and public schools. The CSBA also has a set of professional
governance standards that describe the attributes of an individual governing board member and
the attributes of an effective governing board. These Professional Governance Standards are key
to creating an effective and impactful school board. An individual school board member must
continue to learn and obtain professional development for all students as the primary focus.
California State Board Association also notes that individual school board members need to
understand the distinction between board and staff roles and must refrain from performing
management functions that are the responsibility of the superintendent. The standards for the
school board emphasize that the board must work together with the superintendent as a
governance team and focus on achievement for all students. By adhering to these professional
governance standards, school board members will be more effective in their role which directly
impacts students (CSBA, 2007).
Student Achievement
There are limited research studies dedicated to showing a relationship between school
board member training and student achievement. In a study conducted in 1996, only six states
required school board member training (Petronis, 1996). Results showed that most
superintendents of various districts all agreed that mandatory school board training should be
established. If teachers are required to attend multiple professional development training
25
throughout their time in their career, it should be mandated that a key player such as a school
board member would be required to attend professional development or training. Impactful
decisions are made by the school board members, and for these reasons, school board members
should be required to learn through professional development (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
Knowledgeable decisions should be made by school board members using ongoing training so
that it can help each school district achieve.
Conceptual Frameworks
The two theoretical frameworks that guided the inquiry of the topic, school board
member training and its impact on their effectiveness, were the following: Reframing
Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008) and The Lighthouse Inquiry by Delagardelle (2008).
These conceptual frameworks, illustrated in Figure 1, were selected because they provide
evidence and information regarding effective school governance, professional standards, and the
impact of professional development on the school board.
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations (2008) provided information on using multi-
frame thinking as a leader. Although each leader brings different lenses, Bolman and Deal
describe four frames that leadership characteristics can be categorized in. These four frames
include the following: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic (Figure 2). The four
specific frames discuss the different ways that individuals can think and adjust depending on the
specific event: “Learning multiple perspectives, or frames is a defense against thrashing around
without a clue about what you are doing or why” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, page 23). Using
multiple frames is especially important for school board members who are faced with a multitude
of viewpoints from different stakeholders. One lens may be beneficial in one event versus
26
another at a different place or time. School board members will need to work in union with the
district’s superintendent to make strategic decisions that will impact students. Reframing
leadership allows for a broader view of a subject (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Figure 1
Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames
Note. This figure discusses the research framework by Bolman and Deal. From Reframing
Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.), by L. G. Bolman & T. E. Deal, 2008,
Jossey-Bass.
27
In the structural frame, coordination and control are essential to effectiveness. This
framework has an emphasis on rationality and argues for putting people in the right roles and
relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2008). It is symbolized by a factory or machine because it is the
architectural foundation of the structure. Leaders who use the structural frame use clearly defined
roles and responsibilities to help the organization.
The human resources frame centers on what organizations and people do to and for one
another. It uses psychology to conceptualize what people need in an organization. Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs is used to describe the physiological, safety, and social needs that a person
needs. A person needs to feel a sense of belonging in an organization to work to their fullest
potential. The human resources frame concentrates on relationships to help keep their employees
and promote a positive workplace.
The political frame is symbolized as a jungle with a supporting discipline of political
science. This frame has central concepts of power and organizations are used to provide an
opportunity for leaders and groups to express interests (Bolman & Deal, 2008). When
individuals use this frame, they use influence to manipulate others and are extremely
competitive. Power is used to defeat others and achieve goals regardless of the circumstances.
When leaders use the symbolic frame, they strive to find meaning through experiences.
This framework uses sacred occasions to celebrate and transform the organization through
symbols and celebrations. Conflict is used to develop shared values amongst people within the
organization. One weakness is that this frame has unclear and ambiguous goals that may cause a
lack of structure (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
28
Lighthouse Inquiry
The Lighthouse Inquiry was a study conducted to see whether school boards generate
higher achievement through patterns of organizational behavior that can be described and learned
by others. The results described by the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB, 2006)
indicated that “school boards in high achieving districts are extremely different in their
knowledge and beliefs than school boards in low achieving districts.” (p. 4). The IASB’s goal
was to identify reasons between what school boards do and the achievement of students in the
school district.
The IASB (2006) found seven conditions that were necessary for productive governance
change: (a) emphasis on building a human organizational system, (b) ability to create and sustain
initiatives, (c) supportive workplace for staff, (d) staff development, (e) support for school sites
through data and information, (f) community involvement, and (g) integrated leadership. The key
differences confirmed the need for a knowledgeable school board. Interviews with central office
administrators, principals, and teachers confirmed that the board’s knowledge and beliefs around
seven conditions for productive change were connected to action taken at the school level. In low
achieving districts, there was minimal evidence of school board connection to the seven
conditions.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided a summary of the literature of the historical background of the
school board and superintendent positions. The chapter also included literature of theoretical
frameworks used to discuss what constitutes an effective school board governance and how
training may help produce effective school board members (Bolman & Deal, 2008; CSBA, 2007;
Delagardelle, 2008). Research shows that school board members that work collaboratively with
29
superintendents will yield positive results in their school district. School board members are
accountable to multiple stakeholders and are responsible for obtaining information through
professional development to help them make appropriate and knowledgeable decisions that
directly impact students. It is evident that school board members who continue their education
and training demonstrate characteristics of effective school governance (Dahlkemper, 2005;
Roberts & Sampson, 2011). Therefore, it is extremely crucial that school board members attend
professional development training to be effective members of the school governance team.
30
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether school board training improves the
relationship between school boards and superintendents and affects the impact on student
achievement. Researchers examined the benefit of Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its
implications for school board members’ ability to exhibit the characteristics of effective
governance. Moreover, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of school board
members and superintendents regarding MIG training and its impact on school governance and
student achievement. Chapter 3 includes a description of the following: (a) design of the study,
(b) research team, (c) instrumentation, (d) data collection procedures, and (e) data analysis.
The research team consisted of 20 doctoral candidates at the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California. The team was led and guided by Dr. Michael Escalante
and met regularly to formulate research questions, discuss relevant literature, and collaborate on
definitions that would be used in this research study. This provided insight into whether MIG
training may have an impact on school governance and student achievement.
The following research questions were developed by the research team to guide this study
to determine whether school board training improves the relationship between school boards and
superintendents and affects the impact on performance indicators for school districts.
Research Questions
The research team developed the following research questions to guide this study to determine
whether school board training improves the relationship between school boards and
superintendents and affects the impact on performance indicators for school districts:
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
31
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Research Design
A mixed methods approach was determined to be the most appropriate research design to
collect and analyze the necessary data for this study because this type of design will produce
complex and detailed answers regarding the issue (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Since MIG training
effectiveness is being measured, this type of evaluation is summative (Patton, 2002). The
qualitative design followed the research questions used to measure the effectiveness of the
school board members on student achievement. Qualitative data provided more detailed and
thick descriptions that could thoroughly analyze the purpose of the study (Patton, 2002).
The research team worked collaboratively to discuss and formulate surveys, interview
questions, and observation protocols to obtain data that would answer the research questions on
the overall effectiveness and impact of MIG training on student achievement. The survey
consisted of open-ended questions regarding school board leadership and governance that were
aligned to one of the research questions and Bolman and Deal’s (2002) frameworks. School
board members and superintendents were asked their opinions on the training and whether they
thought it would be impactful in making decisions that directly affect students at their
prospective school districts (see Appendices C & D).
Participants
Purposive sampling is a strategy used with the intent to carefully select people to provide
information that is relevant to the research questions (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This type of strategy was utilized to carefully select superintendents and school board members
32
to participate in this study. The research team directly spoke with superintendents of the
following six southern California counties: Alameda, Alpine, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San
Bernardino, Santa Clara, Sonoma, San Diego, Ventura, and Riverside. Based upon the responses
received from superintendent and board member surveys, the research team created groups of
school board members that were MIG trained including the following: (a) most school board
members received MIG training, (b) less than half of the school board members did not receive
MIG training, and (c) no school board members or superintendents were trained.
After retrieving the data from the superintendent and school board member surveys, the
research team focused on school districts where most school board members received MIG
training. Districts that did not have any MIG trained school board members or had less than half
MIG trained school boards were not used for this research study. The research team followed up
with the participating school board members and superintendents who met the criteria for an
interview.
Instrumentation
The instruments for this study were surveys and interviews. The research team
collaboratively designed the recruitment and information emails for school board members and
superintendents (Appendix A & Appendix B), survey questions (Appendix C & Appendix D),
and interview protocols (Appendix E & Appendix F). The research questions aligned to the
survey questions and were developed using the framework from Reframing Organizations by
Bolman and Deal (2008), research from the Lighthouse study regarding a description of the
school board’s role in leadership (Delagardelle, 2008), and the CSBA’s (2007) Professional
Governance Standards. The framework and research were also used in analyzing the data
received from the superintendent and board member surveys.
33
Survey
A school board member survey (Appendix C) and superintendent survey (Appendix D)
were created. Although questions for the two surveys were similar, they were structured
differently to provide perspectives of school board members and superintendents. The purpose of
the school board survey was to provide insight and data regarding MIG training and effective
school governance. The superintendent survey was created to highlight data regarding the
superintendent’s point of view of the MIG training and how it may impact the school board’s
ability to be effective. The research team utilized research frameworks used to develop both
surveys.
A digital survey was emailed to the school board members and superintendents who were
eligible. The digital survey includes a recruitment letter and information emails for school board
members and superintendents (Appendix A & B). It includes an invitation for school board
members and superintendents to voluntarily participate in an interview.
Interview
The interview was a key component in gathering data from the participants. Interviews
provided the research team with the perspective of school board members and superintendents,
which could otherwise not be observed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each member of the research
team participated in creating the interview questions for the school board members (Appendix E)
and superintendents (Appendix F). The interview questions consisted of open-ended questions
that will provide the research team with more detailed and thick descriptions that will help
answer the research questions (Patton, 2002). It also contained quantitative questions that asked
participants to rank MIG modules from most important to least important. This questionnaire
34
was important in answering the research questions on MIG training and its impact on school
board effectiveness and student achievement.
Data from the surveys were extracted, allowing the research team to organize school
districts into full participation and partial participation of the MIG training; school board
members and superintendents who did not report MIG training were not utilized for this study.
Follow-up interviews were scheduled for the selected school board members and
superintendents.
Data Collection & Analysis
The research team was divided into three groups. Each of these team members collected
data from surveys and interviews. A qualitative design was used to collect and analyze the data
retrieved from the interviews because it produces great depth with attention to detail and context
(Patton, 2002). The data collected were discussed and analyzed with the research team to identify
similarities, patterns, and discrepancies pertaining to the three research questions.
Data Collection
Research Question 1 asked, what factors impact the decision of school board members to
participate in the MIG training program? Superintendent and school board member responses
from the survey and interview were analyzed to determine possible motivational causes that
impacted school members’ decision to participate in MIG training. This may have included both
external and internal factors.
Research Question 2 asked, how does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? A variety of
methods were used in addressing this question including the development of survey questions
and conducting interviews. The responses were utilized to obtain information regarding which
35
school board members received MIG training and their perspective on the effectiveness the MIG
training has on behaviors of the school governance. Interview questions also determined whether
school board members' perceptions matched their current practices obtained through MIG
training and whether they believed the training directly impacted the ability to govern
effectively.
Research Question 3 asked, Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth? Survey questions and follow-up interviews were utilized to answer this research
question. Superintendents and school board members were asked to reflect on their experiences
with the MIG training and how it may have impacted progress or student achievement.
Data Analysis
Each member of the research team was assigned to collect and analyze data to share with
the entire research team. The analyses of the qualitative data collected through the surveys and
interviews were used to identify commonalities and discrepancies. Common themes were
examined to identify school board member and superintendent perspectives on MIG training and
whether it greatly impacts the ability of a school board to govern effectively.
Ethical Considerations
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) application process was completed by all 20
members of the research team. Each member was assigned to complete the Collaborative
Institutional Training Initiative (CITI), which is an online training program that offers different
modules that team members must take. The modules provide information on potential ethical
considerations that may occur during a research study containing human subjects. The
completion of the IRB application makes certain that the research process is completed with
36
highly ethical practices pertaining to the physical and emotional wellbeing of all research
participants.
Chapter Summary
This chapter discusses the methodology used in this study. The purpose and research
questions were stated and reviewed. The research design, participants, population, instruments,
data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations were discussed. The process was guided
by the research questions and the literature review in Chapter Two. The survey and interview
yielded data that provided commonalities of the school board members’ and superintendents’
perspectives regarding MIG training and its impact on producing an effective governing board.
All instruments designed by the research team are aligned to the research questions as referenced
in Appendix H. Each member of the research team completed CITI training to ensure that all
team members are trained in ethical considerations for this study.
Chapter Four will present the findings of the research including the analysis of the data
collected through surveys and interviews. The data analysis will identify factors that impact the
school board members’ ability in participating in the MIG training program, how the MIG
program equips board members with exhibiting behaviors of effective school governance, and
whether the MIG training program has an impact on student achievement. Chapter Five
summarizes the findings of the study, implications for practice, recommendations for future
research, and concluding information about the research.
37
Chapter Four: Findings
A school board member has an important role that greatly impacts multiple stakeholders
within a school district. They make decisions affecting a school district’s personnel, policies,
curriculum, budget, and collective bargaining (CSBA, 2007; Hess, 2002). Although California
school board members must meet certain criteria, this does not include training or professional
development (CSBA, 2007). This chapter includes a presentation and analysis of data collected
by the 20-member research team. Each member individually interviewed three active
superintendents and 12 active school board members from three school districts. The purpose of
this case study was to explore the impact the masters in governance training had on school board
members who have completed the training and their ability to make well informed decisions
through effective leadership skills.
Demographics of Participants
To establish purposeful sampling, the research team created guidelines and parameters
for participation in the study (Patton, 2002). Participants were selected based on a set of criteria.
School boards were required to have a minimum of three board members who had attended MIG
training through CSBA. Additionally, the superintendent was required to have attended MIG
training. Initially school districts in the southern California geographical location were selected
to participate in the study, but due to the Coronavirus Pandemic, some of the confirmed districts
were unable to participate. For this reason, the geographical location expanded to include
districts in northern California. A total of 62 school districts in the southern and northern
California counties of Alameda, Alpine, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Santa
Clara, Sonoma, San Diego, Ventura, and Riverside were selected to participate.
38
Quantitative data were collected by electronic surveys that were emailed to each board
member and superintendent. Survey participants were all active superintendents or school board
members that attended the masters in governance training. Each research team member selected
three districts and emailed surveys to three school board members and one superintendent per
district. From the qualifying districts, 186 school board members and 62 superintendents were
selected to participate in the case study. Not all school board members took the online survey,
resulting in 97% response rate (Table 1).
Table 1
Summary of Participation
Participants
n
%
Superintendents (N = 62)
Survey responses
62
100
Interviews 62 100
Board members (N = 186)
Survey responses
180
97
Interviews 177 95
39
The qualitative portion of this research study included interviews with school board
members and superintendents. Research team members focused on three districts for interviews,
which consisted of three school board members and one superintendent who had participated in
the MIG training. Nine school board members and three superintendents were selected to
participate in the interview portion of the research study. Labels used to refer to the districts,
superintendents and school board members who participated in interviews are found in Table 2.
Table 2
District, Superintendent, and School Board Member Labels
District Label Superintendent Label School Board Member Label
Royal Oaks
Superintendent A
School Board Member 1
School Board Member 2
School Board Member 3
Valley View Superintendent B
School Board Member 4
School Board Member 5
School Board Member 6
Northview Superintendent C School Board Member 7
School Board Member 8
School Board Member 9
40
Royal Oaks Unified
Royal Oaks Unified was in an urban district in southern California. This school district
serves 19,500 students ranging from preschool to 12th grade in 24 schools. The district’s
governance team is composed of five school board members and the superintendent. Three out of
five school board members are MIG trained and agreed to participate in the study. Two school
board members are experienced in serving on a governance team while one member is new and
serving on a governance team for the first time. Superintendent A who has also attended the MIG
training, has served as the superintendent for 2 years.
Valley View Unified
Valley View Unified is one of the largest public-school districts in southern California.
There are 51 campuses serving 53,002 students in transitional kindergarten to adult education.
Three out of the five school board members participated in MIG training. All three school board
members have served at least one term and are experienced in serving on a governance team.
Superintendent B has served as the superintendent in this district for 9 years.
Northview
Northview Unified is in southern California and serves 11,713 students in preschool
through 12th grade. The governance team is led by five school board members and
superintendent. All three school board members have served multiple terms and are experienced
with being on a governing board. Superintendent C was formerly an assistant superintendent in
the district and transitioned into the superintendent role in June 2020.
Research Questions
The research team developed the following questions to guide the case study:
41
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
Purpose of the Study
California school board members are not required to obtain any training. The purpose of
this study was to determine whether school board training improves the relationship between
school boards and superintendents therefore impacting student achievement in school districts.
The research questions explored the perceptions the governance team had regarding the MIG
training program.
Findings
This section is presented into themes and theories that have been extracted from the data
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The surveys, interviews, and literature review were
triangulated to ensure reliability and validity (Patton, 2002). The data analysis from this study
focuses on the MIG training experiences of superintendents and board members and dissects
how the experience impacted their decision-making process within their district.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asks the following, what factors impact the decision of school board
members to participate in the MIG training program? Research has indicated that school board
members are elected to serve a term on the school board governance team with minimal
professional development, training, or experience in the educational field. (Delagardelle, 2008;
Hess, 2002; Land, 2002). Although they are tasked with making high priority decisions that
42
directly impact all stakeholders within a school district and community, there are no expectations
for school board members to obtain training while serving a term (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
The survey and interview participants chose to complete the MIG training for various reasons.
The data analysis of the first research question yielded two major themes: (1) participants were
self-motivated to obtain training and (2) accessibility to the MIG training program.
Motivational Factors
Since California school board members are not required to participate in training,
understanding why the participants in this study would voluntarily obtain training is key in this
research study. Results of the superintendent and school board member surveys indicated that
motivation was an important factor when deciding whether to participate in the MIG training
(Table 3). Fifty-nine percent of superintendents and 73% of board members identified self-
motivation as a primary factor. Moreover, the second factor in motivating school board members
to participate in the MIG training program was increasing effective governance and
encouragement from a board member on the same governance board. Table 3 summarizes the
results from school board member and superintendent survey data.
43
Table 3
Primary Factor(s) That Influenced School Board Members to Participate in MIG Training
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response F (%) F (%)
School board expectation 33 (53%) 84 (47%)
Self-motivation 37 (60%) 133 (74%)
Encouraged by board members 35 (56%) 71 (39%)
Increasing student achievement 9 (15%) 53 (29%)
Increasing effective government 31 (50%) 128 (71 %)
Unable to determine 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Other 3 (5%) 10 (6%)
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
Qualitative data collected from interviews with board members and superintendents
confirmed the survey data. Most participants from Royal Oaks, Valley View, and Northview
Unified described that they were self-motivated to obtain training for several reasons including
being prepared to serve on a school board. School board member 1 stated, “If we do not get
trained...my goodness what a disservice we would be doing to our community.” She further
discusses the symbolic aspect of being a school board member and how in part, she is
responsible for the well-being of children’s lives. She was self-motivated to attend the MIG so
she could learn how to be an effective member of the governance team that will directly impact
children.
School Board Members 5 and 9 were self-motivated to participate in the MIG because
they were new to being on a governing board. School Board Member 5 shared:
When I first started, it was scary because there was no handbook on how to be a board
member. I reached out to some of my colleagues on the board to ask questions, but
44
ultimately it came down to me. You decide what it is that you want to do, the type of
board member that you want to be.
Superintendents were also motivated to participate in the MIG training for similar reasons
as board members. Superintendents A and B were motivated to attend with board members to
build rapport and a strong foundation for their school board governance. They both saw it as an
opportunity to start a relationship that is built on teamwork, trust, and unity.
Superintendent B said in a healthy district, the superintendent is seen as the sixth board member,
which is why he has chosen to attend the training with his governing board. He also highlighted
the importance of helping his board members at the training: “So if you are right there with them,
you will be able to tutor them along the way and kind of learn together. That is why it is
important for a superintendent to participate in these training programs.”
Accessibility Barriers
Although motivation plays a major role in school board member participation in the MIG
training, accessibility to the training is another important factor that may hinder participation.
Analysis of data revealed that the cost, time, and location of the training influenced school board
members’ decision to not attend.
The cost of the training program is $399 to complete one module and $1,995 to complete
all five modules, without the cost of room and board. With the current financial deficit that many
school districts are facing, spending money on an optional training program is not the priority.
During the interviews, School Board member 5 explained his hesitation to complete the MIG
training modules:
I felt, financially, I was trying to be conservative with our monies from the district and I
did not feel it was responsible of me to go up North, get a hotel, air travel, because they
45
were all up in the Sacramento area. Get a hotel, do all that, I did not want to financially
do that to the district.
As School Board Member 6 explained, there is limited availability in select cities and
most participants felt that it was not worth attending. It is evident that if the location of the MIG
was provided locally or virtually, this would increase the likelihood that board members would
attend the training. Sixty-nine percent of school board members that were surveyed would more
likely participate if the training were offered locally (Table 3). Fifty-eight percent of board
members would also consider attending the MIG if it were offered through a hybrid model.
Superintendents also answered similarly to school board members (Table 4). Superintendents
preferred a locally hosted or hybrid training program. All three superintendents described that the
MIG could be improved if it were offered more locally or online due to time constraints, being
away from their family, and juggling work duties. Superintendent C explains the importance of
having the MIG offered virtually, locally, or using a hybrid model:
I think if it is more local, there are different options for attending it, whether that be in-
person, virtual, or a combination. Those are the things that I hear from different members.
If there are homework assignments, just speaking as a former assistant sup, it would be
nice to have that ahead of time so that they know what to get.
Time commitment was another major factor that discouraged board members from participating
in the MIG training program. School board member 8 discusses how it is difficult to make time
to leave family for training that is only offered out of the local vicinity. Superintendent B agreed
and explained how the MIG could be more accessible to superintendents and school board
members:
46
Time. It's really the timing. Our days are busy balancing family life too. So, location's
another thing too. I know that they have improved that. A lot of the time, it's a little more
of a north and south endeavor back and forth. It is not exactly next door.
Table 4
What Platform(s) of the MIG Training Program Would Increase the Chances of Participation?
Response Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Online 14 (23%) 54 (30%)
Hybrid 29 (47%) 105 (58%)
Locally hosted 45 (73%) 125 (69%)
Other 2 (3%) 4 (2%)
Note. Some participants contributed more than one answer.
47
Participants across the study discuss similar barriers of cost, time, and location. The most
important aspect of the training was being able to learn pertinent information about their role as a
school board member, being able to collaborate with other board members, and collaboration
within their own governing board. Although the virtual or hybrid model is unavailable,
participants would be open to participating if this were an option.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asks, how does the MIG training program encourage and equip
school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance? A structural
organization has clearly defined goals, specific roles, and responsibilities for each stakeholder
within an organization. It is important to examine whether the MIG was effective in providing
school board members the knowledge and training needed to govern effectively. Key
characteristics of effective school boards include a focus on students’ academic performance,
attention to policy, positive relations with the superintendent and board members, effective
budgeting, and adequate training (Land, 2002). An effective school board will also have the
responsibility of setting the direction of schools in the community, establishing an effective and
efficient structure for the school district, providing support through behavior and actions,
ensuring accountability to the public and acting as community leaders (CSBA, 2007).
Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities
School board members are responsible for overseeing several areas of the district
including the budget, curriculum, and instructional programs (Dahlkemper, 2005). A
superintendent’s role is to promote the success of all students and support the efforts of the board
of trustees to keep the district focused on learning and achievement (CSBA, 2007). Although the
48
roles and responsibilities of board members and superintendents are part of the school board and
superintendent governance standards, they are not clear to all members of the governance team.
School board members were asked to rank the five MIG modules in order of importance
to their role as a member of the governance board. The course that was ranked first was the
foundations of effective governance by 119 out of 180 school board members (Table 5). This
course helps school board members develop insight into their roles and responsibilities of the
governance team and focus on the core concepts of the Masters in Governance program:
trusteeship and governance (CSBA, 2007). Setting direction is a subpart of this course and
school board members would learn how to create a vision that best describes the district’s
direction, focus, commitment, and beliefs. They will engage stakeholders into the vision setting
process and focus all efforts on student learning (CSBA, 2007).
Table 5
Board Members’ Ranking of the Five MIG Modules in Order of Importance to Their Role as a
Member of the Governance Team
Ranking
N = 180
1st
n
2nd
n
3rd
n
4th
n
5th
n
Foundation in Governance
Policy and Judicial Review
School Finance
Human Resources
Community Relations
119
21
30
2
8
34
63
56
10
17
9
48
57
33
33
10
27
26
67
50
8
21
11
68
72
49
Table 6 depicts survey participants’ perspectives from Royal Oaks, Valley View, and
Northview Unified on the clarification of roles and responsibilities as a school board member
and superintendent provided through the MIG training. School board members were asked
whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement:
“The MIG training clarified the differences between my roles and the responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.” Ninety-five percent (171) of the board members
either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.
Table 6
The MIG Training Clarified the Differences Between My Roles and Responsibilities as a School
Board Member and Those of the Superintendent
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 117 65
Agree 54 30
Disagree 8 4
Strongly Disagree 1 1
50
School Board Member 5 from Valley View Unified explained the importance of knowing
the difference between a school board member role and a superintendent role by saying the
following:
Well, I think the MIG is important because it gives you structure and it gives you an
understanding of what your position is as a school board member, policy wise and things
like that. So, I think it sets a clear understanding of what our job is, as school board
members, as opposed to an administrator or someone like that. It is very good at setting
the parameters of what our job entails. We oversee policy, but we do not get into the
administrators' roles. So, I think the training has helped me.
She also discussed the necessary tools, knowledge, and clarification that the MIG training
provided for her and explained that the training should be mandated for all incoming board
members.
School Board Member 1 also explained that the MIG should be mandated because it
would ensure that all governing members are clear regarding their individual roles and
responsibilities. When asked whether the MIG training program encourages and equips school
board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance, she stated:
Everybody comes from different backgrounds. We have police officers, we have
educators, we have parents, people who work in the school system, but the training just
gets everybody on the same page. Again, that understanding of what goes on behind the
scenes. I think it is a good idea because you come in and if you are not educated in that
background, how are you going to be able to make any decisions and understand it?
Superintendents were also asked to discuss their thoughts regarding the MIG training and
its impact on school members’ ability to distinguish between their role and the superintendent’s
51
role. They ranked the five MIG modules in order of importance and had similar answers to the
school board members. Table 7 examines superintendent survey participants’ perspectives on
how the MIG has impacted school board members' understanding of their roles and
responsibilities. Fifty-four out of 61 superintendents ranked this course the most important out
of all five courses. Ninety-six percent (60) participants strongly agreed or agreed that school
board members who are MIG trained exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference between
their roles and those of the superintendent.
Table 7
School Board Members Who Are MIG Trained Exhibit a Clearer Understanding of the
Difference Between Their Roles and Responsibilities and Those of the Superintendent
Response category f (N = 62) %
Strongly Agree 25 40
Agree 35 56
Disagree 1 2
Strongly Disagree 1 2
52
During the interviews, superintendents from all three districts discuss how the MIG is
important and integral for the governance team to work within their role. Superintendent A
shared his perspective on the necessity of providing adequate training for school board members,
so all governance team members are knowledgeable about their responsibilities. He explained
that the MIG “really helped board members to recognize exactly what their roles are and exactly
what best practices are when it comes to governance.” Superintendent B also emphasized the
importance of the training coming from an outside source. He stated,
It is critical that what board members are hearing, I'm hearing. Board members often have
role conflicts and crossover into operations and the training programs, which I've strongly
encouraged all my board members, three different boards as a superintendent in three
different districts, to do because I wanted them to hear it from an official source. So that
when I reinforced it, I know that they know that this is a good governance practice. Just
not something that I want.
Superintendent B further agreed with Superintendent A, saying, “The MIG is critically
important for the governing board to have the knowledge that basically we can operate within the
parameters of the duties and responsibilities of the school board,” and that the MIG is necessary
for a board member to “understand there is a difference between a board member's role and
superintendent’s role when you are working in a school capacity like this.” All three
superintendents had the same view and believed that the MIG is necessary for school board
governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance. Explicit definitions of
the school governance roles and responsibilities is crucial for the success of a school district
(Campbell & Green, 1994).
53
Foundation of Skills & Knowledge
Although California school board members do not need any type of professional
development, education, or experience in a political office to get elected, the lack of knowledge
may hinder members from making data-informed decisions. Part of the MIG training is to equip
school board members with the necessary tools, strategies, and knowledge to be a part of an
effective governance team. The Lighthouse Inquiry research study confirmed the need for a
school board member to be knowledgeable and to center their belief system around the seven
conditions for productive change, which include the following: (a) emphasis on building a
human organizational system, (b) ability to create and sustain initiatives, (c) supportive
workplace for staff, (d) staff development, (e) support for school sites through data and
information, (f) community involvement, and (g) integrated leadership. (IASB, 2001).
Superintendents and school board members were asked questions pertaining to the MIG training
and whether it had influenced their effectiveness in the following areas: focus on student
achievement, gather community input, aligning decisions based on the district’s vision and goals,
and the ability to make data-informed decisions. Table 8 shows the school board members’
responses to the statement, “As a result of the MIG training, my focus is on achievement.”
Table 8
As a Result of the MIG Training, My Focus Is on Achievement
Response category f (N = 180) %
Strongly Agree 49 27
Agree 91 51
Disagree 39 22
Strongly Disagree 1 1
54
School Board Member 1 discusses the importance of the MIG training and how it impacted
their ability to effectively govern, explaining, “The training all points us into the right focus on
what we learned in the MIG classes to practice it within our district.” School Board Member 1
was consistent and agreed with this statement, saying this about the MIG:
The training that I received gave me confidence. It made me feel like I can go to that next
meeting and know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there isn't a silly question, that
everyone has started their first day on board ship at one point of their career. It allowed me
to have the confidence to have the tools in my toolbox. We all referred to our masters in
governance training.
Superintendent A shared how vital the MIG training is especially for new school board members
who may have not held a political office in the past. He discusses how the MIG training has
provided the foundational skills for his school board members:
I think it has provided them with foundational knowledge so that they are able to ask the
right questions for the most part. I think they understand what good governance practices
are, whether they follow them or not is a different story. Because all situations are
different, but I do believe that it has been effective in helping the board to better understand
what their roles are.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement
and growth?” Responses of the participants relevant to this question focused on the importance
of creating a student-centered culture and mandating MIG training for all school board members
and superintendents.
55
Student Centered Culture
The MIG training program has five courses that equip board members and superintendents
with the knowledge and skills to build and support an effective governance structure (CSBA,
2007). The second course in the MIG training program is policy and judicial review/student
learning and achievement. School board members have the opportunity to learn how to meet the
demand for higher academic achievement by aligning the board’s responsibilities to support
student learning through policy, setting expectations for student learning, and using data to make
decisions (CSBA, 2007).
Participants who were interviewed in the qualitative portion of the study discussed how
students are the priority. As one school board member said, “A school board member is a person
who oversees policy-making to ensure that we have the best of the best touching the lives of our
students.” The well-being and success of each student within their district is of the utmost
importance. Another school board member confirmed, saying “students first...whatever we do
within our school district has to involve the student being first.”
Bolman and Deal (2008) discuss a symbolic leader as someone who strives to find
meaning through experiences and inspire people to create a culture. Throughout the study, it was
clear that school board members and superintendents used the symbolic lens in their role. They
had a mindset on helping students succeed within their individual districts. With a symbolic lens,
school board members want their students to succeed. School member 4 explained how the MIG
training helps him focus on students:
The MIG allows us to focus on the student population and see how we could best utilize
what we have for the students. Again, ultimately it is our students that we want to benefit
and be successful. The MIG helps direct our policies a little bit better.
56
School board participants were asked whether the MIG training has caused an increased focus on
student achievement. Of the school board members who participated in the study, 77.5% (140)
strongly agreed or agreed with the statement (Table 9). School board member 7 justified her
answer on the survey by saying,
I think the MIG affects student achievement because it gives us the education,
background, and understanding of what is involved. It really gives us the knowledge so
that we can ask the right questions to be able to set goals together.
Table 9
The MIG Training Should Be Mandated in California
Superintendents (N = 62) Board Members (N = 180)
Response f % f %
Strongly Agree 40 65 73 41
Agree 17 27 65 36
Disagree 5 8 37 21
Strongly Disagree 0 0 5 3
57
All three superintendents have the same mindset as their governing school board
members who were surveyed and interviewed. They strive to cultivate a student-centered district
that focuses on helping all students succeed. The superintendents do so by encouraging their
school board members to participate in the MIG training program and refer to the information
they have learned from the courses.
Superintendent C shared how the training allows school board members to become
knowledgeable through the MIG training, so they are better prepared to ask questions which
directly impacts student achievement:
By going through that training, they can see these are things we should look at, such as
our overall scores, our traditional minority populations, things like that. Ultimately, really
taking an understanding and asking thought-provoking questions to help guide staffing
with that, but not directing them, per se.
MIG Training is Recommended
Mandating training would provide the necessary tools and knowledge that school board
members need to successfully govern a school district. Since California does not mandate
training, school board members are elected without professional development and different
levels of experience. Training would ensure that school board members and superintendents are
operating as a unified team with specific roles and responsibilities (Bianchi, 2003).
Although School board members and superintendent participants both agreed that school
board members should obtain training when elected to serve on the school governance team. The
survey data indicated that 93% (169 participants) school board members and 100% (62
participants) superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that MIG training should be encouraged
for school governance teams by the local district policy. However, when asked whether the MIG
58
training should be mandated in California, 23% (42 participants) of school board members and
8% (5 participants) of superintendents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement
(Table 9).
During the interviews, school board members discuss the reasons why the MIG should be
encouraged. One school board member from District 1 outlined the minimal requirements of
becoming a school board member and noted “anytime you can just meet the requirements of
being 18 years of age, registered to vote and yet you can run for an office that allows you to
advocate for future generations, training should be mandated.” She emphasized how important it
is for an elected board member to have the knowledge to make well informed decisions because
school board members have “lives in your hands and your decisions affect children and their
families.”
Summary
This chapter contains results of a study on the impact the masters in governance training
has on California school board members and superintendents, based on responses of the180
California school board members and 62 superintendents who participated in the survey and
interview process of this research study. This chapter looked at the multiple factors a school
board member would complete in the MIG training program, how the MIG equips school board
members to exhibit the behaviors of an effective school governance, and whether the MIG has an
impact on student achievement and growth.
The results revealed that the MIG training program helps school board members feel
confident in their role within the school governance by equipping them with knowledge of their
roles and responsibilities. Examination of the data displayed the motivational factors and
accessibility barriers that led school board members to either participate or opt out of the training
59
program. School board members were self-motivated to learn everything they could pertaining to
being an impactful and effective member of the governance team. Through the training, school
board members learned the importance of knowing their roles and responsibilities versus that of
the superintendent. The main point in the data analysis that was discussed by all participants was
the importance of a student-centered culture that uses structure and symbolism to help students
succeed, and most participants highly recommend the MIG training program.
60
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand the role that professional development plays
in creating effective school board governance. Key research findings are discussed to inform
current and future school board members. Additionally, recommendations for future research
will be included in this chapter.
School board members must be knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities since
their decisions will significantly impact multiple stakeholders within a school district. The study
focused on the Masters in Governance (MIG) training that is offered to current school board
members serving on a governing board. Since it is not mandated, this study will provide insight
into the motivation of certain school board members to participate in the MIG training and why
others have chosen to opt-out. The following research questions guided this research study.
1. What factors impact the decision of school board members to participate in the
MIG training program?
2. How does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members
to exhibit the behaviors of effective school governance?
3. Does MIG training have an impact on student achievement and growth?
This study implemented a mixed-methods research design (Creswell, 2014), which
executed quantitative and qualitative data. The data collected were from questionnaire responses
of 186 school board members and 62 superintendents and interview responses from three
superintendents and nine school board members, from 62 California school districts. The mixed-
methods approach allowed for the in-depth analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. School
board member and superintendent survey data were analyzed first to inform their survey
61
answers. Qualitative analysis of superintendent and school board member findings was
completed concerning quantitative findings to further explain quantitative data results.
Findings
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: What factors impact the decision of school
board members to participate in the MIG training program? Quantitative and qualitative data
related to Research Question 1 produced two findings. The first finding that emerged is the
motivational factors that impacted a school board member’s decision to participate in the MIG
training program. School board members were self-motivated to obtain professional
development to increase their knowledge of roles and responsibilities which would then help
them make well-informed decisions impacting a school district (Roberts & Sampson, 2011).
They were also highly motivated to complete the MIG training program to help increase
effective governance. This is consistent with research findings revealing that the MIG equips
board members and superintendents with the knowledge and skills to build and support effective
governance (CSBA, 2007). Bolman and Deal (2003) discuss the symbolic leadership that is
needed to create a culture that is positive and puts students first. Both superintendents and school
board members spoke of the importance of being a symbolic leader and focusing on the most
important aspect of their role as a school board member: helping all students succeed. They were
highly self-motivated to learn how to be an effective leader to make better decisions for students
within their district.
Another finding was the reasons a school board member would not attend the MIG
training. There were accessibility barriers such as the cost, time, and location of the program that
deterred school board members. School board members of this research study have participated
62
in the MIG, but some participants have not received training for years. The accessibility barriers
outweigh the advantages and have caused school board members not to participate. Since the
training is not mandated in California, some school board members have opted out of obtaining
the MIG training program.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: How does the MIG training program
encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective school
governance? Qualitative data related to Research Question 2 produced two findings: the MIG
training program allowed participants to clarify their roles and responsibilities and learn the
foundations of skills and knowledge about being a school board member. Most school board
members and superintendents reported that the MIG helped in clarifying any confusion of roles
and responsibilities that would help them make effective decisions that would impact students.
They also explained it helps them align their decision-making process to the district’s vision and
goals and allows everyone to be united to make impactful and effective decisions. This aligns
with the research on the qualities of effective governance and confirms the need for the MIG
training (IASB, 2001; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Participants of this research study also validated that the MIG provided them with the
foundational skills needed to exhibit behaviors of effective school governance. It was clear that
most participants of this research study wanted to learn more about the necessary skills needed to
be an effective member of the governance team. Qualitative data confirmed that not all school
board members had knowledge or experience of being a part of a school governance team. For
this reason, they obtained training through the modules of the MIG. There is a clear link between
school boards that participate in professional development versus school board members who
63
exhibit effective leadership on a governance team. Through professional development such as
the MIG, school board members can make well-informed decisions.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 inquired the following: Does MIG training have an impact on
student achievement and growth? Qualitative data related to Research Question 3 produced two
findings: most participants agree that the MIG should be mandated in California because their
decisions directly impact students. Although data suggests that school board members who
participate in the MIG training are better equipped to exhibit behaviors of effective governance,
this research study did not find direct evidence linking the MIG training program to student
achievement. More specifically, the IASB study revealed that the board did not cause high
achievement or low achievement to happen. Instead, it is the school board’s understanding and
beliefs and their efforts to ensure the presence of specific conditions within the school district
that focuses on student learning (Delagardelle, 2008). For these reasons, most school board
members and superintendents agreed that the MIG should be mandated in California.
Limitations
New limitations were identified related to this research study. After analyzing the
qualitative and quantitative data, some participants were not clear in remembering their
experience with the MIG training since they had last attended it many years ago. Additionally,
the COVID-19 pandemic caused all interviews and surveys to be conducted online via ZOOM
rather than in person. The researcher was unable to ask follow-up questions based on nonverbal
cues, which could have impacted the findings. Another limitation was the requirements of this
research study. Qualifying participants were only required to participate in one module of the
64
MIG training program, which may have produced different results had there been requirements
for participants to complete all modules of the MIG.
Implications for Practice
This study examined the impact the MIG training program has on school board members’
ability to exhibit behaviors of effective school governance. Study findings established themes
that inform school board members and superintendents at the district level and provide pertinent
information for school board boards regarding the importance of professional development for
members of a school board.
This study provided insight and implications for the CSBA, which oversees MIG
training. The first implication for practice is that the CSBA provides various opportunities for
school board members to participate in the MIG. Although many school board members are
interested in participating in MIG training, the cost and location deter their decision to
participate. To improve and increase participation of the MIG, CSBA should provide various
opportunities including a hybrid model, online model, and more locations available in California.
These adjustments would likely increase participation in the MIG training leading to an increase
in formally trained school board members across California.
The second implication for practice highlights the importance that school board members
become aware of these research findings to motivate their participation in the MIG to increase
their effectiveness as a school board member. It was clear in this research study that most
participants believed the MIG provided them with a clear understanding of their roles and
responsibilities pertaining allowing them to make well-informed decisions. Research also
confirmed this and revealed the importance formal training has on members of a school board
(Delagardelle, 2008).
65
The third implication for practice is the recommendation of MIG training for all school
board members in California. It was clear that school board members in this study agreed that the
MIG clarified their roles and responsibilities and provided them with the necessary foundational
knowledge and skills to be an effective board member. Student achievement and student success
is the priority for all participants. Mandating the MIG training would be beneficial for all school
board members. It provides the necessary knowledge to make well-informed decisions that
directly affect students. Although there is no direct link to student achievement, it is still
important that school board members obtain formal training, so they are better equipped to
exhibit effective leadership.
Future Research
This study’s review of literature provided valuable information, but it also indicated
further research is necessary to explore the impact the MIG training program has on school board
members. The lack of literature on the topic and lack of trained school board members in
California support the need for further discussion and research. In addition, future research
studies should include qualitative and quantitative data from school board members who have
not participated in the MIG training program to validate current findings that the MIG should be
mandated. Future studies should also include perspectives of all key stakeholders including
administrators, teachers, students, and parents to determine whether there is a direct link between
the MIG and effective leadership.
Future studies should also expand the geographical location to states outside of
California. This would provide vast research that may allow for comparison of superintendents
and school board members from districts in other states. Some states mandate training, which
would allow for comparison with California that does not mandate training. Additionally, future
66
research could look at the school district’s accountability measure to determine whether a district
is low performing or high performing. This data could be utilized to see whether these districts
have school board members who are MIG trained.
Conclusion
This study confirmed that the Masters in Governance training program has an impact on
school board member effectiveness and provides school board members with the foundational
skills needed to make well informed decisions. The MIG training, offered by CSBA, equips, and
prepares school board members to exhibit the characteristics of effective governance by helping
clarify their roles and responsibilities and providing them the knowledge and skills needed to
serve on a governance team. It is recommended that the superintendent also participate in the
MIG training with school board members serving on the same governance team so they can
collaborate to make effective decisions within their district. Mandatory school board training is
necessary to ensure that school board members are held accountable and up to date with skills
and knowledge to help students succeed.
67
References
Bainbridge, W., & Thomas, M. (2002). Boards of education: the need for effective leadership.
Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology, 11(4).
Bianchi, A. (2003). School board training: Mandatory vs. voluntary. Forecast, 1(3), 1–4.
Bjork, L., & Lindle, J. (2001). Superintendents and Interest Groups. Educational Policy, 15(1),
76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904801015001005
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 901–910.
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school boards:
Linking local governance with student academic success. Institute for Policy and
Economic Development.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1-24).
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. Author.
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The CAASPP. (2020). Superintendent of schools: A historical analysis.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410)
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED010410
68
Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21st
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391-395.
Creswell, J. W., Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and function of
California’s school boards. Author.
Dahlkemper, L. (2005, December). Making the grade: School board members navigate education
challenges. SEDL Letter, 17(2), 17-19.
Danzberger, J., (1994). Governing the Nation’s Schools: The Case for Restructuring Local
School Boards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(5), 367–373.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1301187972/
Delagardelle, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership
in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school
board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 1–8; pp.191-223). Rowman &
Littlefield.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Fusarelli, L. D., Kowalski, T. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2011). Distributive leadership, civic
engagement, and deliberative democracy as vehicles for school improvement. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 43–62.
Gemberling, K., Smith, C., & Villiani, J. (2000). The key work of school boards: A guide- book.
National School Boards Association.
Goldhammer, K. (1964). The school board. The Center for Applied Research in Education
69
Glass, T., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency 2000: a look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. American Association of School Administrators.
Grissom, J. A. (2007). Who sits on school boards in California? Institute for Research on
Education Policy & Practice.
Grissom, J. A. 2010. The Determinants of Conflict on Governing Boards in Public
Organizations: The Case of California School Boards. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 20(3), 601-627.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education. 17-19. .
Hess, F. M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and chal-
lenges of district governance. National School Boards Association.
Hill, P. T., Warner-King, K., Campbell, C., McElroy, M., & Monoz-Colon, I. (2002). Big city
school boards: Problems and options, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Kirst, M. (1994). A changing context means school board reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 378-
381.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk
and T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp.1-18). Corwin.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72,
229-278. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002229.
70
Lashway, L. (2002). The role of the superintendent in an age of accountability.
file:///D|digests/digest161.html
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. A. (2004). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McAdams, D. R. (2003). Training your board to lead. School Administrator, 60(10), 7-9.
McGuinn, P. (2015). Schooling the State: ESEA and the Evolution of the U.S. Department of
Education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 1(3), 77-94.
https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/605401.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morehouse, W. (2001). Training for my board colleagues? You bet. School Administrator, 58(2),
68. http://search.proquest.com/docview/219276982/
Mountford, M. (2004) Motives and Power of School Board Members: Implications for School
Board-Superintendent Relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5); 704-
741.
National School Boards Association. (2012a). About the National School Boards Association
(NSBA). https://www.nsba.org/About.
National School Boards Association. (2012b). The School Board Role in Creating the Conditions
for Student Achievement. https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources.
71
Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership – Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Petronis, J., Hall, R. F., & Pierson, M. E. (1996). Mandatory school board training. An
idea whose time has come. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400625.pdf
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and tomorrow’s
promise. Education Commission of the States.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433611.pdf
Resnick, M., & Bryant, A. (2010). School boards: Why American education needs them.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 11–14.
Roberts, L. K., & Sampson, M. P. (2011) School board member professional development and
effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(7), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172108
Schedler, A., Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.). (1999). The self-restraining state: Power
and accountability in new democracies. Lynne Rienner.
Schmitz, S. (2007). Qualifications and readiness of school board trustees and implications for
training (Doctoral dissertation, Montana State University).
http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2007/schmitz/SchmitzS0507.pdf
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk.
Timar, T. B. (2003). The “new accountability” and school governance in California. Peabody
Journal of Education, 78, 177–200.
72
Tongeri, W., Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Learning First Alliance.
ED475875.pdf
Tushnet, M., & Lezin, K. (1991). What really happened in Brown v. Board of Education.
Columbia Law Review, 91(8), 1867. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123035
Wallace Foundation (2003). "Effective Superintendents, Effective Boards: Finding the Right Fit.
Retrieved from https://www.ewa.org/reporter-guide/effective-superintendents-effective-
boards
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006) School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of
Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.).
McCutchan.
Ziebarth, T. (2002). The roles and responsibilities of school boards and superintendents: A state
policy framework. Commission of the States.
73
Appendix A: Recruitment and Information Emails
School Board Member Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear School Board Member ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board has completed the
MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion of the Ed.D.
program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will
be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact of MIG training
on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual Zoom™ interview
at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded with your permission
and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
IF you agree to participate in this study, please complete the School Board Member Survey via the
following link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact me or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University
of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
74
Superintendent Recruitment Email
Date___________________
Dear Superintendent ______________________,
Thank you for taking time to review the information enclosed in this email.
My name is _____________________. I am part of a thematic research team under the direction and
guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) training
program on school board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of
school districts. The results of this study should indicate the many benefits of MIG training for school
governance teams.
Your district has met our pre-identification criteria, in which a majority of your board members have
completed the MIG training program. This research will be the basis for a dissertation done in completion
of the Ed.D. program. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this
study, you will be asked to complete a survey that consists of 20 questions asking you to rate the impact
of MIG training on effective governance. You will be asked to participate in a 30- to 45-minute virtual
Zoom™ interview at a time convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio recorded
with your permission and will include questions about effective governance.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. Your participation,
although appreciated, is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.
Information obtained in connection with this survey will be kept confidential and anonymous by the
researcher and members of the dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure
that no individual and/or district can be identified.
Should you agree to participate in this study, please complete the Superintendent Survey via the following
link: _______________.
I value your input and hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your participation, you may contact myself or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the
University of Southern California: mescalante@usc.edu, (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance
for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
75
Appendix B: School Board Member Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your chances of participation?
(check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced my
participation in the MIG training was . . . (check
all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Unable to determine
❏ Other
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
As a result of MIG training, my focus is on
achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
76
8
As a result of the MIG training, I actively seek
community input through a variety of methods
(email, town hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
As a result of the MIG training, I understand the
importance of aligning the decision-making
process with the district’s vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
The MIG training clarified the differences
between my roles and responsibilities as a school
board member and those of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend the MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
The MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
77
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
As a result of the MIG training, my ability to
accept the majority decision constructively, even
if I hold the minority view, has improved.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board
members could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
Attending MIG training has positively impacted
student achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
78
Appendix C: Superintendent Survey
1
Our school board culture encourages participation
in Masters in Governance (MIG) training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
2
MIG training should be encouraged for school
governance teams by the local district policy.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
3
School board training is mandated in 24 states;
MIG training should be mandated in California.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
4
What platform of the MIG training program
would increase your school board members’
chances of participation? (check all that apply)
❏ Online
❏ Hybrid (online and in-person)
❏ Locally hosted
❏ Other _________
5
The primary factor that influenced school board
members to participate in MIG training was . . .
(check all that apply)
❏ School board expectation
❏ Self-motivation
❏ Encouraged by board members
❏ Increasing student achievement
❏ Increasing effective governance
❏ Other
❏ Unable to determine
6
The current cost of the MIG training program
impedes school board members from
participating.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
7
School board members who have earned MIG
certification demonstrate an increased focus on
student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
79
8
School board members who are MIG certified
actively engage the community and utilize a
variety of communication methods (email, town
hall meetings, surveys, etc.).
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
9
School board members who are MIG trained
understand the importance of aligning the
decision-making process with the district’s
vision and goals.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
10
School board members who are MIG trained
exhibit a clearer understanding of the difference
between their roles and responsibilities and those
of the superintendent.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
11
The MIG training encourages school governance
teams to contribute to the effectiveness of our
school board meetings.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
12
I would recommend MIG training to school
governance teams.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
13
MIG training helps school board members to
differentiate between policy, leadership, and
management.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
14
It is important to attend MIG training with your
school board members.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
15
The MIG training impacts my ability to govern
effectively.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
80
16
Please rank the following five MIG modules in
order of importance to your role as a member of
the school governance team.
__ Foundation in Governance
__ Policy and Judicial Review
__ School Finance
__ Human Resources
__ Community Relations
17
As a result of the MIG training, I encourage
governance team members to use data
consistently to make informed decisions
regarding student achievement.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
18
The MIG training has improved school board
members’ ability to accept the majority decision,
even when they hold the minority view.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
19
I believe that all California school board members
could benefit from MIG training.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
20
MIG training has positively impacted student
achievement in my district.
❏ Strongly Agree
❏ Agree
❏ Disagree
❏ Strongly Disagree
81
Appendix D: School Board Member Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3
Some people believe that school board training should be mandated in California. How
do you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has the MIG training affected how you govern your school district, if at all?
8
What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if at all?
9 What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make the MIG training more accessible to all school board members?
11 How does the MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a board member, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
82
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
1 What factors influenced your decision to complete a school board training program?
2
How does MIG training equip school governance teams to exhibit the behaviors of
effective governance, if at all?
3 Some people argue that school board training should be mandated in California. How do
you respond to them?
4
Which of the following modules was most important to your board members and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
5
Which of the following modules was least important to you and why?
• Course 1: Foundations of Effective Governance | Setting Direction
• Course 2: Policy & Judicial Review | Student Learning & Achievement
• Course 3: School Finance
• Course 4: Human Resources | Collective Bargaining
• Course 5: Community Relations and Advocacy | Governance Integration
6 How could the MIG be improved, if at all?
7 How has MIG training affected how your school board members govern your school
district, if at all?
8 What role did MIG training play in strengthening the collaborative process (teamwork)
in your district, if any?
a What changes have you seen as a result of MIG training?
10 What would make MIG training more accessible to all superintendents?
11 How does MIG training impact student achievement, if at all?
12
How do you use what you learned at MIG training in your role as a superintendent, if at
all?
13
What improvements in student achievement and growth can be attributed to your
experience with MIG training?
83
Appendix F: Informed Consent
Date: _______________
Dear _______________,
My name is _______________ and I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F.
Escalante. The purpose of the study is to examine school board members’ and superintendents’
perceptions of the Masters in Governance (MIG) training and its impact on school governance
and student achievement. I will interview and survey superintendents and school board
members.
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may shed light on the
impact of the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) MIG training program on school
board members’ relationships with superintendents and the perceived success of school districts.
This study may serve as a source of the benefits of MIG training for school governance teams.
Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The information
collected will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and members of the
dissertation committee. Data will be presented in a manner that will ensure that no individual or
district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study, you may contact
me at _______________ or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________, Researcher [_______________@usc.edu]
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
Dr. Michael F. Escalante, Dissertation Chair mescalante@usc.edu (xxx) xxx-xxxx
( ) I have read this form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I consent to my
participation in the research described above.
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________________________________
Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________
84
Appendix G: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ 1
What factors impact
the decision of
school board
members to
participate in the
MIG training
program?
RQ 2
How does the MIG
training program
encourage and
equip school board
members to exhibit
the behaviors of
effective school
governance?
RQ 3
Does MIG training
have an impact on
student achievement
and growth?
School Board
Member Survey
1-6 7-16,18-19 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
Superintendent
Survey
1-6 7-14 5, 7, 9, 17, 20
School Board
Member Interview
Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Superintendent
Interview Guide
1, 3, 10 2, 4-9, 12 11, 13
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examines the impact that the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Masters in Governance (MIG) pre-service training program had on effective school board governance practices and behaviors. This was a qualitative study evaluating data collected through surveys and interviews with school board members and superintendents who have participated in the MIG training program. As a theoretical framework, this study utilized the professional governance standards provided by CSBA and the seminal leadership examination of the Lighthouse Inquiry. The three research questions this study sought to answer were: First, what factors impact the decision of school board members to complete the MIG training program? Second, does the MIG training program encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance? Third, in what ways could mandating the MIG training program impact student achievement? Findings from this study indicate the MIG provides school board members with the necessary foundation skills and clarification of roles and responsibilities to make well informed decisions. The study also indicates the importance the MIG training has on school board member effectiveness within a school district. Implications for practice include CSBA modifications to make the MIG more accessible to school board members so they have the opportunity to participate in the training. Additionally, it is highly recommended that the CSBA mandate the MIG for all school board members in California. The results of this study add to the canon by informing the effect of the MIG training on the leadership and governance of the school boards.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams
PDF
California school boards: study on effects of the Masters in Governance training
PDF
Does school board training encourage and equip school board members to exhibit the behaviors of effective governance?
PDF
Impact of Masters in governance training on school board member practice
PDF
School board governance training and its impact on school board efficacy
PDF
The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards in California
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
School board training and governance in California
PDF
Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership
PDF
Effective governance: the impact of the Masters in governance training on school boards in California
PDF
Impact of the Masters in governance training program on effective school board leadership and governance
PDF
Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards
PDF
Impact of training on school board members’ perception of governance
PDF
The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts
PDF
The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance
PDF
California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts
PDF
School board governance training and student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Garcia, Jennifer Ann
(author)
Core Title
Masters in Governance training: its impact on California school board member effectiveness
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-05
Publication Date
05/10/2021
Defense Date
05/10/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
California School Boards Association,CSBA,mandated training,Masters in governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,school board members
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Cash, David (
committee chair
), Amerson, Gordon (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
garc397@usc.edu,jgarcia@duarteusd.org
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112720056
Unique identifier
UC112720056
Identifier
etd-GarciaJenn-9621.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GarciaJenn-9621
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Garcia, Jennifer Ann
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20210512-wayne-usctheses-batch-837-shoaf
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
California School Boards Association
CSBA
mandated training
Masters in governance
professional development
school board members